The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2021 was +0.20 deg. C, up from the January, 2021 value of +0.12 deg. C.
REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 14 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.41 0.52 0.57 -0.22 0.41
2020 02 0.59 0.74 0.45 0.63 0.17 -0.27 0.20
2020 03 0.35 0.42 0.28 0.53 0.81 -0.96 -0.04
2020 04 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.35 -0.70 0.63 0.78
2020 05 0.42 0.43 0.41 0.53 0.07 0.83 -0.20
2020 06 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.54 0.97
2020 07 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.44 0.26 0.26
2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.25
2020 09 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.29 0.69 0.24 0.64
2020 10 0.38 0.53 0.22 0.24 0.86 0.95 -0.01
2020 11 0.40 0.52 0.27 0.17 1.45 1.09 1.28
2020 12 0.15 0.08 0.22 -0.07 0.29 0.43 0.13
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for February, 2021 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
With the issue settled that the moon is not rotating on its own axis, maybe we could get back to the other biggest debate there has ever been on this blog – the Green Plate Effect. Now, the GPE was debunked some time ago now, but it is always useful to keep going over why, just so people understand that there is no such thing as back-radiation heating/insulation.
Do not feed Liar Trolls seeking attention, folks.
Nate fears such a debate.
This was the original Green Plate Effect:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?m=1
One of the many ways it was debunked was in adding a second green plate to the left of the blue plate, and replacing the sun with an electrical source of 400 W direct to the central blue plate. So now, with three plates in total, Eli’s math would lead you to conclude that the central blue plate would spontaneously rise in temperature from 244 K, without the green plates, to 290 K, just by adding the green plates!
Or, to put it another way, that with the plates all pushed together, the plate temperatures would be:
244 K…244 K…244 K
but if you separate them by even as little as 1 mm, the blue plate temperature shoots up:
244 K…290 K…244 K
all whilst the input and output from the system remains at 400 W!
Nope, the output drops when you separate the plates.
Even by one millimeter.
Then it goes back up when the blue plate gets hotter.
Flunkie Junkie
Incorrect.
I was correct.
You are incorrect.
When separated the green plates radiate from both sides, thus increasing the rate they are cooling.
So the amount of energy leaving the system increases and the green plates cool.
You just contradicted yourself, bob.
At 3:44 PM you said the output drops when the plates are separated.
At 5:10 PM you said the output increases.
That’s because you don’t understand the difference in the two statements.
One was describing the whole system and one was describing an individual component.
Keep trying, but you are losing the argument, again, and again, and again again.
You think the amount of energy leaving the system increases when the plates are separated.
That loses you the argument.
I was referring to the green plates in that statement.
bob, you said:
“So the amount of energy leaving the system increases and the green plates cool.”
How are you going to wriggle your way out of this one?
Here’s how it works
When separated the green plates are now radiating from both sides, and receiving energy from only one side, since they are initially at the same temperature because they were together, now the green plates have to cool, increasing the energy loss from the green plates, while at the same time decreasing the energy lost from the whole system.
Which is what you were saying doesn’t happen, that the energy leaving the system stays the same.
I hope that clarifies for you where you went wrong.
Alright I was mistaken when I said system when I meant the green plates.
I have now corrected my statement.
The green plates cool when they are separated from the blue plate in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics.
The only thing that changes when the plates are separated is that the energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation between the plates. As everything was in balance before, everything is in balance afterwards.
That’s good
Now you are on to something.
But with no temperature difference there is no energy transfer from the green plates to the blue plates, that’s a requirement for conduction.
Look up the heat conduction equation.
There is no similar requirement for energy transfer by radiation, you don’t need a temperature difference for that.
As everything was in balance before, everything is in balance afterwards.
That’s correct, except that the temperature of the blue plate has gone up.
In order to drive the energy across the gap between the plates.
244 290 244
all heat flows balanced
Are you going to show your pretty little diagram again?
Why is it impossible that the blue plate heats up when separated from the green plates?
Answer the question.
“That’s correct, except that the temperature of the blue plate has gone up.”
Incorrect. The blue plate temperature does not increase.
Yes it does, because it is receiving 400 watts from the heater and 200 watts from each of the green plates for a total of 800.
It radiates out both sides so it get to 290K.
And each green plate gets 400 from the blue plate and radiates 200 watts from each side.
It is receiving 400 W of heat from the electrical supply which causes it to be at a temperature of 244 K. The green plates, also at 244 K, send 200 W each of energy in the direction of the blue plate. But this is energy, not heat. It does not increase the temperature of the blue plate.
The green plates, at 244 K, did not cause the blue plate to rise in temperature when they were pressed against the blue plate. So there is no reason for them to do so when separated from it.
DREMT,
Another claim that is false
“But this is energy, not heat. It does not increase the temperature of the blue plate.”
It is energy, and when it hits the blue plate it gets converted to temperature or the average kinetic energy of the atoms of the blue plate, in accordance with our old buddies Stephan and Boltzmann.
“The green plates, at 244 K, did not cause the blue plate to rise in temperature when they were pressed against the blue plate. So there is no reason for them to do so when separated from it.”
Yes there is, the green plate wasn’t transferring energy to the blue plate when they were together, now that they are separated there is energy transfer from the green plate to the blue plate and thus a subsequent increase in temperature.
The green plates, at 244 K, did not cause the blue plate to rise in temperature when they were pressed against the blue plate. So there is no reason for them to do so when separated from it.
Except that they are separated, that makes a difference to the system and therefore all the energy flows must be recalculated.
Break out your abacus.
You will pretty much just say anything, bob.
Yeah, I’ll say anything,
but have you debunked anything I have said in this thread.
Nope.
Consider you debunking of the green plate effect debunked.
No.
Debunked and the greenhouse effect survives another attack by a lunatic.
No need to be rude, just because you lost another argument.
Didn’t you ask me if I was a moron earlier?
You rude little snowflake loser.
No need to continue to be rude, just because you lost another argument.
bobdroege says:
Didnt you ask me if I was a moron earlier?
You rude little snowflake loser.
====================================
Ok the tally is in. Instances of calling somebody a moron!
Bobdroege leads the pack by a wide margin throwing 47 moron epithets at people. Nate comes in a distant second at 10, 37 lengths behind Bob. Skeptic Gone Wild tallies 4 to show, 6 lengths out of placing. and the bringing up the rear of the Pack is Bill with 3 and DREMT with 1 for a grand total of 65 moron epithets. Bob Droege runs away with the Bob Droege Memorial Trophy for rudest little snowflake loser on the board.
” With the issue settled that the moon is not rotating on its own axis… ”
What?
This is what people like you PRETEND, against dozens and dozens of historical and contemporary work which uneducated people like you simply discredit, beginning with Isaac Newton’s Principia Scientifica (Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV).
This issue is not settled unless you give us a real scientific proof – i.e. other than Tesla’s ridiculous, superficial quick shot – that ALL the scientific work done since centuries has been wrong.
Until now, you utterly failed in this job!
J.-P. D.
Wrong Bindidon. It is you that has failed.
You can’t understand the issue. Newton clearly identified what pure orbital motion is. It’s the motion of Moon. You can’t understand your own reference.
Wrong, Clint R!
Newton clearly wrote in his Principia Scientifica that the Moon rotates about its own axis.
Exactly what he explained in 1675 to Mercator, who confirmed that in 1676 in his publication (which of course you never read).
You prefer to ignore what these two scientists wrote.
Your problem!
J.-P. D.
Pompous Bindidon, the moon debate is over. You lost.
“Nate fears such a debate.”
Ha!
You mean the one thats been done 47 times, and hasnt been an honest debate for the last 45?
When DREMT and Toadies repeatedly lose on the facts, they simply pretend it never happened, facts don’t matter, so let’s do it again.
And the Master-baiter returns.
Its like that movie Groundhog Day.
Pompous Bindidon, the issue is settled. The moon does not rotate on its own axis. We are moving onto the Green Plate Effect, try to keep up.
You can name me ‘pompous’ as long as you want.
This cannot replace the scientific discussion that you – like Robertson, Clint R, Hunter – are absolutely unable to offer.
Since the beginning of this discussion you all limit yourself to ridiculous gimmicks, like coins, merry-go-round, ball-on-a-string, curvilinerar translations, etc etc.
Try to become an adult, give a valuable scientific proof of Moon’s unability to spin about the axis passing thru its poles, as computed by Tobias Mayer in 1749 on the basis of his own observations and computations.
J.-P. D.
Pompous Bindidon, the discussion about the moon is over. You had your chance. You failed. We are now moving on to the GPE. Get over it.
We proved you wrong seven ways from Sunday.
Proof usually doesn’t apply to science, but this case is an exception.
Why have a discussion with people who flunked eighth grade science?
bob, this:
“Or, to put it another way, that with the plates all pushed together, the plate temperatures would be:
244 K…244 K…244 K
but if you separate them by even as little as 1 mm, the blue plate temperature shoots up:
244 K…290 K…244 K
all whilst the input and output from the system remains at 400 W!”
is not physically possible. Sorry for your loss.
Why Dear DREMPT is it physically impossible?
That’s quite a claim.
I am afraid you will have to back it up with some solid evidence.
But so far all you can do is misremember the second law of thermodynamics which does not restrict heating from a hot source to a cold sink.
Sorry dude, this previous carnot cycle operator knows you are wrong.
Sorry for your loss, bob.
DREMT,
Don’t wriggle out of answering the question.
Why is it impossible that the blue plate heats up when separated from the green plates?
Where does the energy come from to warm the blue plate?
From the heater, and the green plate.
You are trying to wriggle out of answering the question.
I’ll ask again
Why is it impossible that the blue plate heats up when separated from the green plates?
The electrical supply is only providing enough energy to warm the blue plate and the green plates to 244 K. The green plates are not an energy source themselves, they only receive energy from the blue plate.
Nope, again you are wrong.
Once separated from the blue plate they are indeed a energy source.
Remember your buddy flynn?
Everything about absolute zero emits infrared radiation especially if they are blackbodies, which the plates are for this situation.
I’m not saying they don’t emit radiation, I’m saying they are not an energy source.
That’s amazing!
Something emits radiation, yet is not an energy source.
Now that’s impossible.
You have lost the argument with that.
Where does the radiation from the green plate go?
Why is it impossible that the blue plate heats up when separated from the green plates?
You still haven’t managed an answer to the question.
The green plate is not an energy source. The energy source is the electrical supply to the blue plate. The green plate is dependent on that energy source to maintain its temperature.
DREMT,
Its emitting radiation, therefore it is an energy source, even though it gets that energy from the heater, it still transfers some energy back to the blue plate.
…and the energy sent back cannot further increase the temperature of the blue plate.
And of course you can provide evidence to support this claim
“and the energy sent back cannot further increase the temperature of the blue plate.”
So why not?
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only altered in form.
So if it doesn’t increase the temperature of the blue plate, where does it go?
It goes back to the green plates, then ultimately, to space.
Nope,
It’s a blackbody problem, and gets absorbed by the blue plate.
I see you are now referring to your stupid diagram, previously proven to be wrong.
Whether absorbed or not, it still goes back to the green plates, then ultimately, to space.
Yeah, but it heats the blue plate up a bit while it’s there.
Sorry for your loss.
Logic is not your strong suit, obviously.
Attack the argument, not the arguer!
You lose the argument now that you are resorting to personal attacks.
What argument?
For one,
The argument that once you have separated the plates, you have changed the system, and you have to recalculate the temperatures and energy flows.
Claiming everything stays the same is not correct.
That’s not an argument, it’s hand-waving.
That’s not a counter argument, you are just trying to baffle me with bullshit, and not doing a credible job of it.
What’s the matter?
You don’t know how to do the calculations?
Put your hand over the hot stove and then put your hand on the hot stove, and you tell me the result is the same.
bob, why do you keep attacking this straw man about the hand and a stove?
DREMT,
Simply because you keep claiming that conduction and radiation transfer heat at the same rate.
Or more specifically, because you are going to claim that you are not claiming they are the same, you are claiming that separating the plates causes no change in the temperatures of the plates.
This is wrong, moron!
Can I use your skull for shielding?
I always need more shielding.
bob, you lose the argument now that you are resorting to personal attacks.
DREMT,
Since you insulted me first, by that logic you already lost the argument.
Sorry for your loss Moron.
I believe “Why have a discussion with people who flunked eighth grade science?” was the first insult, bob. From you, naturally.
No DREMT,
You started it way back when with the blob shit.
Now please go and fuck off.
I’m not going anywhere, bob. Why can’t you learn to control yourself?
DREMPT,
Why don’t you understand even eighth grade science?
Not getting thermodynamics, you might not have had enough science training for that, but why you thing you are right and a lagomorph with a PhD in physics is wrong is incredible.
Here we go.
” Pompous Bindidon, the discussion about the moon is over. You had your chance. You failed. We are now moving on to the GPE. Get over it. ”
Ha ha haaah.
The person nicknamed ‘DREMT’ reminds me the 1970’s in Germany, a period in which I had some more (unintentional) contact to hard German Communists.
Like all Communists all around the Globe, they were convinced to be always right, and hence repeated always their own stuff, regardless what others told them.
DREMT must learn that only the people interested in discussions decide about when and why discussions are over, and not self-appointed Führer.
J.-P. D.
Pompous Bindidon, you lost. Move on.
“We are moving onto the Green Plate Effect”
You are moving on.
I dont see anyone else taking the bait, liar-troll.
Theyve got your number.
After getting a beat down on the Moon like the Illini put on the Wolverines last night, he wants to move on to the green plate effect, where he was repeatedly trounced.
Looks like a 16th seed.
It is March, after all.
Must be a glutton for punishment.
The rotational period of the Moon is the same as it’s orbital period around the Earth.
That is the definition of being tidally locked, also known as synchronous rotation.
It is not even debatable.
Even if one defines the Earth as the center of the Universe, if one were to take a space elevator straight up from the North Pole to the top of it at a position 10 million miles above the Earth, and then looked down while masking the Earth from your field of view, it would be obvious that the moon spins once for every lunar month, IOW it spins on it’s axis once for every rotation around the Earth.
One can redefine what the word rotation means, but nonetheless, if I am camped out at anyplace on the surface of the moon, every month I will see the stars rotate around one time. Plus ~1/365th of an additional rotation. (except in leap years, when it is only 1/366th 🙂 )
If I am at the equator of the moon, I will see in a month the full sweep of the constellations.
If I am at the axis of rotation, the north pole of the Moon, I can look up and find one star that does not appear to move while all the rest revolve around it…exactly once per lunar month.
If it did not rotate than there is no axis, no equator, and I would always be looking at the same star field.
BTW…it also rotates once for every time it goes around the Sun.
Depending on how one defines rotation.
It gets complicamated.
Read about the different kinds of months to get an idea.
Lunations are defined by synodic months(29.53 days), but there is also the tropical month, anomalistic month, draconic month, sidereal month…
“-The sidereal month is defined as the Moon’s orbital period in a non-rotating frame of reference (which on average is equal to its rotation period in the same frame). It is about 27.32166 days (27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11.6 seconds). It is closely equal to the time it takes the Moon to pass twice a “fixed” star (different stars give different results because all have a very small proper motion and are not really fixed in position).
-A synodic month is the most familiar lunar cycle, defined as the time interval between two consecutive occurrences of a particular phase (such as new moon or full moon) as seen by an observer on Earth. The mean length of the synodic month is 29.53059 days (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 2.8 seconds). Due to the eccentricity of the lunar orbit around Earth (and to a lesser degree, the Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun), the length of a synodic month can vary by up to seven hours.
-The tropical month is the average time for the Moon to pass twice through the same equinox point of the sky. It is 27.32158 days, very slightly shorter than the sidereal month (27.32166) days, because of precession of the equinoxes.
-An anomalistic month is the average time the Moon takes to go from perigee to perigeethe point in the Moon’s orbit when it is closest to Earth. An anomalistic month is about 27.55455 days on average.
-The draconic month, draconitic month, or nodal month is the period in which the Moon returns to the same node of its orbit; the nodes are the two points where the Moon’s orbit crosses the plane of the Earth’s orbit. Its duration is about 27.21222 days on average.
A synodic month is longer than a sidereal month because the Earth-Moon system is orbiting the Sun in the same direction as the Moon is orbiting the Earth. The Sun moves eastward with respect to the stars (as does the Moon) and it takes about 2.2 days longer for the Moon to return to the same apparent position with respect to the Sun.
An anomalistic month is longer than a sidereal month because the perigee moves in the same direction as the Moon is orbiting the Earth, one revolution in nine years. Therefore, the Moon takes a little longer to return to perigee than to return to the same star.
A draconic month is shorter than a sidereal month because the nodes move in the opposite direction as the Moon is orbiting the Earth, one revolution in 18.6 years. Therefore, the Moon returns to the same node slightly earlier than it returns to the same star.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Month
I made one false statement above.
Cookie goes to whomever spots it.
I refer you to the preceding 100,000 comment discussion on the issue, which has taken place over several years.
The issue is now settled, the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Otay!
BTW…if it does not rotate, than it does not have it’s own axis.
Gotta be consistent.
The moon does not rotate about its own center of mass.
A ball on a string being spun around your head is not rotating about its own center of mass. It is rotating about your head. It is “orbiting” your head, and not “rotating on its own axis”.
That is what is known as sophistry my man.
Basically, if you want to try to prove something like that mathematically, you must first define some frame of reference, then make it consistent.
No, it is just a fact about rotation. A ball on a string rotates around a central, external axis, whilst keeping the same face always oriented towards that external axis. It is not rotating about its own axis (center of mass), it is rotating about an external axis. There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string, and it is external to the ball.
The way rotation is defined for a celestial body is why it is a fact that the moon rotates.
Consider the distinction between a solar day, a sidereal day, and a stellar day.
All are defined, as the rotation of the moon is, in terms of the International Celestial Reference Frame.
I am not sure if you are simply defining rotation by some method which has nothing to do with the way everyone else does it, or if you want to create a whole new reference frame, which would wind up making the epicycles of Ptolemy look simple by comparison.
But one reason for the misunderstanding likely has to do with the fact that it is rarely mentioned that the Earth actually rotates 366.25 times per orbit around the Sun, when viewed from this reference frame.
Simply put, no one would be able to get anything right when we sent objects into space unless we all agree on a reference frame that is consistent geometrically.
Nothing would be were it was thought to be. GPS would not work, etc.
But I am a realist.
I know from a lifetime of experience, that if someone has tied themselves to some idea over a period of years and many long hours of argumentation, only very rarely will even the most compelling and persuasive arguments will change that person’s mind.
That you seem to have decided long hence based on some tortured analogy and a single person making some declaration long before any of us were born, means that it is useless for me and irrelevant for you to point out what everyone else who has anything to say about it, thinks.
The way rotation is defined for a celestial body is why it is a fact that the moon rotates.
Sure, the moon rotates. Just not on its own axis.
Consider a reference frame where the origin is located at the Earth/moon barycenter, and the Cartesian axes remain aligned towards various distant, fixed stars. From this reference frame, you can observe that the moon rotates about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not about its own center of mass. In fact the only reference frame from which the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis is a translating reference frame where the origin is located at the center of mass of the moon, and the Cartesian axes remain aligned towards various distant, fixed stars.
DREMT: “In fact the only reference frame from which the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis is a translating reference frame where the origin is located at the center of mass of the moon, and the Cartesian axes remain aligned towards various distant, fixed stars.”
This is getting quite close. Except in this frame the moon truly is rotating on its axis. I refer you back to the “record player” description.
* If I turn on a record player, a record on the platter is rotating on its own axis.
* If I carry that whole record player in a straight line and ‘the Cartesian axes remain aligned towards various distant, fixed stars”, the record is still rotating on its own axis.
* If I carry that record player in a circle and ‘the Cartesian axes remain aligned towards various distant, fixed stars”, the record is still rotating on its own axis.
Even if I carry the record player in a circle synchronized with the rotation rate of the record player, the record is still rotating on its own axis.
“Except in this frame the moon truly is rotating on its axis.”
No, it just appears to be.
When are you claiming your Nobel Prize for disproving Euler’s Rotation Theorem?
“In geometry, Euler’s rotation theorem states that, in three-dimensional space, any displacement of a rigid body such that a point on the rigid body remains fixed, is equivalent to a single rotation about some axis that runs through the fixed point. It also means that the composition of two rotations is also a rotation. Therefore the set of rotations has a group structure, known as a rotation group. The theorem is named after Leonhard Euler, who proved it in 1775 by means of spherical geometry. The axis of rotation is known as an Euler axis, typically represented by a unit vector . Its product by the rotation angle is known as an axis-angle vector. The extension of the theorem to kinematics yields the concept of instant axis of rotation, a line of fixed points. In linear algebra terms, the theorem states that, in 3D space, any two Cartesian coordinate systems with a common origin are related by a rotation about some fixed axis. This also means that the product of two rotation matrices is again a rotation matrix and that for a non-identity rotation matrix one eigenvalue is 1 and the other two are both complex, or both equal to −1. The eigenvector corresponding to this eigenvalue is the axis of rotation connecting the two systems.”
“When are you claiming your Nobel Prize for disproving Euler’s Rotation Theorem?”
I’m not.
If I am standing on the north pole of the ball on the string, looking at the person the ball is being spun around, he is not moving, but everything else is.
So what is the reference frame that says the sphere I am standing on is not rotating?
The sphere you are standing on is rotating. Just not on its own axis (about its own center of mass).
BTW…I am curious. Where did this idea originate?
It seems to be one of those myths that every single text has discussed for over a century.
Such discussions have a far longer history than 100,000 comments on Roy’s page.
Nikola Tesla argued the moon does not rotate on its own axis in three articles published over a hundred years ago now, but I think the idea predates Tesla.
In order to prove mathematically that the moon is not rotating, one has to rewrite the formula for a stationary synchronous orbit.
If the Moon is not rotating, then all of celestial mechanics has to be rewritten, and then so does everything in the physics of angular momentum, inertia, etc.
It is gonna be a tough slog.
I’ll leave you too it.
I’m gonna stick to something easy…proving warmista are full of crap.
I have no doubt that it might be possible to rewrite everything so Tesla is correct, and make it all mathematically consistent.
But you have to rewrite EVERYTHING.
The moon is rotating…just not on its own axis (about its own center of mass). The Earth both “orbits” and “rotates on its own axis”, the moon only “orbits”.
But anyway, that discussion is over now. On to the GPE…
Nicholas McGinley
It seems that like so many others before, you have put your finger in a hornet’s nest.
I don’t know what’s the matter with these stubborn, arrogant people (DREMT, Clint R, Robertson, Swenson, hunter).
They simply deliberately ignore what so many people observed since millennia, and computed since centuries.
And that just because a little Serbian inventer wrote a century ago a superficial article in a little newspaper!
Cassini, Mercator, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace?
Habibullin, Rizvanov, Eckhardt, Koziel, Calamé, Migus, Moons, the Apollo, Selene and Chang’e teams?
You will be told by our geniuses that they simply all didn’t understand what they were talking about!
The proof?
” If the Moon shows all times the same face to us, it can’t rotate! ”
Like the race horse on the merry-go-round.
La vie est simple; pourquoi donc la rendre inutilement compliquée?
J.-P. D.
“But anyway, that discussion is over now.”
Heeeey…I heard someone else use this method of argumentation once, if I could just recall who…
In any case, I have to go as well, real busy now.
I have to go rotate the tires on my Tesla.
Guess what I named my Tesla?
It’s not a method of argumentation, Nicholas, it’s just that this debate has been done to death. Not sure how you’ve missed it, unless you are new to the blog.
Bindidon,
Yes, I realized that before I dropped the first comment.
But I had mercifully been blissfully unaware of this particular controversy up until this evening, and was very curious what it is all about.
I spent years studying all of this sort of thing, but this idea had escaped my attention.
One time I spent a few days arguing with some guy who is sure that there is no such thing as convection, (and maybe condensation too…?), and that humid air is actually more dense than dry air.
Everything is vortexes…
Showed him a time lapse of a thunderstorm forming, he said it is not what everyone thinks it is…
Had it all worked out in his own mind.
Some people who have never spent much time getting a formal education seem to have the idea that everyone just make everything up. One idea is as likely to be correct as another…
IDK if that is what is going on here.
Certainly Tesla was a guy who figured out some stuff and got it right, in the area of his expertise. In a freshman physics class, one has to pay some serious attention when they get to the stuff Tesla did. But that was how it is with every chapter of college level science texts.
I do not recall anything about Tesla in any physical geography or astronomy textbooks I read.
OK, one last question: Mercury is also tidally locked, but to the Sun.
However, it is in 3:2 spin-orbit resonance.
So, under the moon earth paradigm that the moon does not rotate, apparently the first rotation in every orbital period does not count.
So, does Mercury rotate, and if so, how fast?
(I am not gonna open the can of worms re the Sun and Earth.
If one subtracts one rotation per year(B/c one rotation per year does not count as rotation), everything has to be rejiggered.)
BTWI am curious. Where did this idea originate?
It certainly did not originate with DREMT. He is incapable of independent thought. He just yaps other people’s bogus slogans like a mutt.
https://i.gifer.com/3VjS.gif
He has no physics, kinematics or kinetics education. Everything he states is just completely backwards.
OK, SGW.
“The issue is now settled, the moon does not rotate on its own axis.”
Its settled inside the crania of a few cranks.
Everyone else is happy with Astrophysics.
“It seems that like so many others before, you have put your finger in a hornet’s nest.”
Bindidon, the moon debate is over. Time to move on.
“Or, to put it another way, that with the plates all pushed together, the plate temperatures would be:
244 K…244 K…244 K
but if you separate them by even as little as 1 mm, the blue plate temperature shoots up:
244 K…290 K…244 K
all whilst the input and output from the system remains at 400 W!”
Not physically possible.
The first law of thermodynamics says you’re wrong.
Dare I ask where I might get a primer on this whole thing with the plates?
Incorrect, bob.
DREMT,
Why is it not physically possible?
Don’t wriggle out of answering the question.
Whats a matter, you don’t understand physics well enough to give a coherent answer?
Where does the energy come from to warm the blue plate?
That’s not a coherent answer.
Why is it impossible that the blue plate heats up when separated from the green plates?
Answer the question.
How is it possible? Where does the energy come from to warm the blue plate?
The electrical supply is only providing enough energy to warm the blue plate and the green plates to 244 K. The green plates are not an energy source themselves, they only receive energy from the blue plate.
Yes, the green plates receive energy from the blue plate, and they emit some of that energy back to the blue plate.
Why is it impossible that the blue plate heats up when separated from the green plates?
Answer the question.
You are not doing so well.
It is impossible because there is no additional energy to warm the blue plate. Are you a moron? You should be attempting to explain how it is possible, not asking me to explain the obvious.
Why does it require additional energy?
If you slow the energy loss from an object it will warm up.
You lose the argument by questioning whether or not I am a moron.
You made the claim that it was impossible for the blue plate to increase in temperature, I see you have failed to support your claim.
NEXT
You are not slowing the energy loss from the object, bob. Literally the only change you are making is separating the plates, thus the energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation.
Yeah Right DREMT
Hold your hand above a hot stove.
Now put your hand on the stove.
Now you tell me the heat transfer is the same!
Conduction and radiation are different forms of heat transfer, they even use different equations.
And you claim they are the same.
You lose.
Name a real-life scenario where breaking an object into three pieces makes the middle piece increase in temperature.
I’ll do that when you do the calculation for the separated plates.
Note that the plates are just being separated, nothing is being broken into three pieces.
That’s right, there’s no such real-life scenario.
Well not something that was broken in three places,
but I have used a thermocouple to measure the temperature of a heater block, and adding the insulation to the tube the thermocouple was inserted through did in fact raise the temperature of the heater block. By lowering the rate of heat loss from the object.
So in essence, adding insulation to an object constantly heated by a constant powered heater, resulted in the objects temperature increasing.
So to answer your question, this effect has been observed in a real life situation.
We’re not talking about insulation, bob. We’re talking about separating three identical objects.
DREMT,
Any type of matter can act as insulation, as it takes some energy to drive the heat flow through the matter.
So yes it is about insulation.
The green plates act as insulation slowing the heat loss from the blue plate and causing it to increase in temperature once the plates are separated.
And we don’t have three identical items, the blue plate has a heater in it.
“The green plates act as insulation slowing the heat loss from the blue plate and causing it to increase in temperature…”
…then they would do so with the plates pushed together. But they don’t.
The TEAM of MORONS requires people to believe that there is no difference in the burning feeling one gets when touching a hot object vs merely hovering over it.
Like the other argument, the TEAM requires people to forget all of their common sense!
And why don’t they at least bring up NEW faux controversies to dishonestly debate?
Do owls exist?
Is 11 really greater than 9?
Im mean is it really?
Nicholas said: Dare I ask where I might get a primer on this whole thing with the plates?
The thought experiment comes from Eli Rabbit.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
There are different flavors of it that have been discussed in the comment section here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-627454
“Now you tell me the heat transfer is the same!
Conduction and radiation are different forms of heat transfer, they even use different equations.
And you claim they are the same.
You lose.”
So that quite literally settles that!
Thanks Bob.
This un-needed debate is thankfully over.
“Conduction and radiation are different forms of heat transfer, they even use different equations.
And you claim they are the same.”
No I don’t claim they are the same, what I claim is that you are not slowing the energy loss from the object, bob. Literally the only change you are making is separating the plates, thus the energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation.
Well, I am going to keep beating this horse, until it’s dead, and then I am going to put a saddle on it.
DREMT,
It should be obvious that if you change the method of heat transfer from conduction to radiation, the rate is going to change.
I guess I need a bigger two by four.
Obviously if you remove your hand from a hot stove, it stops burning. Unless its a really hot stove, then the burning only slows down.
Your hand is not an ultra-thin perfectly-conducting blackbody plate separated from the other plate (stove) by only a mm, with view factors = 1 between the two, in a vacuum.
‘Conduction and radiation are different forms of heat transfer, they even use different equations.
And you claim they are the same.’
“No I don’t claim they are the same, what I claim is that you are not slowing the energy loss from the object, bob.”
‘Not slowing the energy loss’ = heat transfer is unchanged.
Dont let him obfuscate his way out of the fact that the argument is already settled, Bob.
Here’s the thing, bob. Your argument relies on the energy lost from the system decreasing when the plates are separated. Whether the plates are together or separated, energy loss from the system is via radiation from the outer sides of the green plates. So why would changing the mode of energy transfer between the plates cause the energy loss from the outside of the plates to decrease?
DREMPT,
When the plates are separated, the green plates are now radiating from both sides for a total output of 400 watts, and since they are only getting 200 watts from the blue plate, their temperature must go down, so less energy is leaving the system as their temperature goes down.
“So why would changing the mode of energy transfer between the plates cause the energy loss from the outside of the plates to decrease?”
Because the green plates are now radiating towards the blue plate, when before when they were not separated, there wasn’t transfer from the green plate to the blue plate.
Since the whole system can only shed energy from the green plates and they have started to cool, the whole system loses less energy and must heat up from the input of 400 watts from the heater.
Now you tell me why all that is impossible.
All that has changed is that the blue and green plates, which were formerly exchanging energy via conduction, are now exchanging energy via radiation. The system has an input of 400 W, and an output of 400 W, with the plates pressed together at 244 K…244 K…244 K. The system also has an input of 400 W, and an output of 400 W, with the plates separated at 244 K…244 K…244 K.
Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the output was to decrease when the plates are separated (due to a temperature decrease of the green plates) then why would the energy accumulated by the system not just raise the temperatures of the green plates back to 244 K again, without affecting the blue plate temperature!?
DREMT
“Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the output was to decrease when the plates are separated (due to a temperature decrease of the green plates) then why would the energy accumulated by the system not just raise the temperatures of the green plates back to 244 K again, without affecting the blue plate temperature!?”
Because for the green plates to get back to 244, they have to have an input of 400 watts, so the blue plate has to increase its temperature to 290 so it is radiating 400 watts to each side.
Because to be at a temperature of 244, when the green plate is radiating from both sides, it has to receive a total of 400 watts.
Nonsense, bob. The green plates are not each receiving 400 W from the blue plate when the plates are pressed together, yet you are happy to accept that their temperature remains at 244 K then.
DREMT,
That’s because the green plates are only losing energy from one side, when pressed together.
When separated they are losing energy from both sides.
So in order to stay at 244, when separated, they have to receive twice as much energy as when pressed together.
Nonsense, bob. The green plates are no more “losing energy” on the side facing the blue plates when they are separated than they were when they were pressed together.
DREMT
“Nonsense, bob. The green plates are no more “losing energy” on the side facing the blue plates when they are separated than they were when they were pressed together.”
Yeah, they are, when pressed together the green plate is not radiating toward the blue plate, and its not even conducting towards the blue plate since they are at the same temperature.
Try just doing the energy balance for the plates separated, the answer has to be the same as the final result when you start together and then separate.
I don’t think you can get the right answer if you don’t do the calculations.
You won’t even try that.
Did you even put your name on top of your homework?
Class, who turned in this blank sheet of paper?
The green plates are no more “losing energy” on the side facing the blue plates when they are separated than they were when they were pressed together.
Class, who turned in this blank sheet of paper?
For the “3-plate” problem, with emissivity and view factors equal to one, the heat flow equation is simply:
Q = σ (Tb^4 Tg^4)
We know at equilibrium, Q should be zero (as temperatures are not fixed, only the electrical input of 400 W to the central blue plate) so rearrange the equation:
0 = Tb^4 Tg^4
Tb = Tg
and this applies between each of the two surrounding green plates and the blue.
The 400 W input means that we know the blue plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 (assuming its 1m^2 per side). Then, using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:
E = σT^4
Tb = (200/σ)^0.25
Tb = 244 K
So with Tb = Tg, at 244 K244 K244 K, you have 400 W coming in to the system via the electrical supply to the blue plate, and 400 W going out (200 W from each of the two green plates); so the system is in balance.
WordPress left out the “minus” signs. Oh well.
DREMT, why are you afraid of running the GPE tests? Your testing won’t leave out minus signs.
Just did so. All tests passed. At 244 K…244 K…244 K, separated, the plates have:
1) 400 W input to the system and a 400 W output. 1LoT satisfied.
2) Heat flow has gone to zero between the plates, as it tends towards wherever possible (and with this idealized thought experiment, it is indeed possible). Radiative Heat Transfer Equation satisfied.
DREMT told us wordpress left out the minus signs, a test would not do that. DREMT is caught out yet again.
As usual, you are just trolling.
DREMT,
Here is your error, please correct and resubmit.
“We know at equilibrium, Q should be zero (as temperatures are not fixed, only the electrical input of 400 W to the central blue plate) so rearrange the equation:”
No error. Heat flow tends towards zero wherever possible, and with this idealized thought experiment, it is indeed possible.
DREMT: “thought experiment”
See, DREMT is afraid to do actual testing. Why is that DREMT? Show us your actual experimental results.
DREMT,
There is 400 watts heat input to the blue plate and 400 watts leaving the system, so there has to be some heat flow from the blue plate to the green plate, 200 watts from the blue to each green plate, so use 200 instead of 0 and see what you get.
DREMT said: We know at equilibrium, Q should be zero
True. But you can’t just assume the BP and GPs are at equilibrium when the entire system is in steady state. That’s actually the whole crux of the problem. That is…you are supposed to figure out what the temperature of the BP and GPs are after the system has achieved steady state. Then and only then can you make statements about whether the BP and GPs are at equilibrium or not.
And using the heat transfer equation we can see that…
GP-left -> BP is 200 W/m^2 over 0.5*A
GP-right -> BP is 200 W/m^2 over 0.5*A
input -> BP is 400 W/m^2 over 1.0*A
…and…
BP -> GP-left is 200 W/m^2 over 0.5*A
BP -> GP-right is 200 W/m^2 over 0.5*A
The BP is thus receiving a total a 600 W/m^2 over 1.0*A, but only sending 200 W/m^2 over 1.0*A to the GPs.
Therefore the BP is NOT in steady state when at the initial 244K..244K..244K configuration.
“…so there has to be some heat flow from the blue plate to the green plate…”
Wrong. There does not have to be heat flow between the plates.
bdgwx, you are not even using the heat flow equation (RHTE).
DREMT,
“…so there has to be some heat flow from the blue plate to the green plate…”
Wrong. There does not have to be heat flow between the plates.”
Yes there does, otherwise the 400 watts just continuously heats the blue plate, until it melts.
bob, when the plates are pushed together at 244 K…244 K…244 K, you accept that the blue plate does not continuously heat until it melts.
The only thing that changes on separation is the mode of energy transfer between the plates. Why can’t you people get it through your heads that splitting an object into three does not result in the middle section spontaneously rising in temperature by 46 K!?
DREMPT,
“bob, when the plates are pushed together at 244 K…244 K…244 K, you accept that the blue plate does not continuously heat until it melts.”
That’s because it takes a very small temperature difference for heat flow by conduction.
It does take a temperature difference of some magnitude to drive heat flow by radiation.
You are claiming no temperature difference for heat flow by radiative transfer.
The radiative heat transfer equation you quoted requires that there is a temperature difference.
Bottom line is you have to have a temperature difference between the blue and green plates in order to have heat flow through to space, otherwise the heat stays in the blue plates, and that’s not the condition of the problem. You have to have heat flowing out of the system.
DREMT said: bdgwx, you are not even using the heat flow equation (RHTE).
Doh…I mean to say the SB equation.
My point stands. The initial 244K..244K..244K configuration is not steady state because the BP is receiving more energy than it is sending. The BP is accumulating energy per the 1LOT.
Please get the system into a steady-state and resubmit for review.
bob, there doesn’t need to be heat flow between the plates when they are separated in order to “drive” energy through the system. The required 400 W is already leaving the system to space by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity.
bdgwx…I am just going to ignore you, OK? Since you have apparently ignored everything I have said up until this point. No offense.
No offense taken. Just understand that if you are going to ignore the 1LOT and the fact that the initial 244K..244K..244K configuration is not steady state then I have no choice but to reject your argument and accept the argument that the BP will warm. No offense meant to you either.
“Show us your actual experimental results.”
Who knew Ball4 was talking about conducting an actual experiment!?
OK, since I now understand what he is talking about…Hughes already conducted two experiments on the GPE and found that there was no warming effect. I can also confirm from a lifetime of occasionally separating objects from other objects that I have never observed any spontaneous warming of the central object.
Why is DREMT afraid to show Hughes detailed experiment? Good that DREMT has observed no spontaneous warming though, or DREMT could sell it for great gain.
Why does Ball4 write “DREMT” so many times in his comments? Who knows.
DREMT,
Allrighty then,
Let’s take a look at your latest failure to understand the physics.
“bob, there doesn’t need to be heat flow between the plates when they are separated in order to “drive” energy through the system. The required 400 W is already leaving the system to space by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity.”
I said there is a need for a temperature difference for there to be heat flow due to radiative heat transfer. Here is the equation you posted, I’ll add the minus sign.
Q = σ (Tb^4 – Tg^4)
And you said energy flows without the need for a temperature difference, but I said heat, and there is a difference.
You are confused about the difference between energy flow and heat flow.
And for the heat to flow out of the system, from the heater to space, there has to be heat flow between the blue plate and the green plates, else the green plates will cool.
And your radiative heat transfer equation requires a temperature difference between the blue plate and the green plates.
Gee, what is the next thing you will get wrong.
Once again, bob… there doesn’t need to be heat flow between the plates when they are separated in order to “drive” energy through the system. The required 400 W is already leaving the system to space by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity. Q tends towards zero wherever possible, and in this idealized thought experiment it is indeed possible. You are trying to hold Q constant, and claim as a result that the blue plate should increase in temperature. Tut, tut.
DrEMT
Violation, flag, whistle blows.
“Once again, bob there doesnt need to be heat flow between the plates when they are separated in order to drive energy through the system.”
That violates the first law of thermodynamics.
Like I said before, there has to be heat flow from the blue plate to the green plates for steady state energy leaving the system.
And since the method of that heat transfer is radiative, there has to be a temperature difference.
In your “solution” there is no heat flow from the blue to green, so there is no where for the 400 watts provided by the heater to go, so it stays in the blue plate, heating it until it melts.
And again, if there is no heat flow from blue to green, the green plate cools and no longer emits the 400 watts necessary from both plates.
Looks like you have been hoisted by your own posted equation.
“That violates the first law of thermodynamics.”
No, bob. With the plates separated at 244 K…244 K…244 K, there is 400 W input into the system, and 400 W output. No 1LoT violation.
“Like I said before, there has to be heat flow from the blue plate to the green plates for steady state energy leaving the system.”
and like I said before, that is wrong. There does not have to be heat transfer between the plates. There is already 400 W leaving the system to space by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity.
“In your “solution” there is no heat flow from the blue to green, so there is no where for the 400 watts provided by the heater to go, so it stays in the blue plate, heating it until it melts.”
The 400 W provided by the electrical input is leaving via the green plates to space, as already explained.
“And again, if there is no heat flow from blue to green, the green plate cools and no longer emits the 400 watts necessary from both plates.”
If there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up.
DrEMT MORON
“No, bob. With the plates separated at 244 K…244 K…244 K, there is 400 W input into the system, and 400 W output. No 1LoT violation.”
NO MORON, in order for heat to flow out of the system it has to flow through all parts of the system
“and like I said before, that is wrong. There does not have to be heat transfer between the plates. There is already 400 W leaving the system to space by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity.”
NO MORON
The heat flow isn’t getting to the green plates because there is no heat flow from blue to green if there is no temperature difference.
“The 400 W provided by the electrical input is leaving via the green plates to space, as already explained.”
No it’s not MORON, because there is no heat flow from blue to green because there is no temperature difference in your solution.
“If there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up.”
Yes the green plates have to heat up to return to 244, because they started cooling when the plates were separated.
MORON
I am done for now, go check out a book on thermodynamics or heat transfer or something.
Give the rabbett a call, he’s a nice guy and can explain where you go wrong.
Else be a MORON.
Or do the experiment with a couple of plates, a thermocouple, and a stove, like I did and verified that the plate nearest the heat source increases in temperature when another plate is added.
“In your “solution” there is no heat flow from the blue to green, so there is no where for the 400 watts provided by the heater to go, so it stays in the blue plate, heating it until it melts.”
The 400 W provided by the electrical input is leaving via the green plates to space, as already explained.
“And again, if there is no heat flow from blue to green, the green plate cools and no longer emits the 400 watts necessary from both plates.”
If there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up.
“NO MORON, in order for heat to flow out of the system it has to flow through all parts of the system”
Nonsense, bob. If heat was flowing from the blue plate to the green, the green plates would have to be warming up.
I wrote: “The 400 W provided by the electrical input is leaving via the green plates to space, as already explained.”
bob hyper-aggressively responded: “No it’s not MORON, because there is no heat flow from blue to green because there is no temperature difference in your solution.”
400 W is leaving to space via the green plates, simply because they are at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity.
I believe the rest of your comment is just you getting yourself confused, and repeating the same mistakes over and over whilst shouting insults like a child. That’s that.
So DREMT remains afraid to show detail test results backing assertions. There aren’t any experiments, those assertions fail.
DREMT,
If the BP is 1 meter in length with total surface area of 2 m^2 counting both sides then in each second the BP is absorbing (400 * 2) + (200 * 1) + (200 * 1) = 1200 joules and emitting (200 * 1) + (200 * 1) = 400 joules. The 1LOT therefore say that dE = 1200 – 400 = +800 joules every second. Steady-state is when dE = 0 for each component of the system. The BP is therefore NOT in steady-state. Fix that issue first and then resubmit your solution for review.
I told you, Ball4, Hughes conducted two experiments and found no warming of the blue plate. Using the magic of the internet, you can find the details for yourself.
DREMT now asserts there are detail experiments that appear by “magic” somewhere on the internet and is still afraid to show the experimental details. In reality, no detail, replicable experiments by a mysterious “Hughes” exist with the claimed DREMT GPE energy balance. Would that be Howard I wonder? The assertions remain baseless.
Do a Google search for “Geraint Hughes green plate effect”.
“We know at equilibrium, Q should be zero (as temperatures are not fixed, only the electrical input of 400 W to the central blue plate) so rearrange the equation:
0 = Tb^4 Tg^4
Tb = Tg”
DREMT has had so so many chances to learn what Equilibrium means. But each time he denied the textbook definitions and it went whoosh over his head.
In any case, this is yet another instance of DREMT using the magic of CIRCULAR LOGIC.
Equilibrium means EQUAL temperature.
Sooo, if we just ASSUME Equilibrium, we get what we desire, EQUAL temperatures!
A minor problem, Equilibrium ALSO means ZERO heat flows.
This is NOT EQUILIBRIUM.
But once a moron, always a moron .
To clarify the heat flow in and out is 400 W. Clearly NOT ZERO.
This not equilibrium.
“Or, to put it another way, that with the plates all pushed together, the plate temperatures would be:
244 K…244 K…244 K
but if you separate them by even as little as 1 mm, the blue plate temperature shoots up:
244 K…290 K…244 K
all whilst the input and output from the system remains at 400 W!”
First step. Realize that the above is impossible. If you split an object into three sections, the middle section does not just randomly rise in temperature. It doesn’t happen. So there is definitely something wrong with Eli’s logic.
Let me know when you have all got to Step 1).
3:07pm: “Do a Google search for “Geraint Hughes green plate effect”.”
That string leads to conductive, convective, AND S-B radiative energy transfer experiments. Apparently “using the magic of the internet” really is needed to find DREMT radiative energy transfer only GPE experiments as 1LOT eqn.s are written by DREMT “with the plates separated at 244 K…244 K…244 K, there is 400 W input into the system, and 400 W output.”.
DREMT remains still afraid to show the experimental details to support baseless assertions.
Poor Ball4, struggling to use the internet. Bless him.
Poor DREMT, struggling to get radiative energy transfer physics assertions correct without experimental evidence. Bless him.
Finger touching pan: a severe burn
“if you separate them by even as little as 1 mm”: just hot.
“First step. Realize that the above is impossible.”
First step: Realize that you are supremely ignorant about Heat Transfer, and are failing to use common sense.
2nd step: When exposed to real physics, learn it.
More oddities:
2 separated objects, one heated, both end up the same temperature!
3 separated objects, middle one heated, all end up the same temperature!
Maybe ask someone with common sense, like your mom, if these sound right.
Once again…first step. Realize that the above is impossible. If you split an object into three sections, the middle section does not just randomly rise in temperature. It doesnt happen. So there is definitely something wrong with Elis logic.
Let me know when you have all got to Step 1).
“the middle section does not just randomly rise in temperature.”
Uhhh..
It has a heater attached.
The separated sections no longer have a heater attached.
Nothing random about it.
Let me know when you have all got to Step 1).
And yet the imbalance on the BP is +400 W/m^2. Which do you think is more likely to be correct…your intuition or the 1LOT?
Building a Bridge for Dummies. by DREMT
Step 1: Just go with your gut.
Step 2: Not in Equilibrium? No worries, it’ll get there.
So none of you can even get to step one…the basic sanity check…
I think we can call this debate over
“Once again…first step. Realize that the above is impossible. If you split an object into three sections, the middle section does not just randomly rise in temperature. It doesnt happen. So there is definitely something wrong with Elis logic.”
Because DREMPT is forgetting that there is a heater attached to one of the objects.
He also forgets Eli didn’t do the three plate problem.
And he is a couple apostrophes short of a coherent sentence.
DREMT, I missed this long session you’ve had with the idiots. It’s fun to now read some of their desperate attempts to pervert reality. They clearly don’t understand physics or thermodynamics.
(I have business to do this morning, but will chime in at the bottom when I get back. I don’t want to miss anymore such fun!)
Absolutely, ClintR. Why should I have all the fun?
What business you got ClintR
Rappin with your band, The Insane Clown Posse?
Unheated and heated objects will be equally warm.
…the basic insanity check.
Let us know when you’ve taken your meds.
“Because DREMPT is forgetting that there is a heater attached to one of the objects.”
That doesn’t make the impossible, possible.
“He also forgets Eli didn’t do the three plate problem.”
It’s simply an extension of the logic from his two plate problem.
“Why should I have all the fun?”
How to be a Narcissist for Dummies, by The TEAM.
1. Invite ridicule with ridiculous claims.
2. Get ridiculed.
3. Repeat
This was one of the places you lost it, bob:
“That’s because the green plates are only losing energy from one side, when pressed together.
When separated they are losing energy from both sides.
So in order to stay at 244, when separated, they have to receive twice as much energy as when pressed together.”
Laughable.
DREMT,
Three identical objects together, the middle one heated by a heater.
Then separated such that the heater is only connected to one of the objects.
And you claim that it is impossible for the one object to increase in temperature, because now it’s the only one connected to the heater.
What’s happening to the two objects no longer connected to the heater, are they staying the same temperature or are they cooling or heating?
Clown Posse
“So in order to stay at 244, when separated, they have to receive twice as much energy as when pressed together.
Laughable.”
No, not laughable, first law, clown.
In real life, in a vacuum, the objects no longer immediately adjacent to the heated object would cool, due to radiative losses past the edges of the object. However, in the idealized thought experiment, there are no such losses, because view factors between the objects are treated as 1. So there is no reason for the green plates to cool on separation in the thought experiment.
“No, not laughable, first law, clown.”
I didn’t realize the first law states that a change in energy transfer from conduction to radiation suddenly means an object needs to receive twice as much energy to stay at the same temperature!
Let it be written, let it be done, on whatever it is that they write things down.
That on this day the sixth of March in the year 2021 anno dominoes, that a member of the clown posse learned something.
I’m glad you are learning, bob.
I am not in the clown posse DREMT,
That’s you and your buddies.
DREMT, ClintR, Gordon, and Swenson, and anyone else who think 244, 244, 244 is correct when the plates are separated, and that the Moon doesn’t rotate on its own internal axis.
Seems like you are being pretty childish, bob.
I asked my non-nerd, common-sensible wife about the original two plate problem.
Two plates side by side in space, one exposed to the heat of the sun. Will they be at the same temperature?
No hesitation: the one in the sun will be warmer, Duh.
The other plate will warm up, just not as much.
Three plate problem took her longer, but again, she concluded the middle heated plate will be warmer.
Why does the TEAM lack such common sense?
The splitting up the plates is leading the TEAM down a rabbit hole.
Easier just to compare:
1. One heated plate in space @ 3K.
vs
2. Same heated plate, but now surrounded by two unheated plates.
The unheated plates will warm by the radiation from the heated plate.
Now the heated plate is surrounded by two warm objects, INSTEAD OF being surrounded by the Cold of Space as in (1).
Is the heated plate hotter now that it is blocked from directly viewing the Cold of Space?
Of course it is!
The common-sensible among us will get it.
DREMPT
Your argument breaks down to 1 + 1 = 1
Surely you can do better than that.
I wrote:
"Wrong. There does not have to be heat flow between the plates.”
bob responded:
"Yes there does, otherwise the 400 watts just continuously heats the blue plate, until it melts."
Another one of my favorite bob moments.
“Yes there does, otherwise the 400 watts just continuously heats the blue plate, until it melts.”
Well put, Bob.
Only a moron would deny that logic.
DrEMPT
Doubles down on the 1 + 1 = 1 argument
“I wrote:
“Wrong. There does not have to be heat flow between the plates.”
bob responded:
“Yes there does, otherwise the 400 watts just continuously heats the blue plate, until it melts.”
Another one of my favorite bob moments.”
There was heat transfer from the blue plate to the green plates before they were separated, now when they are separated, there is no heat flow????????????????????????????????????????
So the argument is 1+1+1+1=1
bob, there is no heat flow between the plates when they are at the same temperature…and there doesn’t need to be, because the green plates are radiating the required 400 W to space just by virtue of being at 244 K…whether the plates are together or separated. 400 W in matches 400 W out.
“and there doesnt need to be, because the green plates are radiating the required 400 W to space just by virtue of being at 244 K”
Sure in moron-world where temperatures and heat flows are whatever DREMT declares them to be.
In the real world, where 1LOT applies, the Green plate needs to get its 400 W of heat going out replaced by 400 W of heat coming in, else it just COOLS DOWN.
DREMTY,
As usual you make mistake after mistake
Let’s break it down
“bob, there is no heat flow between the plates when they are at the same temperatureand there doesnt need to be, because the green plates are radiating the required 400 W to space just by virtue of being at 244 Kwhether the plates are together or separated. 400 W in matches 400 W out.
One, If the green are radiating to space with no heat transfer between the plates, they are cooling and not maintaining the 400 watts output from both green plates.
Two, since they are cooling, they aren’t radiating at 400 watts from both anymore.
Third, of course, if there isn’t any heat transfer from the blue plate to the green plate, then the 400 watts stays in the blue plate continuing to heat it up until it melts.
1LOT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
DeltaU = Q – W
For the Green plate what would that require?
There is no Work being done on or by the Green plate.
DeltaU = 0 if the temperature is steady, so we have
Q = net heat input = 0
= Qin + Qout.
Qout = -400 W.
Qin = 400 W
QED.
Notice there are no other forms of energy involved.
bob, you are just repeating the same mistakes. On separation, the only way the blue plate could “heat up until it melts’ is if it were accumulating the 400 W without being able to radiate at all! But there is nothing stopping the blue plate from radiating.
If heat were transferring from the blue plate to the green, the green plates would have to be increasing in temperature.
DREMPTY.
I am not repeating the same mistakes over and over, you are.
Let’s look at you last statement.
“bob, you are just repeating the same mistakes. On separation, the only way the blue plate could “heat up until it melts’ is if it were accumulating the 400 W without being able to radiate at all! But there is nothing stopping the blue plate from radiating.”
The blue plate is radiating to the green plate, transferring energy to the green plates, which are also radiating transferring energy to the blue plate. With the temp the same the energy radiating in to the blue plate is the same as the energy radiating out.
“If heat were transferring from the blue plate to the green, the green plates would have to be increasing in temperature.”
Which it does, because the green plates drop in temperature when separated because they radiate 400 watts out due to the 244 temperature and radiating out of both sides. So the green plates cool until the blue plate heats up and starts transferring heat to the green plate on the way to 244 290 244. Which is the solution which obeys all heat transfer equations as well as both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
You are getting a beat down, just like the Illini just put on the Ohio State Buckeyes!
You are not listening, and are just babbling incoherently.
On separation, the only way the blue plate could “heat up until it melts’ is if it were accumulating the 400 W without being able to radiate at all! But there is nothing stopping the blue plate from radiating.
If heat were transferring from the blue plate to the green, the green plates would have to be increasing in temperature.
“If heat were transferring from the blue plate to the green, the green plates would have to be increasing in temperature.”
Yes, if, for some inexplicable reason, I IGNORE the heat flowing OUT from the Green plate to space.
You know the 400 W.
Why why why would I, DREMT, IGNORE the obvious flow of heat flowing OUT of the Green plate??
Is it because, I, DREMT, am a moron?
Or is it because, I, DREMT, just don’t care if I don’t make any sense?
Cuz, Im just here to Troll?
bob, have you got to Step 1 yet?
Looks like: Just here to TROLL.
No reply from bob. Maybe he’s finally worked it out.
Drempt,
No I have not gotten to your step one, because that step involves ignoring that there is a heater attached to one of the pieces.
How about you get to my step one?
Set up the heat transfer equations to model the system.
Then step two would be to solve them.
You seem to want to avoid doing that at all costs, hence you get the wrong answer.
Yes bob, I did that, on March 5 at 6:57 AM. Sorry you didn’t understand.
Having an electrical supply of 400 W to the central piece does not make the impossible, possible. Let me know when you have got to Step 1.
DREMT,
Here is the correct solution, no more bullshit from you.
400 watts in to the system so 200 watts out from each green plate, so the green plates are at 244.
The blue plate gets 400 watts from the heater, and 200 watts from each of the green plates, for a total of 800 watts, it has to lose that 800 watts from 2 sides, so emits 400 watts from each side, so its temperature is 290.
So it’s 244 290 244.
Stop lying that you set up and solved the equations correctly.
You would have gotten 244, 290, 244 if you had.
I am done with this subthread, take it to the bottom if you have anything new to argue.
You don’t, all your objections to the correct solution have been shown to be bullshit.
So unless you have something new, I am done arguing with the village idiot.
That’s not a solution, bob, that’s just you making the same mistakes again, that we have already been through.
“I did that, on March 5 at 6:57 AM”
Wherein DREMT erroneously declared equilibrium, which got him a desired result by circular reasoning.
AND, while he found the BP to be radiating 200 W to the GP, he failed to account for the 200 W radiated from the GP to the BP.
Again, why? Why ignore these facts?
Is it because they prove you wrong?
Yes, that is the only logical reason.
We’re sorry for your loss, again.
“I am done with this subthread, take it to the bottom if you have anything new to argue.”
Seems bob decided to “take it to the bottom” himself, anyway.
Down-thread we go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-630476
So a record player with the motor on and the platter spinning, will have a record that only *appears* to rotate???
No, Tim, that is not what I am saying. Your example with the record player does not apply to the moon. The moon is not translating whilst rotating on its own axis, which is what you are driving at. The moon is simply rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, without rotating on its own axis.
This issue of rotation is one of semantics or, if you like, definition. It is like discussing speed. From which vantage point is speed or rotation being calculated/viewed. If I stand on the surface of the sun and focus my telescope on the moon (ignoring the earth’s presence) then I will observe a moon that rotates around its own axis once in every 28 days (of course the Earth will block my view half of the time).
So guys stop your bickering and get out of your own righteous bubble.
No, viewed from the sun the moon only rotates about the Earth/moon barycenter (“orbits”), and does not “rotate on its own axis”.
The Earth both “orbits” the sun/Earth barycenter and “rotates on its own axis”, the moon only “orbits”.
Chris, DREMT uses DREMT’s own silly definition of rotation on internal axis not the definition of rotation on internal axis by Merriam-Webster. One has to translate from DREMT speak into M-W English to understand DREMT’s own various unique physical descriptions.
The dictionary does not define “rotation on internal axis” as a complete phrase, it does however define the word “rotation”. According to that definition, the moon is in “rotation” about an external axis.
Yes, as well as M-W rotation about lunar internal axis. Both angular momentums are independent and nonzero.
“Yes, as well as M-W rotation about lunar internal axis.”
Wrong. If the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Like Clint R, DREMT can not grasp: If the moon were rotating about both an external axis orbit and an internal axis more than once per earthen orbit, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
“According to that definition, the moon is in ‘rotation’ about an external axis.”
And this is quite literally untrue.
DREMT knows that well, and he is simply lying here.
That is why it is not a debate, just an extended Troll.
No, Ball4. If the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Here is DREMT
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-622409
trying to make a point by quoting the definition of:
“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.”
He knows QUITE WELL that the all particles of the MOON are not moving on circular paths.
Yet here is KNOWINGLY making a FALSE and contradictory statement:
“According to that definition, the moon is in ‘rotation’ about an external axis.”
Thus DREMTs method of ‘debate’ is entirely dishonest.
DREMT: does not rotate on its own axis.
Not true. Imagine we drill a hole through the centre of the moon and stick a 3474 km long axis (diameter of the moon) through the hole and weld a flag on the top which points in the direction of the sun. While the moon is rotating around the earth in 28 days, it will also rotate around its own fixed axis (“fixed” meaning the flag remains pointing to the sun).
That is not what is meant by a “fixed axis”, Chris. Regardless, you are confusing the change in orientation the moon makes due to its orbital motion for rotation about its own axis, same exact mistake as always.
The IMAGINARY “change in orientation the moon makes due to its orbital motion” that DREMT declares.
@Nate,
I am flabbergasted at your position that an orbiting object does not change orientation naturally during its orbital progression?!?
That concept is beyond bizarre.
The forward motion of an orbital path is tangential to the orbital shape AT ALL POINTS OF THE ORBIT and the force of gravity keeps the object from escaping orbit. Assuming the object is traveling forward with its linear motion and had a defined front, like the space shuttle, if the orientation starting changing during the orbit (like the tail became the leading edge instead of the nose) then the orbit would be decaying or the object would have escape velocity
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites
Based on the forward velocity and downward gravitational forces (as shown in the diagram), the object has to maintain the same tangential orientation at any place in the orbital path.
I just don’t understand how you can hold this stance…
“The forward motion of an orbital path is tangential to the orbital shape AT ALL POINTS OF THE ORBIT and the force of gravity keeps the object from escaping orbit.”
Yes indeed. And that has no impact on its orientation.
Airplanes and footballs of course do align in flight, due to their shape and aerodynamics.
But cannonballs dont have a front or back. They don’t need to align with their path.
Newtons cannonball, fired from a mountain and goes into orbit, keeps its orientation fixed, as it was initially fired.
If you want its orientation to change, that requires a torque, and nothing is providing a torque on the cannonball.
If you are on the Sun, the only time you cannot see the moon is during a Total Lunar Eclipse. Although from the vantage point of the Sun, it is not called that.
The Earth is tiny compared to the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, so the idea that the Moon is blocked half the time is incorrect.
This is readily apparent at every full Moon, and in fact all the time, since it can be seen that the Sun is always illuminating the Moon, and so obviously there is a line of sight between the two.
The only exceptions are a New Moon, when one can easily infer that the Sun is still shining on the Moon and that we simply cannot see the illuminated side from the Earth, and during an eclipse, when it is readily apparent that the Moon has entered the shadow of the Earth. And only in the central cone of that shadow is the Moon actually completely hidden by the Earth from a hypothetical observer on the Sun.
Of course, during a Total Lunar Eclipse, the Moon is still visible from Earth, just not from the Sun.
It is darkened and reddened in appearance, because there is enough light diffracting through the atmosphere of the Earth (around the entire limb of the planet) to allow the Moon to be seen from a dark location on Earth. The Moon is seeing every sunrise and sunset on Earth, all at once.
That would be a great photograph, eh.
or better yet to be on the moon during a total lunar eclipse.
Although from the Moon, it would be a total solar eclipse.
We see nothing like that of course during a solar eclipse, since the moon has no atmosphere to diffract the Sun.
Actually, I take that back…a total lunar eclipse would also be called that from the Sun, if one keeps the same terminology used to describe a solar eclipse.
nicholas…”The Earth is tiny compared to the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, so the idea that the Moon is blocked half the time is incorrect”.
I was having a bad-hair day when I made that claim. I am not wrong, however, that the Moon does not rotate about a local axis.
When people are engaging in discussion, it is implicit that there is a mutual desire to communicate with one another.
In this endeavor, we employ language to express our thoughts so that we might transmit our thoughts to other human beings.
In that way, every discussion is a semantic one, and all words have to have a mutually understood definition in order for the endeavor of communication to have any purpose or hope of succeeding.
On the subject of astronomy in general, and celestial mechanics in particular, words such as “rotation” and “orbit” are precisely defined. No scientific discussion can have value when everyone adopts their own definition of words. And when people attempt to use the common everyday definitions of words to communicate scientific ideas, the exercise is bound to fail.
In everyday usage, many words used in the realm of science have many definitions, but these are worse than useless in a scientific discussion. Worse than useless because rather than allowing purposeful communication, they prevent it.
The “Moon does not rotate” faction of this discussion are not using the words “rotation” and “orbit” as they are understood to be defined in the realm of celestial mechanics.
In everyday usage, one might think of an orbit as a kind of rotation, or even to conflate the two types of motion.
That seems to be what is going on with this discussion.
“Rotation” in this context is distinct and separate from “orbit”.
Only by conflating the orbit and rotation of a celestial object can one assert that the Moon only rotates around a common barycenter, or any such language as that.
That type of motion is called orbit.
Rotation is different.
It is defined differently and is distinct from an orbit.
They cannot be conflated, or mushed together.
No one could do astronomy and succeed at getting the math to work out unless the reference frame is kept consistent.
It is impossible to think of the Moon as nonrotating, and then extend this paradigm outward to the Earth, the Sun, the other planets, and all of the various motions of each and of them all together.
So, yes, it is semantic. Everything involving language is semantics. Written communication is done using words, which must be defined. Or we might as well all be talking to ourselves.
Which is what anyone is doing when they adopt their own definitions of words and then tries to argue that the rest of the world is “wrong”.
I would like to hear someone describe the rotation and orbit of Venus in this “Moon does not rotate” paradigm, being that it has retrograde rotation that is once every ~243 days, and an orbital period that is once every ~225 days.
The reason for the necessity of a standard reference frame is mathematical as well as practical, especially in the space age.
When we launch a ship from earth into space, we commonly take advantage of the rotational velocity of the Earth to assist in the effort. If this is not taken into account, and done so consistently, nothing will be moving as we planned and no rendezvous will happen as we expect.
Calculations of angular momentum and inertia will be all wrong if one does not know that the Moon is rotating when one tries to land on it. And when taking off…fuggedaboudit.
Over large distances, tiny miscalculations have a giant effect.
So the moon not rotating is not only semantically incorrect, it is a useless paradigm that will have catastrophic practical implications if employed when trying to navigate the solar system.
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.”
Written by some ninny writer.
One sentence in we have this gem of wrongness:
“The term “acceleration”, which comes from physics (as does velocity), refers to the rate of an object’s motion over time.”
No, it does not refer to that.
Anything else he writes can be similarly regarded as off the top of the head of someone who speaks carelessly, not concisely.
And again, he is speaking of common usage, not definitions.
Because it is very immediately evident he is not anyone who can be relied upon for definitions.
It is a tiresome and pointless exercise to try to make a point by finding some random writer and assigning them credence, let alone consider them an arbitrator.
In any case, you are simply repeating what I had already said. One difference though is that I wrote my own thoughts based on definitive material that I am well familiar with.
“And when people attempt to use the common everyday definitions of words to communicate scientific ideas, the exercise is bound to fail.
In everyday usage, many words used in the realm of science have many definitions, but these are worse than useless in a scientific discussion.”
As I said previously, I do not expect you to change your mind about anything.
But you might at least reply by speaking in your own words about something I said that is in dispute.
He is also speaking loosely and nonsensically when he says the word “comes from physics”.
Actually, it comes from Latin.
“First attested in the 1520s. Either from Latin accelerātus, perfect passive participle of accelerō (I accelerate, hasten), formed from ad + celerō (I hasten), which is from celer (quick) (see celerity), or back-formation from acceleration”
It is written by a professor of physics and astronomy.
Dremt conveniently ignores the parts of the article he doesn’t like, such as
“Sometimes people will say that Earth revolves around the Sun. Orbit is more precise and is the motion that can be calculated using the masses, gravity, and the distance between the orbiting bodies.”
The “more precise” description contradicts the the previous statements.
He also conveniently ignores that his definition requires circular motion, while the moon moves in an ellipse.
And he conveniently ignores that textbooks disagree with him.
But sure, he can declare himself the winner based on appeal to his own authority. We well never stop him.
No Tim, the “more precise” (actually less precise in terms of what it actually describes) description does not contradict the previous statements. On this whole circular motion vs elliptical nonsense, I defer to ftop_t, as you know very well. Go and argue that with him.
There is no need to argue with ftop_t who illustrates the orbiting and spinning on its own axis nonzero radius object illuminated by the sun very well here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
My reply is a little further down, Ball4 (even though you are just trolling anyway).
DREMT. So you are arguing based on a simulation that …
1) Orbits the center of the ellipse, not one of the foci.
2) Moves at the wrong speeds around the orbit.
3) Does not keep one point facing toward the earth (like a ‘ball on a string would).
4) Also does not keep one point facing ahead (like a car on a track would).
While also arguing based on a definition of “rotate” that requires a circle.
hmmmmm
Tim, all ftop_t’s simulation was required to show was that an object could rotate around an external axis and do so in an elliptical path. It achieved that. He then went on to do another simulation demonstrating libration as a result of the elliptical path. I notice you avoid mentioning that one. As to your 3) and 4)…good. That was what you would have wanted it to show, right? Otherwise, you would have just complained that it was not moving like the moon.
That is not all it needs to do. The standard theory using classical mechanics explains all those things too. And classical mechanics accurately predicts the motions + predicts myriad other things in the universe. The ad hoc simulation is SO inferior to classical mechanics.
The standard theory is that an orbit is a rotation around an external axis, Tim. Hence why that professor of physics and astronomy defined it as such.
The professor was addressing the case of rotation where the axis of rotation is external to the object, having already addressed the case where the axis is internal.
A point the clown posse ignores.
And the parallel axis theorem, which they also ignore.
And the observed internal axis the Moon rotates around which causes the observed libration, which the clown posse also ignores.
The clown posse ignores a lot in order to keep to their fantasy that the Moon does not rotate on its own internal axis.
If you say so, bob.
DrEMPTY,
Usually when one says “If you say so”
It means agreement.
So either you agree the Moon rotates on its own axis or you are a liar.
Which is it?
It means there is no point talking to you. Think what you want.
“elliptical nonsense, I defer to ftop_t, as you know very well. Go and argue that with him.”
Nope, he has already admitted defeat, and worse YOU have already used definitions of Rotation that correctly require Circular motion.
You cannot have rotation be whatever you feel like at the moment.
“There is no need to argue with ftop_t who illustrates the orbiting and spinning on its own axis nonzero radius object illuminated by the sun very well here”
That is an illustration of an object that is just rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis, Ball4. You can even see that only the external axis rotation slider is moving, in order to make that happen.
No need to look at the slider DREMT, the illustration demo. will teach you the correct motion of the object rotating on its own axis once per external axis orbit in the sunlight, ftop_t gets it right.
The illustration demo. teaches you the correct motion of the object not rotating on its own axis whilst orbiting the external axis in the sunlight, ftop_t did indeed get it right.
6:28am: Only according to DREMT’s unique language defn. of rotation in DREMTnese not according Merriam-Webster’s defn. of rotation where the object orbiting an external axis undergoes spinning once on its own internal axis per orbit: “one complete turn; the angular displacement required to return a rotating body or figure to its original orientation”.
In DREMTnese on the internal axis the non-spinning object per orbit undergoes: “zero complete turns; the angular displacement required to keep a rotating body or figure in its original orientation.”
Readers here simply need to translate from DREMTnese into M-W English to understand the correct physics of momentum as analyzed by Tesla and demonstrated by ftop_t. DREMT is merely revealing his local position observing from the accelerated frame attached to the object.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
No, Ball4, the object makes “one complete turn; the angular displacement required to return a rotating body or figure to its original orientation” about an external axis only.
That’s true for the external orbital axis rotation through the center point; readers here only have to translate from DREMTnese writing location for internal axis rotation to proper M-W language.
Ball4, the object is not rotating about both an external and an internal axis. Ftop_t, Tesla, and even some of those on your own side of the argument would agree with me on that.
7:52am: Only using DREMTnese, once readers correctly translate to proper Merriam-Webster English, the actual internal axis angular momentum physics becomes apparent as ftop_t demonstrates here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Ball4, you keep linking to the same thing, which is an illustration of an object that is just rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis. You can even see that only the external axis rotation slider is moving, in order to make that happen. I wonder…would it be possible for you to stop trolling?
@Ball4,
Quit misrepresenting what I have presented.
As I have shown:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-626103
This is an object rotating around an internal axis
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/nei3bjhmij
ONE (1) axis of rotation…INTERNAL
Now I drag the axis to (0,0)
This is the same object rotating around the SAME axis, but the axis is now external
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/k2g7fasuli
ONE (1) axis of rotation…EXTERNAL
It is literally the EXACT SAME point that has been dragged to a new location
TWO (2) axis of rotation (INTERNAL and EXTERNAL) looks like this
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/8eozawyo1w
DON’T GET IT WRONG AGAIN
ftop_t, you have already demonstrated for the Earth – Moon – Sun system, TWO (2) axes of rotation (INTERNAL and EXTERNAL) look like this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
The orbiting object rotates once on its own internal axis per orbit of the external axis. 2 axes! 2 different angular momentums! Basic physics.
Merriam-Webster on rotationr: “one complete turn : the angular displacement required to return a rotating body or figure to its original orientation”
Ball4, you were asked not to get it wrong again, but have immediately done so. Perhaps it is time for you to stop trolling?
Perhaps it is time for DREMT to realize for the Earth – Moon – Sun system, TWO (2) axes of rotation (INTERNAL and EXTERNAL) look like this demo.:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
The object in that link is not rotating about both an external and an internal axis.
Only in DREMTnese. In Merriam-Webster English, the orbiting object rotates once on its own internal axis per orbit of the external axis. 2 axes! 2 different angular momentums! Basic physics.
Ball4, the object in that link is not rotating about both an external and an internal axis.
With USA48 at -0.66, Arctic at 0.07, and knowing how cold Siberia has been, it’s a little amazing the NH was so high.
Too much hot air from Europe?
I am in Europe, and it was freezing over February. The numbers are the numbers I suppose, but it was definitely a lot colder than normal.
Interesting, Dave.
Yeah he lives in Stockholm
Dave
Where exactly do you live?
What is ‘normal’ in your region?
In Germany we had a few cold weeks with a lot of snow here and there, all that resulting from
– a cold front coming from NNE, due to polar vortex weakening (that happens a few times per decade);
– a very warm front coming from the Sahara.
In 2010, it was way colder than this year, but even that winter was nothing compared with 1956, 1941, 1963, 1979, 1986!
Please tell us everything!
J.-P. D.
Mostly meteorologists do not speak about normal temps, but average ones.
It is “normal” for some Winters to be colder than others.
That is why climate has always been defined as the average of a longish period…most systems define climate as the 30 year average of weather in a given location.
There would be no need to do that if years did not vary considerably.
Colder than average Winters are normal.
So are warmer than average ones.
This is one reason we have to write stuff down…memory is notoriously unreliable.
In Philly, where I was born and grew up, it often does not snow, but sometimes, it snows a lot.
One time in the 1960s, my oldest brother and father were working on the roof of our house for a weekend in December.
It was so warm my brother took off his shirt all day.
He got the worst sunburn I have ever seen on a human being.
A few years later, it was a blizzard on that same weekend.
More data this month supporting a luke warm climate sensitivity to CO2. In the paper below the new high ECS climate models are unable to reconstruct cold climate of the past and show sensitivity is to high from clouds in these models. I know Dr. Roy previously pointed out his issues with the new models. He felt ECS was to high for CO2 based on the UAH data being on the low end of existing models and unexplainable how you increases predicted ECS in new models, but now it seems science has supported his concerns in this paper.
I’m sure the CNN headline- “new climate models are crap- defund the biased scientists behind them” will be coming soon, and I am holding my breath waiting!
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091220
“More data this month supporting a luke warm climate sensitivity to CO2.”
Actually, those results come from running climate simulations, more commonly known as ‘models’. There’s very little in the way of hard data in that report.
See if I can comment here to Barry.
I agree- the support for luke warm is from the UAH L Trop data. The models generally run hot.
By amazing coincidence you have picked the data set with the lowest overall warming trend to corroborate your point.
I think and ECS of right around zero is pretty lukewarm. Climate science uses the wrong physical model of our climate and hence gets wrong answers to just about everything.
This paper is not supporting a luke warm climate sensitivity. What it is saying is that the CAM6 physics specifically is problematic. CAM6 was developed to approximate the CMIP6 physics so that an assessment of the CMIP6 model could be applied to the LGM via the CESM model as a means of seeing how well it performs. It doesn’t perform so well. This is possibly related to how CAM6 (and by implication CMIP6) handles shortwave cloud feedbacks. This paper does not find fault with CAM5 (and by implication CMIP5) though. What they are effectively challenging is CMIP6’s higher ECS. They are not challenging CMIP5’s ECS. In fact, if anything the paper seems to support CMIP5’s ECS. And while CMIP5’s ECS is lower than CMIP6’s ECS I definitely would not categorize it as a “luke warm” sensitivity since it is still above 3C.
Previous comment didn’t make it let me try again.
I agree with your overview of the paper bdgwx. Your description of the paper is accurate. I didn’t intend to say anything otherwise.
The
Aaron,
People complain here about the problems with the temperature record of the last century, and certainly the prior millenium.
But you seem fine with using
‘paleoclimate simulations of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)’
as definitive evidence to support your POV?
Nate:
Not a true assumption. I am not fine with “paleoclimate simulations of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)”.
I think the ice data from oxygen isotopes and CO2 from bubbles (you have to assume time averaging) is usable, and is clearly showing that this warm event is nothing special in the recent past. There were warmer conditions in Greenland many times in the past (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL049444), which is confirmed by the Viking artifacts they find as ice recedes showing warmer conditions. Ice also shows that this event is not even recorded yet (have not lost the Ice to shift the isotopes) and this could have happened many times in the past with no record. Until we get isotopic evidence I don’t think it is valid to “attach” thermometer data to the end of the record and assume they are saying the same thing.
The paper you highlighted as meriting a CNN headline doesnt seem to have anything to do with that. It is all about a very Cold period, the Glacial Maximum. And relies on the temperature proxies for that period. So it is just one more paper, of many, estimating ECS. Not the last word, nor a headline.
Also Greenland is not the globe.
Greenland is like the canary in the coal mine.
It warms first and fastest during interglacial cycles, when June solar insolation reaches a maximum at Greenland’s latitude.
It cools the most during glacial cycles.
It responds more strongly to fluctuations in the AMOC than the rest of the World.
The AMOC seems to be slowing down in response to AGW, with various implications for future regional climates.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z
The climate debate has two sides.
And they are very easy to explain:
(1) Logical, sensible, intelligent people: Using data, and 45 years of experience LIVING with 100% good news global warming. They know our planet has had large climate changes over the past 4.5 billion years, 100% from natural causes.
Sources of conclusions:
Real climate science, and up to 45 years of personal experience living with global warming
Typical scientist:
Richard Lindzen, Ph.D.
.
.
.
(2) Climate hustlers, green energy zealots, and other lunatics who believe CO2 is the devil in the sky!
— Never mind 100% good news global warming in the PAST 45 years — FUTURE global warming will be completely different — 100% bad news! Because we say so.
— Never mind 4.5 billion years of climate change with 100% natural causes — FUTURE climate change will be 100% man made. Because we say so.
Sources of conclusions:
Computer games that we program to predict a coming climate crisis, and because we are big shot government bureaucrats, and we say so.
Typical “independent scientists”:
Perfesser Al “the climate blimp” Gore
Perfesser Greta “thundering” Thunberg
Perfesser Alexandria “occasionally coherent” Cortez
“45 years personal experience’ in Michigan, I believe, do not weigh much on the scales of science.
Its what we call ‘argument by anecdote’, and is often worse than no data at all.
“Never mind 100% good news global warming ”
Again a subjective, local POV…worthless to science and anyone living beyond your region.
“Never mind 4.5 billion years of climate change with 100% natural causes”
Again, the logical fallacy that if something happens by one mechanism, that is proof that it doesnt also happen by another mechanism.
Lame!
“Computer games that we program to predict” weather and other things turn out to be extremely useful to society.
Thus labelling such methods ‘games’ is ignorant.
Approximately seven billion people, approximately, have elived with ACTUAL global warming, for up to 45 years.
Our ACTUAL experience with REAL global warming is one thousand times more useful than wild guess predictions of coming a FUTURE global warming.
Especially predictions that are COMPLETELY different than past global warming, with no explanation of why they would be different.
So, we have been hearing about a coming climate crisis ( now a climate emergency) every year. for the past 50 years.
climate crisis?
ANSWER:
Exactly where it has ALWAYS been, in overactive leftist imaginiation, like yours.
We’ve had pleasant, mild warming since the 1970s, mainly affecting colder climates. there is no logical reason to believe future warming would be different, much less completely different.
A collection of anecdotes, by the way,is called a field study,
Experiences with reality are meaningful.
Wild guess, always wrong, climate fantasy predictions are not.
If you think I am wrong about prior warming, since the 1970s, provide a list of specific people and/or locations that were harmed by that harmless warming.
Computer games are those that predict more more than double the actual global warming, om average, with NO improvement of accuracy in over three decades of model “refining”.
If you need a true definition of “ignorant”, look in a mirror.
Dr. Spencer, would you publish the graphics for the S Hemishere vs N Hemishere vs the Arctic and start a conversation about what is causing the differential? How ask the question how does CO2, which is equal in all regions, the there are wildly different temperature trends.
The answer is pretty simple as one graph clearly demonstrates. CO2 does not drive climate, the oceans do.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997.5/to:2015/trend/plot/none
Thanks Richard, here is even a better graphic from the RSS Site:
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/temperature_and_vapor_trop20_V4.png
Move along, more along, nothing to see here.
Why do people remove data from linear trends?
Here it is without cherry-picking – just all the data.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997.5/trend
Warming.
Richard, you are an out and out cherry-picker. “Oooh look. If I stops this trend 6 years ago it’s cooling!”
Barry, the part of that chart that is important is the divergence between the SH and NH. This cannot be due to CO2 since CO2 is well mixed across the entire planet.
The trend line was left over and I should have removed it.
“Barry, the part of that chart that is important is the divergence between the SH and NH. This cannot be due to CO2 since CO2 is well mixed across the entire planet.”
YaHoo!!!! Finally someone gets it. Sanity has returned!!! Thank you Richard!!!
Land has warmed faster than sea surface, globally. That’s because the ocean has greater thermal inertia than the air, not because CO2 is different over land than water.
The Southern Hemisphere has a giant perennial ice cube at the bottom of the world and half the landmass of the Northern hemisphere.
If the Earth had a symmetrical topography your argument would be valid.
It’s SST
Barry, the land warming you see is due to UHI being smeared over the land. Can’t do that with the oceans which is why they track the satellite data so well.
Also, land does not buffer heat. It gives up its daily solar energy every night. Oceans buffer some heat so they are giving up some daily heat and some buffered heart on a daily basis. That is why satellites track the oceans with a lag.
The bottom line is the CO2 cannot warm the land because it cools every night and CO2 can’t warm the oceans because of evaporation. That’s right, CO2 cannot heat either one.
“The bottom line is the CO2 cannot warm the land because it cools every night..” except when the weather report shows warming overnight. You are mistaking weather for climate.
What is making the entire ocean warm?
Bdgwx, the oceans are warming as part of a long term trend that is very likely driven by salinity increases.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02846-4/figures/2
The natural increase in salinity increase has likely been further enhanced by humans. This is especially true for the Atlantic basin. Water treatment, farming, diet, etc.
“the oceans are warming as part of a long term trend that is very likely driven by salinity increases”
Seriously?!
This is just as famously stupid as the idea that climate is driven by “galaxy fingers”. !!!
The queue of nut cases posting here gets longer.
First…I have to commend you on posting a actual real evidence. That always gets my attention.
Second…salinity is NOT a source of energy/heat.
Third…the paper you posted does not agree with your hypothesis. In fact, they propose anthroprogenic global warming is one cause of the changing ocean circulations that contribute to salinity changes.
Studentb, I suggest you learn a little physics next time before making such a complete fool out of yourself. A more saline ocean will reduce evaporation. Hence, more energy is retained and oceans will naturally maintain a higher temperature. No energy is produced, the energy from the sun is just buffered up more.
Interestingly, a more saline ocean will also hold less CO2 hence outgassing more as it warms.
Real science and not the nonsense coming out of the climate religion.
Bdgwx, the paper probably could never have gotten published without bowing down to the climate priests. However, I really don’t care what words they use when the data clearly supports my hypothesis. Salinity and the temperature of the proxies track very nicely over a couple of millennia.
RM,
So you took an evidence based approach when you thought it supported your hypothesis and now you’re dismissing it after you learned that it not only does not support your hypothesis, but supports the opposite? That’s not a very skeptical position.
“What is making the entire ocean warm?”
Yahoo!!! More sanity. What warms the Oceans? Certainly NOT CO2. CO2 only absorbs and re-radiates 13 to 18µ LWIR. 13 to 18µ LWIR does not penetrate or warm H2O. 13 to 18µ LWIR is very very very low energy radiation. Visible radiation warms the oceans. Fewer clouds over the oceans will result in warming. Have we had fewer clouds?
There has been a large increase in heat holding water vapor over the oceans. Why? Most likely more visible radiation has been reaching the oceans and causing evaporation.
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/temperature_and_vapor_trop20_V4.png
Water definitely takes up IR radiation. In fact, water so greedily takes it up that nearly all of it is absorbed on the skin. And here is a good paper that describes the microphysics of IR radiations ability to warm the ocean.
https://tinyurl.com/yuuub55n
About what was expected given the lack of change in the November 2020 SSTs. For those disappointed they didn’t see a drop this month you can look forward to March. The December 2020 SSTs had a big drop. Look for March UAH to be right around zero.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend
Well, I’m glad you tell us the perfect prediction – after the numbers came out
I told you why which follows what I also said last month. The lag is obvious in the graph if you look closely. However, the range is always + or – .1 so making an accurate prediction is impossible.
What supergenius Richard M repeatedly fails to understand is that the correlation between HaddSST3 and UAH6.0 Globe could very well interpreted as a cooling bias in UAH’s LT evaluation.
And that wouldn’t be the first time. You just need to review those critiques made since 1979 which led to changes by the UAH team.
J.-P. D.
Bind, only seems that way if you are living in denial of basic logic. It “could” also mean all the surface data sets are infected with UHI and data manipulation, that oceans really due drive the climate and CO2 has no warming abilities.
Now what might help us with those “could”s? Oh yeah, the lag in UAH vs. SSTs. It’s beyond obvious what is driving the climate. UAH is simply a lagging measure of the energy released by the oceans. That is the energy that determines the climate.
Now check the graph I posted earlier of the hemisphere differences. Yup, once again the oceans are in control.
Why do you deny simple logic?
Sorry, Richard M: this is no answer to what I wrote.
It is no more than the nth repetition of what you guess.
And… what the heck does this poor CO2, and his ‘no warming abilities’ have to do here?
J.-P. D.
It was a direct and obvious answer to your science denial. You’ve become a religious follower and hence unable to process real science which goes against your “faith”.
” Youve become a religious follower… ”
This, Richard M, proves us how far you are ready to discredit and denigrate people whose meaning differs from yours.
What you don’t understand is the fact that you might be much more a religious follower than I could ever become.
You are, as it seems, blind on one eye.
Perfect!
J.-P. D.
Bind, let me know when you provide some science. Whether you know it or not, real science does not support your views, hence they are religious in nature.
Richard M
“About what was expected …”
So you are saying that for negative ENSO anomalies, it is now expected that global temperatures will be back to the trend line. That means that for zero ENSO anomalies you would expect global temperatures to be above the trend line. In other words, you are saying that global warming has accelerated.
Rob, no I’m saying that UAH follows the ocean SSTs with a lag of about 3 months. This was expected for the reason I specified. The ocean SSTs were flat 3 months ago.
Now, the reasons for that are up to many interpretations but we already know the SSTs saw a major drop in December and another drop in January. Certainly does not look like any acceleration in warming.
If you are talking about global SST’s, this satellite data shows a rise from December to January. The surface data shows a steady SST since mid-December.
I’ll provide you the link once again.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend
Here is the data:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt
So hardly any change then according to THAT data set.
Rob, there are no big changes anywhere. The entire climate scare is based on changes of tenths of a degree. I’m simply showing the small changes in the satellite data track the small changes in the ocean SST data with a lag.
Richard M said: About what was expected
Hmm…given the La Nina I was expecting an excursion of at least 0.2 C below the trendline for Feb. The trendline currently sits at +0.21C. Feb actually came in at +0.20C.
I would not be foolish enough to extrapolate anything from just one month, but if we do finish this year without a 0.00C monthly anomaly then we’ll have to at least entertain the possibility that the warming has accelerated.
Bdgwx, I specified exactly why it was expected. The SSTs which predict UAH had a pause 3 months ago. You’re putting too much emphasis on one month. The trend is still downward as will be likely next month given the large drop in SSTs in December.
Here’s another informative chart.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/trend
This shows exactly why we’ve been warm over the past 7 years. All of it was driven by the oceans. We are now heading for a cooler year. If La Nina continues through the summer then pushing global warming is going to be difficult. However, since La Nina usually means more Atlantic hurricanes we know where the propagandists will be focusing their attention.
Just to remind ourselves of some of Richard M’s Tarot card readings last year
Richard M says:
April 1, 2020 at 10:21 AM
I still expect a drop over those next few month until we get back to the 21st century baseline of around .15 later this summer.
Richard M says:
June 3, 2020 at 7:59 AM.
Following this thinking both June and July will drop back to Apr levels and then August will start to pick up on the end of the El Nino.
Richard M says:
July 2, 2020 at 2:57 PM
June temperatures are still affected by the recent El Nino and the 3-4 month lag associated with satellites/ENSO. So will July. The real story will unfold come August.
Galaxie500
Thanks.
J.-P. D.
Galaxie500, you left out the quote where I pointed out I was likely wrong on the lag time.
I may still be wrong on the lag time.
The problem comes from longer duration El Nino events. They have more time to pump warm water across the surface. As a result it takes long for them to cool.
However, we are still following the path I predicted. It easier to see if you just look at recent data.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to/offset:-0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to:2020.75/trend/offset:-0.3/plot/uah6/from:2015/to/plot/uah6/from:2015.33/to/trend
From looking more closely it now appears a lag of 6 months, maybe a little longer, is what we currently are seeing.
SO +.36C above old data averages.
And if the March UAH is higher than February?
It won’t be. March will follow the December 2020 SSTs which dropped considerably.
Richard M, I just looked at the SST and UAH data for the past 6 years. To me, it looks more like a six month delay for UAH rather than a 3 month delay. If thats true, it means that the UAH peak that we are seeing now could be correlated with the SST peak from August. The good news is that the SST plunges after August, so It would seem reasonable to guess that UAH should start plunging as well.
Gregory J,
It does appear 6 months is a better match. There’s also more NH warming during its winter which interferes with the trends to a certain degree. But, I think your prediction is likely better than mine. I should have been looking closer.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to/offset:-0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to:2020.75/trend/offset:-0.3/plot/uah6/from:2015/to/plot/uah6/from:2015.33/to/trend
If the March UAH is higher than February it will be time to pack the picnic basket and get to high ground to celebrate the end of the earth as we know it.
I love it when people make predictions…
“March will follow the December 2020 SSTs which dropped considerably.”
Place your bets. I doubt Richard will allow anyone else to quantify “considerably.” Perhaps he will do that himself before the obese diva warbles.
barry
Please have a look at the ‘considerable drop’ in the Dec 20 SSTs:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt
I’m heavily impressed, to say the least.
J.-P. D.
I was likely wrong on that prediction even if it pans out. It appears the lag currently is more like 6 maybe 7 months. My bad. This graph shows it better.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to/offset:-0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to:2020.75/trend/offset:-0.3/plot/uah6/from:2015/to/plot/uah6/from:2015.33/to/trend
My guess is longer running El Nino events get more warm water spread out over the Pacific which then takes longer to get removed. If that is the case then it will take a longer running La Nina event to get any serious cooling.
And, when I way warming and cooling I am referring to the atmosphere here. El Nino events really are the ocean cooling events and La Nina events are ocean warming events.
Troposphere temperature in the Arctic dropped after the SSW.
https://i.ibb.co/8jPN1Cc/hgt-ao-cdas.gif
The temperature above the 60th parallel.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2021.png
The polar vortex in the upper stratosphere recovered in the second half of February.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JFM_NH_2021.png
Too much hot air from politicians
Creighton SCHLEBACH
Could you develop a little bit?
J.-P. D.
Sunspots in this cycle show weak magnetic activity. Only single C-class flares appear, so UV radiation decreases.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
The low surface temperature of the central equatorial Pacific persists.
https://i.ibb.co/55J1wVp/gfs-nh-sat4-sstanom-1-day.png
I think we are now at the end of the global warming trend.
Sea surface temperatures, increased geological activity ,weak solar /geo magnetic fields are going to start to exert influence upon the climatic system. Finally , or at least it looks that way.
This decade will be decisive one way or the other.
Salvatore
” This decade will be decisive one way or the other. ”
This is exactly what you told us in… 2011.
Mille grazie!
J.-P. D.
That is true again I am not good enough to get it that exact. I say if it came within 50 years of 2011 it would be fantastic.
Salvatore
” I say if it came within 50 years of 2011 it would be fantastic. ”
Sal, this is not the first time I ask you: what would be then ‘fantastic’?
For example, that excessive ice sheet and sea ice melt in the Northwestern Atlantic lead to
– excessive loss of salinity, and thus to
– a weakening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, and hence to
– a retreat of the Gulf Stream away from our warm Western Europe, with as consequence Siberian winters down to Andalucia and Morocco?
I’m over 70, and until that happens I’ll be dead since quite a while.
But that is no reason for me to wish such a future to those who will follow us.
Buona notte
J.-P. D.
Prediction wise.
Climate real science rule #1
Never predict the future climate because you will be wrong
Climate junk science rule #1
Always predict the future climate, always claim a climate crisis is coming, and repeat the prediction every year, no matter what happens
Rule number 1 is a joke.
I predict that the Southern Hemisphere will be warmer for the 3 months December to February then the 3 months June to August.
Not just next year, but every year for the next century at least.
My prediction is assured to be correct.
“Never predict the future climate because you will be wrong”
Nope, not so.
If there was some kind of award for d-u-m-b replies, you would win it for that one.
Thanks for the report, Roy. We appreciate it as always.
For the next five days, the Icelandic high will direct Arctic air into central Europe. The pressure over Iceland now reaches 1040 hPa.
Dear Roy,
I observed a strong difference between T anomaly estimates at the surphace and UAH data for february…perhaps about 0.25 °C colder at the surphace…
http://climatlas.com/temperature/jra55_temperature.php
Have you any idea about that?
Thank you in advance.
Sergio
Sergio Musmeci
If we look at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XzSBNDpP_CZvEMRenMB85frn23GCSOkG/view
we see that
– the evaluation gives 0.13 C for February 2021, i.e. 0.07 C lower than UAH6.0 LT;
but also that
– the evaluation anomalies are wrt the mean of 1981-2010, whereas those of UAH are now wrt the mean of 1991-2020.
If we now consider that Feb 2020 wrt 81-10 differs from Feb 2020 wrt 91-20 by +0.17 C, we then should add 0.17 C to the UAH anomaly for Feb 2021, giving 0.37 C.
That indeed gives 0.24 C difference, quite near to your 0.25 C.
I think the best will be to wait until Mr Maue moves to the newer reference period.
Btw, please look at January 2021: the 1981-2010 anomaly for UAH gives 0.27 C, exactly the same value as that given by Maue.
But… look at the absolute values, differing by a lot less.
My conclusion: Cosa c'è in un solo mese?
J.-P. D.
What do all you climate experts have to say about all the statements in the media following the bitter cold snap in NA that the cold was caused by “climate change”?
Real climate experts know what’s going on. They know that stratospheric intrusions in winter depend on the state of the polar vortex in the stratosphere. Man does not control the stratosphere unless he uses nuclear weapons in the ozone zone above the pole. Then significant changes in the chemistry of the stratosphere will occur.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
I’m not convinced.
ren says:
February 3, 2021 at 2:04 PM
This is going to be a massive stratospheric intrusion in the northern US.
https://i.ibb.co/DVpdnqv/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f120.png
https://i.ibb.co/qRKYP4w/gfs-toz-NA-f120.png
ren says:
February 4, 2021 at 12:38 AM
In January, the US (48 states) was plus 0.36. In February it will be much less.
https://i.ibb.co/VQ48Mby/gfs-T2ma-us-25.png
You can check out my comments.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/
Tom tucker
What media tell mostly is worth nothing.
The sudden stratospheric warmth (SSW) above Siberia was the cause for the cold snap in NA in 2021. In Europe we got a tiny bit of it.
SSW’s are known to occur some times per decade.
The last one in the NH was in 2019, with e.g. Chicago temps at -30 C for 2 days at the end of January. Texas said: So what?
Should we in the near future experience a temporal SSW increase, say every year: then we’ll have to feel concerned, and to search for the cause of that.
J.-P. D.
Were there many statements in the media saying the cold snap was because of global warming?
There’s this:
But I believe that the odds are that as a result of global warming we can expect to see more of this pattern of extreme cold in the mid latitudes… Dr. John Holdren
Yes, that’s a theory. The video is 6 years old.
I’m asking if there were many articles about the recent cold snap attributing it to global warming. In response to this.
“What do all you climate experts have to say about all the statements in the media following the bitter cold snap in NA that the cold was caused by ‘climate change’?”
There have been a few posts here already on the slow, wavy jet stream thing. I’m skeptical that many articles if any said that global warming definitely caused the recent cold snap.
The video is 6 years old.
So what?
That’s right, That You Tube from 2014 isn’t a media article, but is rather straight from the horses mouth.
What’s going on is that for nearly everything negative in the world, you can find media or climate “science” that says it’s caused by or is causing “Global Warming”, “Climate Change”, “The Climate Crisis” or what ever else they care calling it these days.
“So what?”
The comment I’m replying to is about <b<RECENT news articles.
This comment:
“What do all you climate experts have to say about all the statements in the media following the bitter cold snap in NA that the cold was caused by ‘climate change’?”
I didn’t set the topic, I’m just replying to it.
You’re not. You’re grinding your own axe and I have zero interest in humouring the diversion.
One comment I saw said something to the effect that the prior large melting of the Arctic ice resulted in absorbtion of energy and the drop in temperature. In an interview Bill Gates said that it was the result of changes to the Jet Stream caused by Global Warming. The things I’ve seen are mostly one sentence comments included in stories about the cold in Texas,etc.
So you want recent.
DW,Com
How global warming can cause Europe’s harsh winter weather
In fact, the effects of global warming may even have favored the extremely cold temperature
USA Today
Some scientists but not all say there could be a connection between global warming and the wandering polar vortex: The theory is that when weird warmth invades the Arctic, some of the cold that’s supposed to stay up there including the vortex sloshes down south into North America and Europe
FaceBook
Meteorologist Cory Reppenhagen
Cold Snaps caused by Climate Change
What you have zero interest in is knowing that your side of the coin blames every thing it can on “Climate Change”
That was just from the first page on a google search.
Now you’re on topic, Steve.
2 articles found in 2 different countries, and one…. facebook post?
Ignoring social media, the 2 news articles say that the cold snap could be a result of global warming, alluding to the jet stream theory.
“In fact, the effects of global warming may even have favored the extremely cold temperature…”
“Some scientists but not all say there could be a connection between global warming and the wandering polar vortex..”
This is not “statements in the media following the bitter cold snap in NA that the cold was caused by ‘climate change’.”
If we include the facebook post, that one also talks about the jet stream theory as a possible, not definite contributor to the cold snap.
Here’s another article from Forbes I found. It articulates what I think of the matter very well.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2021/02/19/3-things-people-get-wrong-about-the-polar-vortex-and-climate-change/?sh=a4ee3c1426e7
From the article:
“The final thing that I notice is something very counterintuitive to many people. You can have extreme cold in one part of the world and warm anomalies (difference from normal) elsewhere. The map below shows temperature anomalies as of February 21, 2021. The colder air in the middle of the United States is evident. However, warm anomalies are noticeable in extreme polar regions as well as parts of Asia. As a climate scientist and communicator, it is a constant struggle to shake people out their narrow perspective that what happens in their little corner of the world is indeed local not global.”
You’d think that people who have been commenting on this blog for years would understand this, but apparently they aren’t equipped, for whatever reason, to comprehend.
Most of the positive anomalies appear at the mid latitudes around the subtropical highs in the NH and at the base of the Ferrell Cells in the Southern Hemisphere. Would be nice to know more about why patterns like this emerge.
RWT,
this is likely due to ocean cycles. The PDO and AMO have been in there positive cycles for several years now. It will be interesting to see if the pattern changes when they go negative.
Since “climate change” is just another name for global warming; what i want to know is how can warming of the planet possibly cause a serious cold period.
tom tucker
Only people observing the atmosphere since decades can tell us that.
As a layman, I only can imagine a scenario.
Suppose that somewhere in Siberia (a very cold, but steadily warming corner) an extreme convection stream manages to bypass the Tropopause, thus entering the lower stratosphere and unduly warming it.
The result might be that the circumpolar, normally perfectly circular jet stream turning around the North Pole gets disturbed, and becomes wavy; some corners become unusually warm, others unusually cold.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/February_12-19%2C_2021_map_of_hours_at_or_under_freezing_temperatures.png
J.-P. D.
Have you never experienced a cool day in Summer or a warm day in Winter?
Climate is not weather. Climate is the average of weather. Weather still happens when the climate changes.
“climate change” and “global warming” are not synonymous.
Global Warming – is the long term secular warming of land, ocean, air, and ice on a global scale.
Climate Change – is the change in various aspects of the climate system including precipitation patterns, temperature patterns, droughts, hurricanes, growing seasons, etc. on local and regional scales as a result of global warming.
Global warming is hypothesized to make the jet stream wavier. The technical jargon here is quasi-resonant amplification of planetary waves. Depending on where and how the Rossby waves resonate certain regions may experience larger swings in temperature. In addition polar amplification is hypothesized to create WACCy (Warm Arctic Cold Continent) configurations in which anomalously warm conditions in the Arctic region displaces cold air further down the latitudes. The NH is still warmer overall in both scenarios. It is just that the configuration of the warm and cold pools has changed.
tom…”Since climate change is just another name for global warming; what i want to know is how can warming of the planet possibly cause a serious cold period”.
‘Climate change’, as the phrase is currently employed, is nothing more than a politically-correct term aimed at scaring people into thinking we have a problem. It makes no sense, especially when it is used to infer that those who disagree with the theory are climate deniers.
There are a lot of idiots out there spreading nonsense and propaganda in the name of science when in fact, they mean climate model theory, which is not a science. A science has to be based on the scientific method and unvalidated climate models cannot meet the requirements of the scientific method.
“what i want to know is how can warming of the planet possibly cause a serious cold period.”
Regionally, yes, that is one prediction.
Nice article about one of the mechanisms for a possible cooling/drying of N. Atlantic and N. Europe, and other changes.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z
Tom,
As other have indicated, the claims are nothing but scare tactics and excuses from the climate pseudo-religion. It has nothing to do with science and they are using the fact that most people are science illiterates to push this propaganda.
In the 1970s there was one weak solar cycle and winters were harsh. Now we have another very weak solar cycle. The lower the solar activity the stronger the stratospheric intrusions in North America. La Nina only amplifies them.
https://i.ibb.co/VQjy96J/international-sunspot-nu.png
ren, do you think the cooling trend will be multi-decadal?
Yes, the cooling trend will be multi-decadal because the solar magnetic cycle lasts 22 years.
The jet stream will now pull Arctic air into Central Europe, where winter will return for a few days.
https://i.ibb.co/zSrBbCn/Screenshot-2.png
ren…”The lower the solar activity the stronger the stratospheric intrusions in North America. La Nina only amplifies them.”
Thanks, ren.
According to UAH data, the Tropics are continuing its downward temperature trend since last September. I think it would be safe to say that we have at least a short-term cooling trend coming up.
I hope the cooling trend will be short. Because a long-term cooling trend will be bad for all of us WX-wise! If it is a longer-term cooling trend, maybe it will be something like the 1960s and 1970s.
Rob Mitchell
Could you please explain why you always keep fixated on little, most recent drops?
What about looking back, and comparing bigger drops some years ago?
https://tinyurl.com/2h5w8uy5
Look at the Tropics starting with May 2010, and you will see what a real La Nina is…
J.-P. D.
binny…”Could you please explain why you always keep fixated on little, most recent drops?”
You might try explaining why you were so fixated on the warmer temperatures from 2016 till near-present.
Well Bindi, the real La Nina just might be underway. ren thinks we are in for a multi-decadal cooling trend. I hope he is wrong.
Rob Mitchell
” … the real La Nina just might be underway. ”
If it was we would see that right now.
But it looks like this:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
*
” ren thinks we are in for a multi-decadal cooling trend. ”
Well I can only tell you: he is certainly wrong.
Because for example his forecasts for a strong winter in Europe were… ALL WRONG.
All we had was more snow than in the ten years before, due to the collision between a cold front from the polar region and a warm front from the Sahara.
But in 2010 we had much more snow than this year, and above all it was a LOT colder (even if ‘warm’ compared with e.g. 1956, I remember the February of that year).
Thus when I see ren forecasting MULTIDECADAL processes… I get a big laugh.
J.-P. D.
From the Ignoramus naming others ‘a cheating SOB’
” You might try explaining why you were so fixated on the warmer temperatures from 2016 till near-present. ”
Oh is that amusing!
What about a look at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-628362
J.-P. D.
Although the state of Texas in the United states got hit hard, the east coast has been moderate. It has not seen the massive cold.
2021 really looked like a massive snow year for the eastern side of North Carolina.
Installing a diesel fuel parking heater that runs off 12 volts to warm some of the house. After the heating failed and the city supply pipes froze residents did not drain the indoor plumbing. Now plumbers drive hundreds of miles to aide in the near 24×7 repairs.
I believe most cities have the water running again without any boil first precautions.
Lesson learned:
TechnoCaveman
” Although the state of Texas in the United states got hit hard, the east coast has been moderate. It has not seen the massive cold. ”
Exactly…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/February_12-19%2C_2021_map_of_hours_at_or_under_freezing_temperatures.png
J.-P. D.
techno…”Although the state of Texas in the United states got hit hard, the east coast has been moderate. It has not seen the massive cold”.
The reason for the cold air in Texas is movement of an extremely cold air pocket from the Arctic extending southward. That cold air is caused by the current location of the Earth in its orbit and its axial tilt. The Arctic is literally getting no solar input this time of year and that allows freezing stratospheric air over the Arctic to descend into the Arctic and southward.
La Nina may have something to do with the conditions that allow the freezing Arctic air to descend that far south. One thing we know for sure, due to historical reports during the Little Ice Age in that part of the world is that such temperatures were typical in a Texas winter during the LIA. Even Florida did not escape.
CO2 and other GHGs have absolutely nothing to do with it as some whining alarmists have claimed. Current global warming, along with climate changes like receding glaciers and rising sea levels are all related to a recovery from the LIA. Nothing to do with anthropogenic warming.
TechnoCaveman
Don’t believe in the trashy stuff written by Ignoramuses like Robertson:
” That cold air is caused by the current location of the Earth in its orbit and its axial tilt. ”
That is complete nonsense, because this happens every year.
What was unusual (though it happened 2 years ago in Northern CONUS already) is the weakening of the polar vortex (a circumpolar jet stream), due to an extreme, sudden warming of the lower stratosphere (you can observe such things in UAH’s data).
To what such SSW’s are due: no se.
Alarmists pretend it’s a consequence of global warming. But… such a warming certainly didn’t happen at the time these SSW’s were first discovered.
J.-P. D.
Maybe economics is a good analogy for knowing the difference between weather and climate.
People invest in shares because while they are volatile over the short term, they bring in good returns over the long term.
Saying global warming doesn’t exist because of a cold snap is like saying the stock market is going to permanently tank because of one down day, or month, or year.
https://tinyurl.com/yc2jy9ub
Barry, nice analogy, but one critical flaw. The Natural Laws of Physics doesn’t define the Stock Market. Energy, radiative Energy, travels at the speed of light. When it leaves the atmosphere, it leaves the atmosphere. When temperatures drop below the level of the previous year, decade, or century, the system resets. It has to add that energy back into the system. The volatility that takes out previous lows proves that CO2 is not “trapping” any heat. Energy of W/M^2 is tied to a nonchanging rate, so it is easy to calculate how much energy could possibly be added to a system over a certain time period. Also, CO2 adds energy, that is all it can do, so it can’t explaining cooling.
The atmosphere is not the heat reservoir in the climate system though. A cooling atmosphere does NOT mean that energy/heat left the planet. It just means that it left the atmosphere. It could have transferred into the ocean, land, or ice as well. I recommend reading Schuckmann et al. 2020 for a brief introduction into how much energy is trapped in the climate system and where it gets distributed.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf
bdgwx, the atmosphere can NOT warm the oceans, except in localized events. Considered as two massive sub-systems, the atmosphere can NOT warm the surface. Thermal energy moves from the surface to the atmosphere to space.
You can’t change reality, as you attempt to do.
“the atmosphere can NOT warm the surface.”
Gee, then I wonder how all us surface travelers feel so much warmer when the atmosphere is warmer?
Nate
Although I disagree with most of what ClintR says, I have to agree with him on his statement “the atmosphere can NOT warm the surface”
This part is correct. The atmosphere lowers the amount of radiant heat lost. With no atmosphere (at current conditions until things cool) the Earth surface would lose an average of about 398 Watts/m^2. The solar input (which would increase to 240 W/m^2 from 160) would be far less than this so the surface would start cooling.
With the atmosphere, the surface still cools radiatively just much less at around 50 W/m^2 average. Now the 160 input from the Sun is more than the radiative loss so the surface warms until it is balanced by the other surface heat losses of evaporation and convection.
Even adding CO2 does not “warm” the surface. It does allow more DWIR that lowers the radiant heat loss some. The surface can warm to a higher level. In reality the CO2 is not warming anything. Without the solar input the surface would keep cooling.
barry…”Saying global warming doesnt exist because of a cold snap is like saying the stock market is going to permanently tank because of one down day, or month, or year”.
You are misstating the problem. It’s not global warming that’s the problem it is the THEORY that trace gases in the atmosphere are causing not only warming, but catastrophic climate change.
Climate alarmists are trying to explain the cold snaps as being predicted by AGW theory. Rather than regarding them for what they are, extreme cooling that flies in the face of AGW theory, and have been doing so since Hansen predicted climate gloom and doom in 1988, alarmists are sticking by their credo that extreme cooling spells are all part of anthropogenic warming theory.
The cart is before the horse. No one has come close to proving AGW theory and the weather/climate is still as it always has been. AGW theorists must first validate their theory before getting on a podium to announce the end of the world.
Sorry Gordon and CO2isLife, you’ve missed the point, which is about short-term variability vs long term trend.
I’m saying that pointing to cold periods as proof that global warming isn’t happening is akin to pointing to downturns in the stock market as proof of a permanent decline.
Wrong barry. Cold periods, especially cold periods that break 100-year-old records are just more evidence that the globe is NOT warming.
At some point, your will have to face reality.
ClintR
You are the one who can’t “face reality”. Look at Roy Spencer graph at the top of the article. His graph shows global warming. He even gives a trend of 0.14 C/Decade increase.
Cold temperature records do not logically conclude the “globe is not warming”. You must seek other evidence like Roy’s long term temperature graph.
The Arctic air in winter will be very cold regardless of warming globe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/JanArcticSfcT.svg/1024px-JanArcticSfcT.svg.png
Even if the Arctic Winter was 3 F warmer now then 100 years ago, if that air moves down to Texas you will still have extremely cold temperatures (although it will moderate some as it moves over the warmer land).
I think you are limiting your thinking by just observing a short term weather pattern and using this as evidence of a long term underlying pattern (slow global warming or perhaps rapid in geological time scales).
Sorry Norman, cold periods, especially cold periods that break 100-year-old records are just more evidence that the globe is NOT warming.
Still there are twice as many warm records as cold records, so that means you are a clown.
The reality is that the globe has warmed even while the US has had several cold snaps with record-breaking temperature.
Cold US weather has not cancelled global warming.
The reality is also that you are a troll who has little interest in honest conversation, and, like DREMT, are here only to snipe and muddy the waters.
It’s good to poiont trolls out so that others don’t waste their time with them.
barry, please stop trolling.
Wow barry, this drop in UAH temperatures is really getting to you.
You’ve never understood the science, and now you must resort to name-calling.
It will only get funnier as your false beliefs continue to disintegrate.
Barry Says: Sorry Gordon and CO2isLife, youve missed the point, which is about short-term variability vs long term trend.
Im saying that pointing to cold periods as proof that global warming isnt happening is akin to pointing to downturns in the stock market as proof of a permanent decline.
Barry, you don’t seem to understand the physics. CO2 is claimed to “TRAP” more heat is its PPM increases. You can check that using MODTRAN. W/M^2 continually increases with an increase in PPM (at a log decay manner). That means that once a previous low is passed, there in no energy trapped by CO2. A Watt is a rate, so you can calculate how long it would possibly be required to return to the previous high level. Bottom line, it recent temperatures are below the level of 1880, CO2 didn’t add any energy to the system over a 140 year period when CO2 increased by 30%.
1. The atmosphere is not the only heat reservoir. In fact, only 1-2% of the excess energy being accumulated in the climate system goes into the atmosphere.
2. Energy/heat moves between heat reservoirs. For example, a movement of energy/heat from the air to land would decrease the temperature of the air and increase the temperature of the land. This energy/heat could then transfer back into the air increasing the temperature in the air and decreasing it in the land. No energy/heat has been lost to space as a result of this movement. These kinds of movements occur all of the time and make air temperatures very noisy. ENSO is one such unforced natural variation in the climate system that moves heat around.
3. Read this paper on the energy/heat stored in the climate system. Pay particular attention to the amount of variation there is with individual heat reservoirs and compare it to the variation of the total. If there is something you do not understand ask questions.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf
bdgwx says: 1. The atmosphere is not the only heat reservoir. In fact, only 1-2% of the excess energy being accumulated in the climate system goes into the atmosphere.
bdgwx, now you are getting close. Where does all that energy come from to warm the atmosphere? You got it, largely the Oceans. What warms the oceans? You got it, not CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ, short wavelength visible radiation close to 0.4µ.
Study the amount of radiation reaching the oceans and you understand climate change. One El Nino will remove years of additional W/M^2 from CO2.
The surface (ocean/land) warms when Ein-Eout > 0 and cools when Ein-Eout < 0. Ein for the surface is composed of geothermal (0.1 W/m^2), solar (161 W/m^2), and DWIR (342 W/m^2). Eout for the surface is composed of sensible (20 W/m^2), latent (80 W/m^2), and UWIR (398 W/m^2). Yes, solar is one component, but it is only one among 6 that has to be considered. Another component is DWIR of which CO2 contributes to its magnitude. If you don't understand why the temperature of the surface is modulated by Ein-Eout then ask questions.
Wild et al. 2013 is my reference for figures in this post.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4804848
Also, make sure you read the publication by Wong & Minnett 2018 for the microphysical explanation for how DWIR warms the ocean.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017JC013351
bdgwx continues to be confused. He believes the sky is more of a source than Sun!
He can’t understand flux is NOT the same as energy, and he can’t learn.
The surface absorbs 2.6e24 joules of energy from the Sun each year and 5.5e24 joules of energy from DWIR each year. 5.5e24 is > than 2.6e24 so the sky does indeed provide more energy to the surface than the Sun. But my main point is that the laws of thermodynamics say that a body’s temperature is dictated not by just the amount of energy it receives, but by the amount it sheds as well. That’s why the 1LOT calculation of dE = 0.87 A.Wyears or 14e21 joules each year is so crucial understanding why the planet is warming.
bdgwx, you remind me of a drug addict trying to justify why he’s a drug addict.
You don’t know squat about thermodynamics. You just believe the nonsense you have learned from your cult.
Energy in the system does not keep adding. The energy from the sky is not the same as the energy from Sun. You keep making the same mistakes over and over. You’re still trying to add ice cubes, believing you can make something hotter than the ice.
ClintR
Flux (as you define it in Watts/m^2) can easily be converted to energy received over a period of time. The size remains constant.
300 watts (joules/second) will deliver more energy to the same area as 100 watts in the same time period (24 hours for a cycle on Earth surface).
Not sure at all what point you are trying to make on this issue.
ClintR
But I will agree with you that the atmosphere is not a greater source than the Sun.
The atmosphere is still a negative NET value, the Sun input is only postive.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/ceres-poster-011-v2.jpg?itok=43dwxKEV
The Sun contributes 163.3 Watts/m^2 (average) energy to the Surface.
The atmosphere contributes minus 57.9 Watts/m^2 to the surface.
The reason CO2 will increase the surface temperature (with a constant solar input) over the 100 years of warming is because it has reduced the atmospheric loss from around 59.9 w/m^2 to what we see now (minus 57.9). If the surface radiant loss is reduced with the same solar input and no other changes to evaporation or convection, the surface will warm up).
Wrong Norman. The atmosphere does not warm the surface. It’s the other way around. The surface warms the atmosphere.
You’re as confused as bdgwx because, like him, you don’t understand the physics and you get your beliefs from the same inaccurate sources.
Clint R believes under standard conditions if you replace a dry ice cube with a water ice cube in your glass of Coca-Cola then your beverage does not warm up. Clint R does not understand complicated thermodynamics and does not believe in doing tests; for Clint R assertions are all that is required for physical proof of nature.
Norman,
In terms of the net exchange between the surface and atmosphere it is 340.3 (DWIR) – 18.4 (sensible) – 86.4 (latent) – 358.2 (UWIR absorbed) = -122.7 W/m^2. So we would say the sky contributes a net of -122.7 W/m^2 to the surface. Or said another way the atmosphere provides a mechanism to remove 122.7 W/m^2 from the surface. The remaining (163.3 – 122.7) = 40.6 W/m^2 is divided into a 0.6 W/m^2 surface imbalance and 40.0 W/m^2 atmospheric window to space.
bdgwx, your sign convention results in a headache. Here DWIR = positive, UWIR = negative is common sign convention global over 4-20 annual satellite era periods result in Earth system energy imbalance in W/m^2 around (depending on period):
(+235 DWIR + 18.4 sensible downdrafts + 86.4 latent precipitation/condensation down) – 18.4 (sensible updrafts) – 86.4 (latent evaporation/transpiration up) – 358.2 (UWIR absorbed in semi-opaque atm.) = -122.7 your UWIR net as measured from surface less emitted clear window IR direct to space as measured by satellite equals absorbed system imbalance.
Or Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) then is measured: +163.3 SW absorbed – your 122.7 UWIR net to IR opaque atm. – 40 UWIR clear window to space = 0.6 EEI calibrated with surface thermometers to around +/- 0.25 so a meaningful amount energy imbalance measured in the direction of system warming in the period (if my math contains no typo or sign error as it is never under warranty).
ball4, yeah thanks. Good point.
ClintR said: Energy in the system does not keep adding.
We get it. You’ve made your point that you think the 1LOT is bogus abundantly clear.
Now let me make my point abundantly clear. It has never been demonstrated by repeatable experiment that the 1LOT can be violated. Therefore I, most other posters on this blog, scientists, and the rest of the world have to accept it for what it is.
No bdgwx, you don’t get it.
There’s nothing wrong with 1LoT, but there’s plenty wrong with your understanding of it.
My understanding of the 1LOT is that the total amount of energy entering/leaving a system must match the sum of the energies of the individual components that comprise the total. And that the imbalance on the system is given by dE = Ein – Eout.
Well, that statement of 1LoT is cumbersome, almost to the point of being misleading.
But, your mis-understanding starts with trying to balance flux. Flux is NOT energy, and cannot be treated as a simple scalar quantity. When you, and the other idiots, claim an “energy imbalance” in units of “W/m^2”, you’re indicating you don’t have a clue about the physics involved.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R, the measurement time period is a given so the amount of seconds is known thus Earth energy imbalance of energy in – energy out = net energy imbalance from 1LOT in the period can be calculated from W/m^2 even by you, but I am totally skeptical you can do so unless you show us.
Ball4, you appear to understand my point. In order to consider balancing energy, you much have “energy”. Flux is not energy.
Now let’s see if you can remember what I taught you.
Clint R, yes I understand your point. You appear to not understand my point.
In order to consider balancing energy in the period examined, you convert to “energy” by multiplying by the seconds in the period (a constant). Flux is energy/sec in Watts. It is energy that is conserved in the period of interest (here 4-20 years).
Now let’s see if you can remember what I taught you.
Wrong again, Ball4.
Flux is Watts/m^2, or Joules/sec/m^2. You don’t have a clue about any of this, just like the other idiots. You don’t even understand the basics.
That’s why this is so much fun.
All per unit area Clint R. If you want to multiply by the area of the top of atmosphere of our planet, you can do that too as well as the number of seconds. I do hope you understand scientific notation in doing so. My guess is you cannot do that correctly or prove it.
Now let’s see if you can remember what I taught you.
Wrong again, Ball4.
It’s not a matter of “want to multiply by the area”. You MUST multiply by the area to find the energy.
But, here I am trying to teach physics to an idiot. And, I know better.
So enough fun for one day.
You will get the same answer Clint, a little warming, just different by a BIG constant.
“Barry, you dont seem to understand the physics. CO2 is claimed to…”
I’m not talking about the physics.
I can’t help it if people see posts as an opportunity to push their favourite hobby-horse talking point. But I can point out that this is what they are doing.
It’s amazing to see people like Clint R writing
” Wow barry, this drop in UAH temperatures is really getting to you. ”
What drop?
If we consider the period from January 2016 till now, we obtain a linear trend of
-0.08 +- 0.16 C
But this zero trend of course everybody obtains when computing it for any period starting with the highest value of the whole era from 1979 till now.
If we consider the period from January 2017 till now, by the way excluding this highest value due to the 2016 El Nino peak, we obtain a linear trend of
+0.38 +- 0.16 C
for the four most recent years in the UAH record.
What drop? That of the last three or four months? Are such people serious?
Or are they just trolling here?
Oh Noes…
J.-P. D.
Bindidon. if your IQ was 60, but after that last comment it was 40, did it drop?
Since your antecedent is false, your conclusion is uncertain.
binny…”If we consider the period from January 2016 till now, we obtain a linear trend of -0.08 +- 0.16 C”
Why is your error margin, 0.32 C, mammoth compared to your linear change? The fact that you think the linear trend is measured in hundredths of a degree C while the real global temps have dropped nearly a full degree C does not speak well for your mathematical abilities.
Robertson
You are a totally unexperienced person, regardless what you write about (Moon’s spin, viruses, relativity, and here: temperatures, times series, trends).
If, instead of endlessly repeating your egocentric blah blah, you had been willing to acquire a bit of knowledge, you would know that the standard error in linear trends increases when
– the deviations about the mean increase
and
– the period for trend computation becomes smaller.
This has nothing to do with ‘real global temps’; and especially YOU anyway do not know how UAH’s real temps behave, because they are not published. I, however, can compute them.
You will never learn because you don’t want to learn.
And the very best is that you are not even able to read a document correctly, because you don’t see when you leave the plain text and enter a foot note.
Oh Noes.
J.-P. D.
binny…”You are a totally unexperienced person…”
I actually studied probability and statistics in my engineering studies. It was a full year course. I also learned to take errors in measurements based on the accuracy of the measuring instrument.
The trend you mentioned, 0.08 +-0.16C makes no sense. An ordinary mercury thermometer with gradations of 0.1 C could not read 0.08C. You would need an instrument that could read in 100ths of a degree C. If you had such an instrument you would give the error in 100ths of a degree, not the +/- 0.16 C you gave as an error margin.
GR,
Do I need to remind you that the standard error of the mean is E = S/sqrt(N)?
For example, if you have 10,000 thermometers with a modest +/- 1C of error then the error of mean is still only E = 1/sqrt(10000) = 0.01C.
That is a great analogy.
Great or not (thanks), it’s nice to at least have someone respond to the point!
I’m going to steal it and start using it myself. I think it provides a great example of how there can be an uptrend embedded in an otherwise very chaotic trajectory that everyone can intuitively related to.
Literally nothing is happening.
ren…”Real climate experts know whats going on. They know that stratospheric intrusions in winter depend on the state of the polar vortex in the stratosphere”.
And the reason for the stratospheric intrusions is the total lack of solar input to the upper Arctic in winter. There is nothing anyone can do about that and no amount of atmospheric CO2 can change it.
nicholas Mac…”In order to prove mathematically that the moon is not rotating, one has to rewrite the formula for a stationary synchronous orbit.
If the Moon is not rotating, then all of celestial mechanics has to be rewritten…”
No, they don’t, since they were never based on a locally rotating Moon. Any orbital mechanics is based on two factors: the tangential momentum of the Moon and the perpendicular effect of Earth’s gravitational field. There is nothing in there about lunar local rotation.
The Moon has no local rotation, it is a translating body, performing rectilinear translation, and it’s rectilinear path is bent into a curvilinear orbital path by Earth’s gravitational field. Translation alone explains the motion of the Moon and its change of orientation as it orbits. It’s a fallacy that the Moon is in synchronous local rotation per orbit.
I copy here what I wrote earlier:
This issue of rotation (local or not) is one of semantics or, if you like, definition. It is like discussing speed. From which vantage point is speed or rotation being calculated/viewed. If I stand on the surface of the sun and focus my telescope on the moon (ignoring the earths presence) then I will observe a moon that rotates around its own axis once in every 28 days (of course the Earth will block my view half of the time). The cause of the rotation (celestial mechanics) is irrelevant.
So guys stop your bickering and get out of your own righteous bubble.
It is a bit the same when we consider speed. One will claim that since the speed of light is 300,000km/sec nothing can go faster than that. Again this is dependent on vantage point. Two objects can move apart from each other by the a speed of 400,000 km/sec without violating any physical law. Imagine we could propel an object straight up into the sky on the north pole with a speed of 200,000 km/sec and do the same at the south pole, the two objects will move apart with a speed of 400,000 km/sec.
CS,
Nope. Only in your imagination.
Reread your relativity textbook. I know it seems counter intuitive, but space and time cannot be taken as absolute. Make sure you note the differences between special and general relativity.
Confirmed by experiment, and practical applications include relativistic GPS and GLONASS corrections.
Feel free to be extremely annoyed when you find out your simplistic thinking is not supported by reality.
Chris, Moon is clearly NOT rotating about its axis. If it were, Earth could see that rotation.
If you look at Moon from Sun, or from “the stars”, it APPEARS to be rotating about its axis due to its orbital motion about Earth.
It’s the same with a ball-on-a-string. The same side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit. But to someone standing outside the orbit, it would APPEAR as if the ball were rotating about its axis. But, if the ball were REALLY rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it.
More physically accurate than ClintR can grasp: Moon is clearly NOT rotating about its axis more or less than once per obit. If it were, Earth inhabitants could see that rotation.
If you look at Moon from Sun, or from “the stars”, it is rotating about its internal axis in addition to its orbital motion about Earth on an external axis.
It’s the same with a ball-on-a-string. The same side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit. To someone standing outside the orbit, it is observed the ball is rotating about its axis once per orbit. If the ball were REALLY rotating about its axis more or less than once per orbit, the string would wrap around it.
ball4…”If you look at Moon from Sun, or from the stars, it is rotating about its internal axis in addition to its orbital motion about Earth on an external axis”.
Why do you insist on moving into the recesses of your conditioned mind to analyze this problem superficially? There is no need to look at it from different mental perspectives, look at it from the Earth and show us how the Moon can possibly rotate about a local axis while keep the same face pointed toward us.
It’s dead simple. If the Moon is not rotating about a local axis in our dimension it is not possible for it to rotate about a local axis in any dimension.
Clint,
Did you ever figure out how to calculate the velocity of the far and near side of the moon, dumbass?
“But, if the ball were REALLY rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it.”
Except the string is also rotating, so no, it wouldn’t wrap around the ball.
The string is rotating once per revolution same as the ball, so it doesn’t wrap around itself, does it?
chris…”This issue of rotation (local or not) is one of semantics or, if you like, definition. It is like discussing speed. From which vantage point is speed or rotation being calculated/viewed”.
You are dealing in theory and abstractions. Einstein proclaimed that nothing could go faster than light because it fit his theory about relativity. He arbitrarily added a multiplier onto the common physics definition of s = vt, where s = distance, v = velocity, and t = time. He offered this multiplier without scientific proof as s = vt(1 – v^2/c^2), where c = speed of light as a constant.
Einstein’s relativity is, in general, a load of nonsense that can be covered adequately by Newtonian mechanics, except for particles at atomic scale. I call it nonsense because Einstein’s multiplier introduces a concept of time and distance variation as velocity changes. Utter rubbish, since there is not an iota of physical proof for this multiplier.
When you start dealing with different dimensions and points of perspective you move from reality (actuality) into the vagueness of the conditioned human mind. Your mind has been conditioned because you have accepted what others have told you. You are using that mind to assess fiction in lieu of physical reality.
When we talk about speed, we are talking about a movement without a specified direction. When direction is specified, the scalar quantity speed becomes the vector quantity velocity. On Earth, if I measure a mass moving at a certain velocity, I must specify with respect to what. That is understood. From the POV, velocity is relative.
When we specify the velocity of the Moon, hence its linear momentum, it is understood that we are measuring that velocity wrt to a station on Earth. Without that station, we have no time, since time is a definition created by humans based on the rotation of the Earth. So, the Moon’s velocity is based on a machine (clock) designed to measure the angular velocity of the Earth.
The Moon’s velocity is based on its motion wrt to a radial line from the centre of the Earth through the Moon. The velocity of the Moon at any one instant is based on the instantaneous change of position of the radial line at the Moon’s COG. Next instant, the direction has changed and will continue to change through an orbit. Therefore, the Moon’s path is described by a series of instantaneous velocity vectors which describe a path of translation, not rotation.
The motion of that intersection of the Moon and the radial line is translation, by definition. If you want to go into another dimension to measure the motion, that’s your personal business. It has nothing to do with what I just described other than in a relative manner. I have just explained the motion of the Moon and its constant change of orientation with no local rotation whatsoever. That is the reality.
Wow. my word, I am impressed.
“The Moon has no local rotation, it is a translating body”
As any mathematician or physicist will tell you, translation does NOT include rotation — the object retains the same orientation with respect to cartesian coordinates.
For instance, from Wikipedia”
“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. A translation can also be interpreted as the addition of a constant vector to every point, or as shifting the origin of the coordinate system. In a Euclidean space, any translation is an isometry.”
Even when you try to sound technical, your own explanation defies you.
Translation alone explains the motion of the center of the moon — but would keep one side fixed relative to the inertial reference frame of the stars.
Translation + rotation explains the motion of the center of the moon AND the orientation relative to the earth.
tim…”As any mathematician or physicist will tell you, translation does NOT include rotation the object retains the same orientation with respect to cartesian coordinates”.
Tim, you are missing the forest for the trees. The Moon has only linear momentum. Without Earth’s gravity pulling it off its path, it would carry on in a straight line. There is no rotation anywhere, although as dremt points out, the Earth orbiting the Moon could be regarded as rotation about an external axis.
I agree with dremt in principle with regard to accepted definitions but the Moon is technically not rotating about the Earth. It is always moving in a straight line and that line gets bent into a curved orbit by Earth’s gravitational field. That form of translation explains the Moon’s change in orientation through 360 degrees per orbit. The synchronous rotation orbit does not and cannot explain it.
In fact, it’s not possible for the MOon to rotate once per orbit about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. That should be apparent to you and the fact it isn’t apparent suggests you have failed to examine the problem with sufficient scrutiny.
“The Moon has only linear momentum.”
The moon has all sorts of properties — momentum, acceleration, potential energy etc. In particular, it also has angular momentum due to its orbit: L = r x p. And importantly, it also has angular momentum due to its rotation: L = (2/5 MR^2)(omega).
“It is always moving in a straight line and that line gets bent into a curved orbit by Earths gravitational field. “
In classical physics, it is not moving in a straight line.
In relativity, it is following a “geodesic”. Not exactly “a straight line” but similar.
But neither of these ideas supports “the moon can’t be spinning.
“In fact, its not possible for the Moon to rotate once per orbit about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. That should be apparent to you and the fact it isnt apparent suggests you have failed to examine the problem with sufficient scrutiny.”
The fact that you accept this suggests you have failed to apply sufficient scrutiny. If nothing else, generations of scientists smarter than either of us have concluded the moon rotates.
Here are two simple ways to see that the moon, is indeed spinning on its only axis.
1) Consider the merry-go-round analogy. Since gravity creates no torque (to a very excellent approximation), we should imagine the merry-go-round horse on a frictionless axle. Start with the MGR stationary and the horse not spinning. If you start up the MGR, the MGR will start to spin and the horse will start to move in a circle (it “orbits”). But the orientation of the horse with not change. If the nose was pointing north to begin with, it will continue to point north as the MGR rotates. You would have to give the horse a push to start it spinning to to keep the same side facing inward — you would have to start it spinning on its axis.
2) Or the record player analogy. Hold the base of the record player with a ‘fixed orientation’ relative to the stars. When the record player is turned on, the record rotates at a fixed rate relative to its axis. If I carry around the record player with this fixed orientation, the record continues to rotate on its axis at a fixed rate.
I don’t expect you to agree or understand. But at least *consider* that there is an alternate explanation. That the point representing the center of the moon follows a path and that a set of coordinates with its origin at that point and axes fixed relative to the stars gives an accurate explanation of the motion of the moon.
TF, you still don’t understand the physics involved, and you can’t learn.
Gordon is correct, Moon only has linear momentum. Your formulas are correct, but they don’t apply here.
And your “frictionless” MGR horse has already been debunked. You just can’t learn.
Clint,
You are a joke. You are the clown who can’t even calculate the velocity of the far and near side of the moon! Ever figure that out Einstein? What a moron.
SGW, I get a chuckle every time you use that silly question. You don’t understand the difference between orbital motion and kinematics. And you can’t learn. All you have it that nonsense question.
That’s why this is so much fun.
You pretty funny ClintR,
You make up your own physics and laugh at others who refuse to learn your nonsense, and stick to the thoroughly vetted science of the last 500 years.
Keep your seat belt on in the clown car.
Again bob, you have nothing of substance.
Sorry ClintR
The Moon turns, end of story.
Did you do your homework, calculating the velocity of the near and far side of the Moon?
I know you won’t do that because it leads to proof that the Moon is rotating.
Is it because you can’t do the calculation or because you won’t?
Gordon stupidly shrieks:
The Moon has no local rotation, it is a translating body
Per Brown University school of engineering:
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.
Every reference source on the planet disagrees with your moronic definition.
Per the Madhavi paper:
Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.
A line through the moon never keeps the same direction during the motion, nor remains parallel to its original position.
Please stop with this nonsense. You are only making a fool of yourself.
skeptic…”Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position”.
Are you completely stupid? I have explained to you in great detail how a non-rotating body following a linear or curved path keeps every line in its body always parallel yet you have failed to contradict my explanation other than through lame references to text books.
Your brain appear to be too rigid to understand.
But the Moon doesn’t do that, cause it turns.
Bob,
You can lead an ass to water, but you cannot make him drink
SGW,
First you have to beat the ass to death, then saddle him, and then you can lead him to water.
That’s about how difficult it is to get some of these posters to learn science.
Through this discussion, I have learned about 7 ways to prove the Moon is rotating on its axis.
Some will always be with you
Some you will never understand
Black Sabbath never was the same
Since Ozzy left the band
REMAINS parallel to the ORIGINAL position Not parallel to the curved path!
any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion That does not happen with the moon’s motion. Any line through the moon is continually changing direction.
In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body. That is not true with the moon’s motion.
All points of the body have the same velocity A point on the far side of the moon has a greater velocity than a point on the near side.
Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves A point on the far side of the moon moves on a concentric curve with a point on the near side.
The moon’s motion does not meet ANY of the requirements for translation.
Have you provided a definition from a reliable source that meets your goofy idea? No.
skeptic…”Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves A point on the far side of the moon moves on a concentric curve with a point on the near side”.
DU-u-u-u-h!!!! That’s what I have been saying all along, that every point on the Moon moves along concentric circles (orbital paths). Since the inner face always points at the Earth it means the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis.
The system is defined by a rotating radial line with the Earth’s centre as its axis. The motion of each particle is along an instantaneous path which is a line tangential to that radial line. As the radial line rotates, each tangential path must point in a different direction and complete a full 360 degree re-orientation each orbit.
The average velocity of each particle is determined by the velocity of the COG, which has an angular velocity of the radial line’s angular velocity. Therefore, each particle completes one orbit in the same time.
You are still confused about the properties of a rigid body. Although you can visualize each particle turning in concentric circles, it means nothing. A rigid body is defined based on its COG, not each particle. You reference to the velocity of a particle on the far side versus a particle on the near side has nothing to do with the average velocity of the rigid body itself.
Gordon,
Really? That went right over your head.
Translation. It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body.
1. Rectilinear Translation: All points in the body move in parallel straight lines.
2. Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.
https://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf
You just debunked yourself! You admitted that every point on the moon moves on concentric circles. Curvilinear translation requires every point to move on congruent curves/circles.
Furthermore, you don’t know crap about rigid bodies. The definition is as follows:
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.
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
You are just making stuff up. A rigid body is NOT based on the center of mass of the body.
The other characteristic of translation, both curvilinear and rectilinear, is that the velocity of every point on the rigid body is the same. So we can check the velocity of two points on the moon. A point on the far side of the moon has a greater velocity than the near side, therefore the moon is not translating. The other two reasons the moon is not translating per the above definition:
1. A line drawn through the moon does not remain parallel to its original position. and,
2. A line drawn through the moon rotates.
That’s four reasons. How many more do you need?
So far you have failed to provide any definition of translation in a valid physics or kinematics reference source that matches your definition.
SGW, you’re still trying to use kinematics with orbital motion. That will result in wrong answers. You can’t use kinematics with orbital motion. Forget kinematics, and learn orbital motion.
A simple model is a ball-on-a-string. The ball is not rotating about its axis. The same side faces the center of its orbit. It’s the same motion as Moon.
The Moon turns.
The ball on a string turns.
The parallel axis theorem is true.
Everything orbiting rotates on two or more axes, except the Hubble telescope under active controls to stop that rotation about its own axis. Stop that control and it will start rotating on its own axis again.
The moon debate is settled – it does not rotate on its own axis.
Trolls gonna troll an ignore facts.
Once again, kudos to Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH for keeping the scientific world honest.
To the North, a huge high extends from northern Canada through Greenland and Iceland to Scandinavia. This is definitely not a temporary baric system.
Currently, the stratospheric polar vortex has separated from the troposphere and La Nina will be the decisive influence on mid-latitude weather.
From 1979/01-2021/02 the UAH TLT trend is +0.1371C/decade +/- 0.0066. The trend line currently sits at +0.211C. The Feb value was +0.196C.
From 1979/01-2021/01 the RSS/UAH TLT composite trend is +0.1765C/decade +/- 0.0064. The trend line currently sits at +0.45C. The Jan value was +0.36C.
From 1979/01-2021/01 the ERA trend is +0.1916C/decade +/- 0.0055.
From 1979/01-2021/01 the GISS trend is +0.1916C/decade +/- 0.0053.
From 1979/01-2020/12 the BEST trend is +0.1912C/decade +/- 0.0053.
From 1979/01-2021/01 the NOAA trend is +0.1759C/decade +/- 0.0047.
From 1979/01-2020/12 the Hadley-v4 trend is +0.1734C/decade +/- 0.0048.
Note that NOAA and Hadley-v4 are only partial sphere measurements since they do not provide complete coverage in the polar regions. This is why their trends are lower. Hadley-v5 uses spatial averaging technique that does provide coverage missing from v4, but it is not updating monthly yet. Hopefully the NOAA dataset will follow suit and provide more complete coverage in the future like the others do.
bdgwx, to highlight how misleading your regression analysis is, change the time frame of the regression. Make it a rolling 10 or 20 year regression. You will quickly learn that you can get any answer you want, dependent upon the time period of the regression. If you do that, you will see that you will get both + and – Slopes when applied to the UAH Satellite data.
1998 to 2013 would show a negative slope.
1980 to 1997 would show a negative slope.
There is nothing regarding the physics of the CO2 molecule and its interaction with 13 to 18µn; LWIR that would support the “steps” you see in the temperature chart. The “Steps” correspond to El Ninos, which are unrelated to CO2.
13 to 18µ
From 1979/01-2021/02 the SP500 stock market index trend is 627/decade +/- 12.
I did a 10y rolling linear regression on this data. 25% of the monthly values were accompanied by a trailing 10y regression with a negative slope.
Does that invalid the long term trend of the index?
Did people’s portfolio’s not gain value?
Should people stop investing in stocks?
bdgwx, you may have stumbled upon something there. I bet if you run a regression of CO2 vs the Stock Market and Co2 vs Temperatures, you will get a far higher R-Squared with the Stock Market than Temperatures. In other words, you have more evidence that CO2 causes the stock market to go higher than you do that CO2 causes temperatures to go higher.
There will undoubtedly be a correlation there. But correlation does not imply causation. I will say that it is pretty easy hypothesize why the correlation exists. Energy is required to build wealth. Burning fossil fuels is one method of providing energy. CO2 is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels.
25% of the monthly values followed by a 10yr negative slope?
And yet the overall trend is up.
I wonder if CO2IL will
1) Understand the point
2) Respond directly to it
Climate and stock market is apples and oranges.
Can not contrast them.
Things are all in place for cooling finally and I expect and reversal in the trend.
I actually like analogy because of the similarities. They exhibit lots of short term variation yet both have a positive long term trend. But at the end of the day they are both just time series in which you can run any number statistic methods to analyze them. The stock market’s long term positive trend is no more or less misleading than the global mean temperature’s long term positive trend.
cor – a reversal in the trend.
When ? any time .
Ah ha! Salvatore (aka the kiss of death) is getting excited again. Lets put him to the test and ask him some simple questions. What is the probability that:
the UAH value for March will be greater than that for February? (i.e. looking ahead 1 month)
the UAH value for August will be greater than that for February? (i.e. looking ahead 6 months)
the UAH value for February 2022 will be greater than that for February 2021? (i.e. looking ahead 12 months)
Given that he expects a cooling trend to take over, logically, he should expect the probabilities for continuing warming to be low – and getting even lower.
I would expect the overdue cooling trend to favour values less than February.
1 month ahead about 60% chance of cooler
6 months ahead about 75% chance of cooler
12 months ahead about 90% chance of cooler
You can bet on it.
Off-topic
I have long thought the AMO might not be a real phenomenon.
Now the scientists who ‘discovered’ it think it might not actually exist.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation/
There are various reasons I’ve doubted it is real – a lack of mechanism/s, the fact it is detected purely via modeling, but mostly from an inline comment by Grant Foster some years ago, when a preliminary analysis, he said, suggested global temps don’t lag AMO, but rather alias them.
The discussion on it isn’t over yet, and one paper very rarely is deterministic, but I would not be surprised if the AMO is eventually dropped.
Amending: the scientist that coined the term now thinks the AMO probably doesn’t exist.
Adding visuals…
https://tinyurl.com/yd5rtrrk
barry…get serious, realclimate is an alarmists site full of buffoons misrepresenting science. The site is about climate model theory and other pseudo-science dreamed up by Pierrehumbert.
If you had read the article you would know that it cautions against over-reliance on models.
You have a 2-dimensional take on these issues.
barry
In addition, please do not forget that even if it really exists, 90 % of the people referring to AMO use its ‘detrended’ variant when comparing it to temperatures.
That is nonsense.
The detrended variant has only one purpose: to demonstrate that AMO has a cyclic kernel.
To compare AMO with temperatures, you have to use the ‘undetrended’ variant:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wdF3gWcSwzxOLOFm5qHeR6VTBaD4XjKn/view
J.-P. D.
Yes, like the PDO and ENSO the AMO is detrended.
I’m curious why you say it is nonsense to use the final version of the data?
The detrended version is the AMO, an oscillating system by definition.
The version with the trend is basically North Atlantic SSTs, or some portion of the Atlantic. At least one version of the index attempts to remove any ENSO signal from the data, as well as detrending the SSTs.
barry
Using the detrended variant is nonsense (or better: incorrect) when comparing it with temperatures/i> because most people misunderstand or misrepresent it in order to show that the future soon will become cooler.
In the graph above, replacing ‘undetrended’ by ‘detrended’ lets AMO’s peak stay around 40 %, and thus unduly appear as a precursor of temperature decrease.
J.-P. D.
Ok.
SUGGESTION: I really wish Roy Spencer would do an article on the droughts in the West. Perhaps he already has. If so, could someone direct me to it?
California has now entered its third major drought since the dawn of the new millennium. Of course, the “scientific experts” attribute it all to “global warming” and “climate change”. But, is it really or is there some other cause?
I’d be really interested to hear what Professor Spencer has to say about this.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
“Of course, the ‘scientific experts’ attribute it all to ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’.”
The actual scientific experts will tell you that no single weather event can be completely attributed to climate change or global warming. What they say is that such events become more likely with climate change.
Of course the are ‘other causes’. We don’t get heatwaves because of global warming. But if the background temps are warmer, it’s reasonable to contend that heatwaves will be more severe in general.
You need to show your evidence that events are more likely and occurring due to climate change.
Why do I need to do this? I’m reporting what scientific experts say. A great many comments here are about correcting faulty premises. Go look up the science yourself!
Fred,
If you look at the history of the West, you will see a history of droughts and megadroughts. There is a professor in California who has published research. It isn’t difficult to find.
Yeah. It is pretty easy to find and well known. I think it serves a testament that even small perturbations in the global climate can have large regional effects. Like the LIA and MWP the drought history in the southwest US are good examples of this.
Maybe it is just a testament to the variability that has been since time began?
The US drought doesn’t even scratch the surface though. On a global scale the Earth has had snowball periods, hothouse periods, a couple million years of glacial advances and declines, numerous rapid warming events like the PETM, and the list goes on and on. Imagine the magnitude of changes that would have ensued on a regional scale from all of that. Given a big enough nudge both global and regional climates can shift dramatically and often quickly.
Fred M. Cain
I don’t live in CONUS, and know nothing about droughts. Maybe some pics below might be helpful.
Here is a chart showing droughts from 1900 till 2017 in CONUS:
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/drought-timeseres.png
We immediately see that for CONUS, there is no visible link between temperature maxima and drought period accumulation:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGV5LfKw_lFKNdZMlq15ZHz6sA1CA294/view
But of course, this is valid for CONUS only, the temperature maxima series for the Globe below looks quite different:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFdltVVFSyDLPM4ftZUCEl33GmjJnasT/view
J.-P. D.
1934 and 1936 in the US still have the highest Summertime maximum temperature (but not highest minima) in the US record. That correlates with the highest drought peak on the index you graphed, Bindidon. It also coincides with the lowest Summer precipitation on record in 1934. A perfect ‘storm’ for drought.
https://tinyurl.com/ydegfmx4
https://tinyurl.com/ybzuk7eg
It’s suggestive, but not conclusive, of course.
There is another cause: change in rainfall pattern. Given the strong El Nino and La Nina effects recently, it stands to reason there is going to be changes to climate. Whether those changes are lasting or of short duration there is no way to tell.
Ken
I agree.
J.-P. D.
5 out of 7 of the UAH data sets show flat to negative warming:
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
How can the majority of the earth be flat to cooling, and the overall Global Graphic shows warming? Shouldn’t the oceans have a much higher weight in the composite than the Land Area for various reasons?
From left to right in table posted on this blog…
+0.20 – Globe covers 100% of Earth.
+0.32 – NH covers 50% of Earth.
+0.08 – SH covers 50% of Earth.
-0.14 – Tropics cover 20S to 20N or 34% of Earth.
-0.66 – USA48 covers 1.6% of the Earth.
+0.07 – Arctic covers 60N to 90N or 13.4% of Earth.
-0.27 – Australia covers 0.6% of the Earth.
Listed in the linked file as well…
+0.21 – SoExt covers 20S to 90S or 33% of Earth.
+0.54 – NoExt covers 20N to 90N or 33% of Earth
+0.14 – SH ocean covers 40% of Earth
+0.34 – NH ocean covers 30% of Earth
Note that many of these areas overlap.
As you can see the majority of Earth has positive anomalies. The -0.14 from the tropics accounts for only 34% of Earth. The remaining 66% was (0.21 + 0.54) / 2 = 0.38. And 0.34 * -0.14 + 0.66 * 0.38 = 0.20.
Also keep in mind here that these are monthly anomalies for a single month so statements about warming or cooling cannot be assessed. In other words positive/negative values do not necessarily imply warming/cooling.
The majority of the earth is NOT cooling (by which you actually mean “an anomaly below zero”, not “cooler than last month” or last year, etc.) The majority of the earth IS above average.
The “data sets” (monthly anomalies) you listed are:
0.20 Global
0.32 Northern HEM
0.08 Sothern HEM.
-0.14 TROPIC
-0.66 USA48
0.07 ARCTIC
-0.27 AUST
The first is the global average. This is definitely “a majority of the earth” and it is above average.
The next two are the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere. Ie the entire globe again! The average of these is simply the same global average is the first number.
The remaining 4 numbers are specific regions. Other than “Tropics” these are relatively small parts of the globe that together do not form a majority of the global. The fact the 3 out of 4 specific regions are cool does not contradict that the globe as whole can be above average.
CO2isLife
” 5 out of 7 of the UAH data sets show flat to negative warming… ”
The problem with people like you, CO2isLife, is that you do not have any REAL knowledge of what you are talking about.
1. How is it possible to draw conclusions out of a single month?
Temperatures go up and down and up and down! And this is the reason why everybody considers longer periods, and not single values.
*
2. How can a person like you, totally ignoring how the UAH anomalies are constructed by the team responsible for them, pretend such a complete nonsense?
The UAH anomalies Roy Spencer shows above, like he does every month, are a tiny subset of all what you can see — but only IF you know where to find the whole.
And manifestly, though it is trivial to become aware of them, you still did not manage to look a the source you need, which is a few lines below:
https://tinyurl.com/b84c2eyx
(tinyURL’d because of the ‘d c’ problem)
There you see 27 (yeah: tẃenty seven) columns.
24 of them are ‘land+ocean’, ‘land-only’ and ‘ocean-only’ averages for 8 latitudinal zones:
Globe, NH, SH, Tropics, NH Extratropics, SH Extratropics, Arctic 60N-82.5N (NoPol), Antarctic 60S-82.5S (SoPol).
The remaining 3 are CONUS, CONUS+Alaska, and Australia.
*
” Shouldn’t the oceans have a much higher weight in the composite than the Land Area for various reasons? ”
3. Do you REALLY think that you need to teach the UAH team, beginning with Roy Spencer himself, how they have to construct global averages out of land and oceans?
Look at UAH’s gridded anomaly data for LT, the Lower Troposphere (the data for the three other atmospheric layers: MT, TP, LS are organized in the same way):
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
There you see all the years since 1978, in the anomaly files tltmonamg.1978_6.0 till tltmonamg.2021_6.0.
Each file consists of 12 monthly data grids (72 latitude rows, 144 longitude columns) representing the whole Globe at a 2.5 degree resolution.
Thus, by separating latitude bands into groups and applying a land mask over the groups, UAH obtains what you see in the summary file I linked to above.
Everybody having written the software needed to do can, in addition to that, generate time series for quite different subsets of the grid, e.g. NINO3+4 aka 5S-5N — 170W-120W.
The file ‘tltmonacg_6.0’ has the same format as the anomaly files, but contains the climatology data for the reference period, here 1991-2020; that data one uses to reconstruct absolute data out of the anomalies.
*
And you come here, and feel the need to explain UAH how to do the job?
Oh dear.
Your view over the UAH world perfectly reminds me how you look at surface data…
Weiter so!
J.-P. D.
Bindy Says: The problem with people like you, CO2isLife, is that you do not have any REAL knowledge of what you are talking about.
1. How is it possible to draw conclusions out of a single month?
Really? CO2 is claimed to “trap” heat. CO2 doesn’t decrease, so that idiotic theory doesn’t allow for cooling. Those measurements aren’t 1 month values, they are relative to the long-run average, and that means that the current month is below the long-run average. CO2 has increased over that time period. How does a monthly average fall below a long-run average when CO2 has increased?
Weather. For CO2 increasing global climate temperature, watch the black line at 0 move in the top post.
CO2isLife
How many decades do you intend to keep on this simple-minded stuff?
That increasing CO2 automatically implies that temperatures have to go up everywhere: that is your simple-minded idea.
CO2 is nearly uniformly distributed, especially above the Tropopause.
But dozens of other factors – e.g. inhomogeneous land/water distribution, huge differences between the Globe’s hemispheres, volcanic effects, clouds, thermohaline circulation, etc etc – compete with CO2.
How is it possible to ignore all that, and to stay for all times on the knowledge of an 8 year old child?
You are terrifyingly boring.
Why don’t you start to learn, instead of endlessly writing you simple views, like do four or five Ignoramuses religiously pretending against all odds that the Moon can’t rotate about an internal axis?
J.-P. D.
CO2isLife said: How does a monthly average fall below a long-run average when CO2 has increased?
Same answer as before. CO2 is not the only thing modulating the atmospheric temperature. If there is something you do not understand about this statement then please ask questions.
“5 out of 7 of the UAH data sets show flat to negative warming”
When you say ‘warming’, you are suggesting a trend over time, not a monthly anomaly. Yet you are basing your POV on a single month.
Last month the baseline for the UAH data set was changed. This turned some previous months that were positive anomalies into negative anomalies, eg in 2018. Have a look.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2020_v6.jpg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2021_v6.jpg
Was 2018 ‘warming’ when Roy posted the December update with the old baseline and all positive anomalies? And are those 2018 months under the line now ‘cooling’ just because the baseline has been shifted up?
I hope you see how meaningless it is to claim warming or cooling based on a single month, or whether an anomaly is negative or positive.
So let’s now look at the long term trends for those regions you say are ‘cooling’.
Tropics trend : 0.13 C/decade
USA48 trend : 0.17 C/decade
Australia trend : 0.19 C/decade
There is exactly one area with a negative trend over time in the UAH record.
Antarctic ocean : -0.02 C/decade
You keep making the same mistakes.
You keep thinking that monthly temperatures should not go up and down if the world is warming. This is just stupid. On short scales other drivers of global temperature have more power than the slow drivers like orbital variation over thousands of years or greenhouse warming over decades.
Do you imagine that as we headed into and out of ice ages that the global surface temperature monotonically rose or fell year by year?
It would seem so, because you appear to believe that the change must be monotonic – year on year in the same direction – or else it’s not happening.
Do you have any investments in shares? Do you freak out when your portfolio dives for a day?
The other mistake you make is to think the whether an anomaly is positive or negative means a hill of beans.
You could raise the baseline by 1000 C and it would still not make a jot of difference to the relative position of the anomalies, nor the trends derived therof. I could arbitrarily lower the baseline by 10C and hey presto! Now every month is ‘warming’! But nothing material has actually changed.
The baseline is arbitrary. And so is the notion that any single month tells you whether in the real world the globe is warming or cooling.
You can get the trends for all regions UAH publishes at this link.
https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo
Scroll down and see the decadal trend for all regions on the one page.
Also, if you’re going to look at such tiny slices of time, did you notice that Australia was at 0.52 C anomaly for January, so the February anomaly is warmer?
It’s still daft to talk about climate change on the scale of single month changes, but as there are half a dozen ways to pick apart what you said, might as well bring em to light.
A minus sign went missing.
Australia Jan : -0.52
Australia Feb : -0.27
So you post the Australia February anomaly with a minus sign and say there is no warming, but February was warmer than January.
?!
The moon rotates around its own axis and exactly as fast as it rotates around the earth. This is called coupled rotation. To put it more simply: The moon rotates around itself exactly once in a lunar month.(I could not resist:)
You’ll make a good cult member, marty.
marty
You will soon be crucified by one or more keepers of the Holy Truth.
J.-P. D.
Yeah.
The most stubborn of them was quicker!
Bindidon, you forgot your usual “Oh Noes”.
You can’t forget things like that, if you’re trying to be an intellectual.
Thank you for your support! I see there are people here with a sense of humor
The moon debate is settled it does not rotate on its own axis.
Who are you trying sell this BS to?
Whoops, WordPress left out the hyphen:
The moon debate is settled – it does not rotate on its own axis.
And its still BS. And who are you trying to sell it to? There are no buyers.
So, just to reiterate, for no particular reason:
The moon debate is settled – it does not rotate on its own axis.
True, there is no good reason. Nobody is buying this declared BS.
Once again:
The moon debate is settled it does not rotate on its own axis.
…as observed from DREMT’s location in the accelerated frame.
Stupid WordPress:
The moon debate is settled – it does not rotate on its own axis.
…as observed from the accelerated frame.
And again:
The moon debate is settled it does not rotate on its own axis.
bdgwx Says: There will undoubtedly be a correlation there. But correlation does not imply causation.
Ah, and that is the problem. You do need a correlation to prove causation however and you don’t have a correlation between CO2 and Temperatures. Correlation doesn’t prove causations, but causation does need correlation. CO2 and Temperatures don’t have the basics.
The amount of CO2 ppm added during the black line period causing climactic temperature increase in theory is the same as the global temperature actually moved up the black line.
Ball4 says: The amount of CO2 ppm added during the black line period causing climactic temperature increase in theory is the same as the global temperature actually moved up the black line.
Nice try. Take the 800,000 year Vostoc Ice Core Data, or the Greenland Holocene Ice Core Data, or the 600 million year geological record and you will find no correlation where CO2 leads Temperatures. You identify a 100 year period using “adjusted” data that matches. That is a complete joke, especially given CO2 has been rather linear, and temperatures have not.
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/temp-and-co2.gif
BTW, to prove how insane this Climate Science is, they are adjusting the Global Temp to match CO2. You get one R-Squared for CO2 vs Temp using the Global, another for the Sea, another for the Land, another for the S Hemi, another for the N Hemi, and another for the N and S Pole, and they all claim to be due to CO2. The correlation is wildly different depending on what Temp Data Set you choose. Newsflash, CO2 doesn’t cause the temperature differential between land and sea, N and S Hemi. Start looking for something else that could be causing it. That is how real science works.
“they are adjusting the Global Temp to match CO2.”
As does nature for the black climate line through 0 in the top post.
Correlation looks pretty good to me:
https://tinyurl.com/y9rqblrr
What’s your issue with this CO2IL?
barry says: Correlation looks pretty good to me:
Really, a if someone turned that into me and made that claim I would give them a F- Why?
1) Cherry Picked Time Period
2) Cherry Picke Temperature Graphic
3) The ΔCO2 and ΔW/M^2 is linear and doesn’t support the relationship the graphic implies
4)The correlation breaks down when applied to longer time periods, and differs greatly because there is no accepted Temperature Graphic (I would say Sea is a far better Temp to use if you want to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures, or Desert Locations)
5) It is an underspecified model that leaves out other factors that are causing the warming, and implies the CO2 is the cause
6) It shows no original, creative, or insightful understanding, and simply repeats the lies of the financially and politically conflicted “experts.”
7) Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick shows a Dog-Leg which disproves the CO2 Temp relationship. Nothing about CO2 changed in 1902 to cause a Dog-Leg
8) The oceans have been warming over that time period, so the real relationship is most likely that Temp leads CO2, a theory supported by Henry’s Law.
Once again, settle sciences don’t allow you to cherry pick conflicting data sets to make completely contradictory conclusions.
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/temp-and-co2.gif
“most likely that Temp leads CO2”
So the global temperature goes up today knowing John Kerry is going to make another private plane trip to Iceland tomorrow.
The R^2 of CO2 and OHC is 0.984.
My source for CO2 is ESRL. https://tinyurl.com/2s2zjjr8
My source for OHC is Cheng et al. 2020. https://tinyurl.com/3sboqkgt
I don’t know, you tell me. Is 0.98 the same thing 0.00? Is 0.98 good or bad?
bdgwx, I’m not sure you understand what you did there. You just proved Henry’s Law. Warm water and you degas CO2. You are right, and you just proved that Henry’s Law is easy to demonstrate in a Lab or Natural Setting.
So, what have we established with your outstanding research?
1) Warm Water and it degasses CO2
2) Henry’s Law is easy to demonstrate through Experimentation
3) The Oceans clearly determine/regulate atmospheric CO2 levels
4) What warms the Oceans controls Atmpshieric CO2 levels
5) Visible Radiation warms the oceans, LWIR between 13 and 18µ does not
6) CO2 lags Ocean Temperatures
Bravo, great research bdgwx, we just proved Henry’s Law, and how Temperature drives CO2 not vise versa. Haven’t I been saying that all along? Thanks for proving me right once again bdgwx, bravo.
The ocean is a net sink of carbon right now. It is gaining carbon mass; not losing it.
bdgwx says: The ocean is a net sink of carbon right now. It is gaining carbon mass; not losing it.
And you know that how? Do you have pH levels for the entire ocean surface and deep? There is absolutely no way you can make that comments because the data to support such a claim simply doesn’t exist. BTW, have we had more Algae Blooms? With more CO2 in the oceans, you would expect a lot more Algae.
Doesn’t look like it:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MY1DMM_CHLORA
BTW, because CO2 only changes gradually, the swings in algae could be a metric for the solar radiation reaching the oceans. Algae blooms need a lot of sunlight. Sunlight is what feeds algae. Has anyone ever tied algae blooms to global warming?
Yes. pH is one line of evidence. There are others. And yes, I can make that comment because it is supported by the abundance evidence. For a brief introduction to the available evidence and relevant literature I recommend IPCC AR5 WRI chapter 3. There is an extensive bibliography at the end that you can use to drill down into the details. It is an established fact. The oceans are gaining carbon mass. This is not controversial or challenged even by the most vocal “skeptics”.
C14 levels in the deep ocean are another.
I often wonder about end points in climate graphs and why 1979 seems to be a forever anchor. Wouldn’t a point that is not from the end of the 1970s ice age scare be more appropriate? I understand it has to do with start of the satellite record but we’ve had thermometers far longer than that.
1979 is the first year of the satellite global temperature record. It’s not a choice, it’s because the quality data starts then.
Land surface records go back further, some data sets beginning in 1880, others in 1850, and one a bit earlier. The thermometer record gets sparser and sparser the further back you go, and various compilers of these data determine a cut-off where they believe there is not enough coverage of the Earth to reasonably estimate an average global temperature.
To add – the satellite record estimates the temperature of a deep swathe of the atmosphere from the ground to 12 km in height, with the weighting strongest at about 3 kilometers in height.
The surface records are of temps at 2 meters above the ground for land, and at the sea surface over the oceans.
They measure very different quantities, so they generally don’t get spiced together. There’s no need to anyway, when you can just use the land surface records if you want to go back further than 1979.
Very good question dp
There has been global warming since the mid-1970s
So using 1979 as a starting point for a trend makes global warming seem steeper than starting at a much earlier year.
That year can be disputed, because accurate CO2 measurements did not begin until 1958.
I would suggest the ramp up of CO2 levels started after 1932, after the trough of the 1929 Recession.
In the US, for example, Real GDP increased about 40 percent from 1932 through 1935 — that had to increase CO2 emissions.
Other people might choose 1940, because there was also economic weakness in the late 1930s.
And other people might choose 1950, after which there is agreement that CO2 levels began increasing at a faster rate than in earlier decades.
Whatever year is chosen as a starting point for charting CO2 and global average temperature, the optimum start year would not be 1979. CO2 levels were ramping up long before 1979.
There are temperature data before 1979 — they may not be UAH, and they may not have very good global coverage, but they do exist.
dp, if you want your head to explode, take a look at how they created the Hockeystick Graph. Also, what about the physics of the CO2 molecule changed in 1902? The further you go down that Rabbit Hole, the more convinced you will be that there are real serious problems with this “settled” science.
dp said: the 1970s ice age scare
Peterson 2008: The Myth of the 1970’s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Question:
A new reference period has been introduced. What is the difference in average temperature between the old and the new reference period? So you could convert the values of one into the other.
Sorry I don’t know how these signs () got into the text.
marty
This blog has a really antiquated text processing. It either does not accept UTF-8 characters or misrepresents them.
Sometimes I recall that before posting, and copy my text into the top window of
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
and paste the result into the blog’s editor:
Characters like " ä ö ü ± "
If I don’t do that, it looks like this:
” ”
J.-P. D.
marty
You have to change monthly anomalies belonging to different reference periods by their monthly difference.
Here they are:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-607050
Rgds
J.-P. D.
As I understand it, an anomaly is always indicated by a base value. So it doesn’t matter whether I give a value from the average of 1881-1901 or 2001-2021. The ratio to the reference value is decisive. So there is also a single value by which all old values change when I introduce a new reference period. (apart from a few rounding differences)
marty
” So there is also a single value by which all old values change when I introduce a new reference period. ”
If you were right, I wouldn’t have had to display a 12 month vector.
barry explained it perfectly.
Here are the 12 month baselines for 1981-2010 resp. 1991-2020 (in K):
Jan: 263.04 263.18
Feb: 263.11 263.27
Mar: 263.30 263.43
Apr: 263.72 263.84
May: 264.32 264.45
Jun: 264.97 265.10
Jul: 265.29 265.42
Aug: 265.11 265.23
Sep: 264.47 264.64
Oct: 263.78 263.94
Nov: 263.27 263.40
Dec: 263.07 263.19
These baselines are valid for the Globe only.
J.-P. D.
The 30-year baseline is calculated for each month separately.
30 years of Januaries are averaged, and 30 years of Februaries, etc. That average becomes the zero line (baseline) for each month.
When you change the period, it is almost certain that the difference between these monthly averages will change.
Bindidon went to the trouble (as did some others) of figuring out what those differences were per month.
When it comes to changes in long-term trends because of these differences…. they are very, very negligible – on the order of tens of thousandths of a degree per decade.
Ok, so each month has its own offset. It makes it difficult to calculate.
Correct. Each month has its own offset.
To highlight the problem Climate Science Faces, NASA GISS produces all the data for those who actually understand the meaning of graphics to disprove the CO2 drives Temperature Theory.
NASA GISS Produces:
1) Land and Sea Temperature Charts
2) N & S Hemi Graphics
3) Latitude Band Graphics
4) Global Graphics
5) US Graphics
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
Every one of those graphics represents temperatures from areas with identical CO2 meaning that CO2 can’t be causing the temperature differential. That is problem #1. Now, if I take CO2 and run a regression against each one of those wildly different temperature graphics I get wildly different correlations. What does that mean? It means you have an underspecified model that does not include the variables that are actually causing the warming. Take any of this Climate Science over to the economics/econometrics departments and you will be laughed out of the building. Climate Science is only considered a real science in the Climate Science Building. Unfortunatly, that building funds all other departments because that is where all the Federal Funding is going, so all the other Departments remain silent because they fear getting canceled. McCarthism Rules the campuses these days, and because of that Climate Science can’t be trusted, and will be a black mark on the history of Science.
You’ve been saying the same thing and learning nothing for months here.
The Earth is not a smooth, featureless billiard ball.
Land air temps change faster than sea surface temps because the heat capacity of water is much greater than that of air.
The Northern Hemisphere has twice the landmass of the Southern Hemisphere.
The tropics have far more humidity than the poles.
The ice in the South pole is perennial and on land. The ice at the North pole fluctuates considerably, and much of it floats on water.
Some places have a higher elevation than others.
There are different concentrations of atmospheric gases in the stratosphere at the South Pole than over the tropics (eg, much more ozone).
Ocean currents are not uniform around the world. Cold bottom waters rise in certain places, not everywhere.
Some places are arid, others humid, with differing topographies.
The land is moist in some areas and dry in others.
All these differences have impacts on local temperatures.
All this means that globally averaged changes are not represented uniformly everywhere. A warming or cooling globe will not warm or cool at the same rate everywhere. It never has, regardless if the cause is orbital varioation, volcanic dimming, or changes in solar output.
How can you not know this by now? How is it not obvious to you?
Why are you making this fundamental mistake over and over again?
Barry Says:
The Earth is not a smooth, featureless billiard ball.
Barry, Barry, Barry, the physics of the CO2 molecule does not change depending upon the shape of the earth. That is by far one of the most bizzar statements I’ve ever read.
Land air temps change faster than sea surface temps because the heat capacity of water is much greater than that of air.
Barry, Barry, Barry, the ΔW/M^2 is pretty constant, in fact it is constant for CO2. You seem to be missing the point. CO2 doesn’t cause land to cool faster than Water, CO2 doesn’t cause Cities to Trap heat. Warming you claim is due to CO2 is due to factors clearly other than CO2, you just pointed that out. Why use Global Temperaurtes to prove warming when you just proved it isn’t due to CO2?
The Northern Hemisphere has twice the landmass of the Southern Hemisphere.
The tropics have far more humidity than the poles.
Barry, Barry, Barry, all locations have 415 CO2, all locations have the back radiation W/M^2 associated with 415 CO2. You don’t seem to understand how Controled Scientific Experiments are actually designed and run. The differences you are identifying are exposed to identical CO2 related W/M^2. CO2 can’t cause that change. Note, the temperature I’m mentioning are normalized and put in reference to an average, not the absolute temperature.
There are different concentrations of atmospheric gases in the stratosphere at the South Pole than over the tropics (eg, much more ozone).
Barry, Barry, Barry, Ozone at the surface? Only in the areas corrupted by the UHI, which I’ve said should already be removed. Facts are, Deserts and Oceans are nearly ideal controls for the UHI, and Deserts for Water Vapor. Guess what? Oceans and Deserts show very little to no warming. The oceans are warming, CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ won’t warm water.
All this means that globally averaged changes are not represented uniformly everywhere. A warming or cooling globe will not warm or cool at the same rate everywhere. It never has, regardless if the cause is orbital varioation, volcanic dimming, or changes in solar output.
Barry, Barry, Barry, but CO2 is constant, and you are blaming the warming on CO2. You want to spend trillions of dollars to fix something that isn’t broken, and the fix actually breaks things. I don’t see children dying drilling for oil like I see them mining for RARE earth elements. Rare earth mining pollutes far far far more than oil production.
“LWIR between 13 and 18 won’t warm water.”
Dr. Spencer experimentally proved the opposite, to a tap water depth of several inches.
Ball4 Says:“LWIR between 13 and 18 won’t warm water.”
Dr. Spencer experimentally proved the opposite, to a tap water depth of several inches.
Not to disagree with Dr. Spencer, but I’m actually running that experiment myself. To do it:
1) I’ve purchased Long Pass IR Filter to isolate the CO2 13 to 18µ LWIR
2) We will have 2 IR Transparent containers
3) We will place the containers of H20 in a dark room, sheltered from visible radiation
4) One container of H20 will be exposed to normal backradiation and normal backradiaition with additional 13 to 18µ LWIR applied through the Longpass IR FIlter
I don’t believe Dr. Spencers controlled for all the other IR wavelengths. I’m isolating the 13 to 18µ LWIR
We are also applying that 13 to 18µ LWIR to verify that it will cause faster sublimation of dry ice, but will not cause a faster melting of ice. We are also going to fill an IR transparent balloon with CO2 and apply additional IR to one but not the other.
I’ll publish the findings once we get them.
BTW, simply look at these videos NASA produces. They ddn’t even try to tie CO2 to temperatures, but temperatures surely follow clouds, water vapor and other. Once again, NASA was smart enough not to publish a CO2 video. Why? Because CO2 would basically be constant and everything else changes.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MODAL2_M_CLD_FR/CERES_NETFLUX_M
Be sure to show your calculation of results vs. controlled test to prove you understand the physics as did Dr. Spencer whose test was illuminated by added IR from icy cirrus cloud overnight.
“A cooling atmosphere does NOT mean that energy/heat left the planet. It just means that it left the atmosphere. It could have transferred into the ocean, land, or ice as well.”
Heat does not transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface..
If it did the 2LoT would be falsified…
Energy and Heat are slightly different.
Heat is not transferred from the atmosphere to the surface, unless it is warmer than the surface, which it is on occasion, but energy is definitely transferred from the atmosphere to the surface.
And for those who are interested, there are more things heating the atmosphere than just the radiation from the surface.
So no, the second law is not falsified.
Heat can transfer from a warm atmosphere to a cooler ocean, land, or ice. A cooling atmosphere could result from heat transferring into one of these other heat reservoirs. Land, ocean, and ice can all be cooler than the atmosphere. No violation of the 2LOT here.
DREMT has already mentioned all of the things wrong with the “plates” nonsense. He’s pointed out the violations of physics. As usual, the idiots are then reduced to senseless babbling.
But another way to show them wrong is to accept their bogus solution. Then, as with the “steel greenhouse”, if we use Earth values their nonsense blows up in their faces.
So, in the 2-plate scenario, insulate one side of the blue plate. Now, using their own calculations, for the green plate to emit 240 W/m^2, the blue plate must be at 303 K, emitting 480 W/m^2.
But Earth is only at 288 K. They have proved CO2 cools the planet!
Pretty Undeniable Evidence of Fraud, and it validates many of my claims in the Past. This is how I would use this data from NASA in a court of law to prove they are compliment in a fraud: Computers and Data won’t lie, and NASA provides it:
These are the correlations between CO2 and Temp. I’ve made many comments about the Adjustments making Temp more linear so it better fits CO2. NASA’s focus is on the Global, and guess what, it has a near perfect 0.897 since 1880. Why is that a problem? The sum is greater than its parts, and that doesn’t happen with regressions. If I take a data set with an RSQ of 90 and RSQ of 40, I’ll never get an RSQ of > 90 is using a relatively random data set. (yes, I could mathematically develop 2 data sets that combined to a single data set with an RSQ or 1, but that won’t happen in normal data sets). You can observe this by taking the average of the N and S 90-64. The RSQ falls between the two. The other averages elevate RSQ. That is really odd, and smells of manipulation.
Problems with this data:
1) Global is a composite of the other data sets, if not, we have real problems.
2) Sum is greater than its parts, ie, Global has the highest RSQ
3) Best control for CO2 is 90S to 64S, and that shows no relationship with CO2, ie 0.18.
4) Note the N vs. S 90-64, you get 0.65 vs. 0.18, both have identical CO2
5) Take the RSQ between N vs. S 90-64 and you get 0.69886511, a level between the parts. That doesn’t happen with the others. The RSQ increases with the average. That smells of manipulation.
6) There are linear calculations, and ΔCO2 isn’t linearly related to ΔW/M^2, and it is W/M^2 related to Temp, not CO2.
7) Most of these RSQs are rather low, 0.72, 0.79, 0.71, 0.58, 0.65, and 0.18. This is the data that supports a “settled” science? An RSQ of 1.0 is required for a “settled” science. These numbers aren’t even close, and they require adjusted data and a relationship that isn’t supported by the physics of the CO2 molecule.
Glob 0.897206908
NHem 0.862160512
SHem 0.836729928
24N-90N 0.838420511
24S-24N 0.729269287
90S-24S 0.81035019
64N-90N 0.650217226
44N-64N 0.794359641
24N-44N 0.814572742
EQU-24N 0.719773063
24S-EQU 0.712461308
44S-24S 0.852195834
64S-44S 0.582259483
90S-64S 0.183033118
CO2 1
Ball4 says:
March 6, 2021 at 11:20 AM
Be sure to show your calculation of results vs. controlled test to prove you understand the physics as did Dr. Spencer whose test was illuminated by added IR from icy cirrus cloud overnight
Every University on the face of the earth has access to Plexiglass and LongPass IR Filters, yet no one can point me to any University that has run these very very simple experiments. Why? Climate Science rushed to an immediate conclusion without even bothering to prove that IR back radiation due to CO2 can warm H20. Once again, the only defined mechanism by which CO2 affects climate change is through the thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR.
People Climate Science apparently have never taken an elementary school lesson in designing controlled experiments. In 1st Grade we did the sunlight on the bean plant experiment, but Climate Scientists must have all missed that lesson.
http://peabody.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/education/Global%20Warming%20In%20A%20Jar.pdf
Ball4 Says: Perhaps you have heard of the greenhouse effect. In a greenhouse, short-wave radiation from
sunlight passes freely through the glass and is converted to long-wave radiation inside. But the
long-wave radiation cannot pass back out through the glass. The result is a build-up of heat
inside the greenhouse from the captured solar energy
You clearly don’t understand a controlled experiment, and apparently, neither does Yale University. If this is the kind of experimentation they do to prove their point, we are in serious trouble. Newsflash, glass absorbs and thermalizes IR Radiation. That is specifically why I stated to use Plexiglass and LongPass IR Filters. I am truly getting frightened reading these blog posts. Our science education must really be 3rd World quality. Even Yale doesn’t have a clue.
What relevant variable do you think Yale University leaves uncontrolled in the experiment? Hint: There is one control and one experimental variable.
CO2isLife said: yet no one can point me to any University that has run these very very simple experiments. Why?
You didn’t look very hard. Actually based on how easy it was to do a Google Scholar search and the nearly countless number of experiments quantifying water’s behavior in respond to infrared (among other wavelengths) radiation that I was able to find in a matter of minutes I’d say it is more likely you didn’t even bother to search at all. Be honest. Am I right?
bdgwx, see my post addressing the “experiment” Ball4 identified. What a joke. It highlights a level of scientific ignorance at Yale that is hard to believe. I really think to get a degree is climate science you have to be completely ignorant of the scientific method.
CO2isLife should answer the question asked by bdgwx.
bdgwx says: You didnt look very hard. Actually based on how easy it was to do a Google Scholar search and the nearly countless number of experiments quantifying waters behavior in respond to infrared
Water vapor absorbs much of the LWIR spectrum, far far far more of the LWIR than CO2 does. Point? LWIR doesn’t penetrate and warm water. Do you have any experiments that shows that 13 to 18µ does? Nope.
CO2isLife said: LWIR doesn’t penetrate and warm water. Do you have any experiments that shows that 13 to 18µ does?
13-18 um or any infrared radiation cannot penetrate water with any significant depth. That is the whole point. Water so greedily takes up the energy that nearly 100% of it is absorbed right on the skin. This is why infrared lamps are used ubiquitously in the food and restaurant industry to keep food warm. You can do the experiment yourself and easily prove that IR will warm water. And for the microphysics regarding how DWIR warms the ocean I’ll refer to this publication.
https://tinyurl.com/yuuub55n
One more example that idiot bdgwx has no understanding of the issues: “This is why infrared lamps are used ubiquitously in the food and restaurant industry to keep food warm.”
Infrared heaters emit photons with a much higher energy range than does CO2, idiot bdgwx. Put your hand close to such a heater. Touch it. You might learn something. Not all photons are the same, idiot.
Again, you present a “paper” full of nonsense. The first word of the abstract indicates “no science, none of the time”:
“Ocean warming trends are observed and coincide with the increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities.”
They automatically assume CO2 is warming the oceans, rather than understanding the reality. The warmer oceans are outgassing more CO2.
You can’t learn any science because you’re addicted to your cult beliefs.
“Heat is not transferred from the atmosphere to the surface, unless it is warmer than the surface,”
Thank you bob for agreeing..
I agree with you too. Heat can only transfer from a warmer body to a cooler body. There are lots of these temperature differentials especially on smaller spatial and temporal scales where heat is being transferred between land, ocean, ice, and air. These heat transfer processes ebb and flow. This is why it is best to totalize the change in heat/energy in all reservoirs to quantify the Earth energy imbalance.
I agree with you too. Heat can only transfer from a warmer body to a cooler body.
I think everyone is missing the point on this one. CO2 thermalizes 13 to 18µ LWIR. It isn’t transferring heat from hot to cold, it is converting EM Radiation to Thermalization. 13 to 18µ LWIR is consistent with -80C° Blackbody. That is why the atmosphere doesn’t fall below -80C° CO2 thermalizes the outgoing 13 to 18µ LWIR and puts in a temperature floor in the Stratosphere. What CO2 won’t do is warm the atmosphere above -80C°. 13 to 18µ also won’t melt ice.
An experiment would be to place ice in a near-vacuum and shine visible blue radiation on it. The ice will melt at a more rapid rate because it is taking cool 0.4 to 0.7µ Visible Radiation into thermal energy.
CO2isLife
I would call you on your declaration. I would call it wrong.
YOU: “What CO2 wont do is warm the atmosphere above -80C. 13 to 18 also wont melt ice.”
Venus atmosphere is 96% Carbon Dioxide. The atmosphere is quite warm and the IR emitted by this considerable.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Venusatmosphere.svg/1920px-Venusatmosphere.svg.png
YOU: “13 to 18 LWIR is consistent with -80C Blackbody.”
No this is not valid, it is a wrong way to understand radiant energy emitted by a blackbody. This is just the peak radiation emitted by a blackbody at that temperature. It is not consistent with a blackbody at -80 C. A blackbody emits a Plank curve of radiant energy.
As Tim Folkerts correctly explained already (you must have ignored what he said). It is the intensity that counts. CO2 does not emit like a blackbody, it can be quite hot and only emit in the small bands of IR but the intensity of this IR can be quite large depending upon the temperature of the CO2. Maybe study Coal-Fired Boilers by Babcox and Wilcox. They will show you how much radiant energy hot CO2 emits and how not only will it melt ice, it will boil water to very high temperatures. You have to reject the stupid blog physics and crack open textbooks to learn the Truth.
Oh, this is classic! Norman “explains” physics! It doesn’t get much funnier.
Then, Norman tries to imply that CO2 heats Venus. Then he tries to imply that CO2 heats a “gas-fired” boiler!
When you call him on such nonsense, he will say “I never said CO2 was heating Venus. I never said CO2 was heating the boiler.”
He always builds in “plausible deniability”. And of course, he mentions Folkerts, believing that will give him some credibility. Two idiots aren’t any smarter than one idiot.
(See why this is so much fun?)
Norman says: No this is not valid, it is a wrong way to understand radiant energy emitted by a blackbody. This is just the peak radiation emitted by a blackbody at that temperature. It is not consistent with a blackbody at -80 C. A blackbody emits a Plank curve of radiant energy.
Norman, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Yes, CO2 isn’t a blackbody IT EMITS FAR LESS OF THE SPECTRUM!!! CO2 is only a fraction of a black body that emits -80C. Use an IR spectrometer and you will measure it as -80C, but that is because of the peak wavelength, but in reality, it isn’t emitting anywhere near the energy of a black body, it emits far far less.
Ice emits 11µ, so if 15µ could melt ice, ice would melt itself.
CO2isLife
Actually I do know what I am talking about. You are the one confused by the blog physics.
Here:
https://tinyurl.com/5x5kh6ep
With no water vapor overlap the emissivity of CO2 in our atmosphere is around 0.2 (20 percent of a blackbody)
Use this calculator:
https://tinyurl.com/es9sfhtd
Put in 0.2 for the emissivity and vary the temperature. You will find CO2 is able to emit quite a bit of energy. CO2 will emit far less than a blackbody at the same temperature but CO2 at 500 K (440 F) will emit far greater energy than CO2 at 193 K.
CO2isLife
CO2 does not just emit as a blackbody at -80 C, it emits based upon its temperature following the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Also I am not implying CO2 heats a gas-fired boiler. The CO2 is heated by chemical reaction. But the heated CO2 transfers radiant energy to the boiler tubes. Read up on it, they calculate values in Babcock & Wilcox Steam book. It is a very large quantity of energy.
https://tinyurl.com/965vxb93
You can download an older copy of Steam for free. Read up on radiant heat transfer in a boiler. They even work through a problem.
Norman, you are confused by the links you found. The troposphere is not at a temperature of 500K!
And CO2 is not the heat source for a boiler. CO2 AND the boiler are heated by the combustion of the fuel. The CO2 for combustion did not even exist before combustion. It, and the combustion energy, were created at the same time.
Typo alert: The CO2 from combustion did not even exist before combustion
“13 to 18 LWIR is consistent with -80C Blackbody. “
Please! Stop this nonsense.
Yes, a blackbody at -80C emits most strongly near 15 m.
But …
* a non black body at -80C could emit most strongly at other wavelengths.
* a non black body at other temperature could emit most strongly in this range.
CO2 is definitely NOT a blackbody. Pretending that the ideals for a BB apply here is simply wrong.
15 LWIR is consistent with CO2 of any temperature.
You miss the point, TF.
A 15μ photon is a VERY low energy photon. Billions of such photons could not melt an ice cube.
(Now you can mention your “CO2 laser”, revealing once more your ignorance.)
And yet 15micron laser photons melt steel.
“A 15μ photon is a VERY low energy photon. Billions of such photons could not melt an ice cube.”
Depends on how many billions and how big the ice cube is.
Doesn’t it Moron?
“A 15μ photon is a VERY low energy photon. Billions of such photons could not melt an ice cube.”
Yet, oddly enough the much lower energy photons generated by my microwave oven are able to melt ice cubes!
The moron theories lose again. That makes three this week.
I got a response from all 3 trolls.
Ball4 went with the CO2 laser, Nate with the microwave oven, and bob just peed all over himself, as usual.
And yet your ‘theory’ still proves wrong and dumb.
” Once again, the only defined mechanism by which CO2 affects climate change is through the thermalization of 13 to 18 LWIR. ”
You forgot to mention DWLR and the raised tropopause.
ET Says: You forgot to mention DWLR and the raised tropopause.
1) DWLR is the mechanism I defined
2) Raised Tropause? Evidence? What impact does that have other than speed cooling of the stratosphere? How does that impact the surface?
ET, just how high do you think 0.64 W/M^2 lift the Tropopause? How much does it shift on a rainy or cloudy day?
You’d need to back calculate.
IPCC estimate that a net extra 3.7W/m^2 raises surface temperature 1C.
0.64W/m^2 would raise surface temperature by 0.64/3.7 = 0.17C.
To get that much surface warming would require raising the troposphere by 0.17/6.5 times 1000 = 25.6 metres.
Pure nonsense, Ent.
You’ve lost touch with reality, AGAIN.
ET: IPCC estimate that a net extra 3.7W/m^2 raises surface temperature 1C.
Really? Looking up from the surface, CO2 increasing from 0 to 415 added 7.85 W/M^2. Adding Water Vapor adds 279.65 W/M^2. That means water vapor added about 70C°. CO2, maybe 2C°.
A single cloudy day can add 80.7 W/M^2, so that Tropopause must be swinging all over the place. 25.6 meters for 0.64, so we must be talking real big numbers for a cloudy day.
The tropopause is the altitude band at which greenhouse gas molecules are widely spaced enough that their radiation can escape to space. If you send up a radiosonde you can identify the tropopause as the minimum temperature altitude.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature#/media/File%3AComparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
Lapse rate lowers the temperature as you rise through the troposphere and ozone raises the temperature as you rise into the stratosphere. IIRC, increasing the concentration of CO2 raises the altitude at which 13-17 micrometres radiation starts to escape to space, without changing the radiating temperature.
This feeds back to the surface through the lapse rate and increases the surface temperature.
A simplified worked example. Tropopause is at 10km, tropopause temperature is 233K and lapse rate is 6.5K/km.
Surface temperature is 233 plus 10 times 6.5 = 233 plus 65 = 298K.
Raise the tropopause 100m. Surface temperature becomes 233 plus 10.1 times 6.5 = 233 plus 65 .7 = 298.7C.
Raising the tropopause 100 metres has raised the surface temperature 0.7C.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/301/5632/479.abstract
“This feeds back to the surface through the lapse rate and increases the surface temperature.”
Pure nonsense.
EM,
All radiation escapes to space at night. That is why the surface and the atmosphere cools.
Your worked example is a work of fantasy.
“All radiation escapes to space at night. That is why the surface and the atmosphere cools.”
That is also why when temperatures fall below the previous low temperature that any claim that CO2 “traps heat” is proven to be pure nonsense. GW Alarmists don’t seem to understand that radiation travels at the speed of light. Radiation is by far the fastest way to REMOVE energy from the system as opposed to convection and conduction. GW ALarmists always seem to forget those other two ways of storing and transferring heat. All CO2 does is slightly inhibit the release of a very very small amount of energy associated with the 13 to 18µ wavelengths. That is literally it, and then claim that it can cause catastrophic consequences.
“That is literally it, and then claim that it can cause catastrophic consequences. ”
I notice that WUWT refers to the Texas blackouts as catastrophic.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/06/the-catastrophic-texas-blackouts-lessons-for-the-developing-countries/
Yes Ent, extreme cold can indeed be catastrophic.
Especially with no electricity….
Also, all radiation escapes to space during the day, I wonder if Swenson has any coherent thinking to offer.
bobdroege
Oooh. I understand your problem.
It seems you didn’t know until now that LWIR photons, like bats, are only active at night.
Your knowledge has just experienced what Planck named a ‘Quantensprung’.
J.-P. D.
Yes, but all the 511 KeV photons escape during the day, that’s why we make them at night.
Norman Says: With no water vapor overlap the emissivity of CO2 in our atmosphere is around 0.2 (20 percent of a blackbody)
Once again Norman, you clearly don’t understand the basics:
1) CO2 isn’t CO2 and Water
2) Water vapor is present with or without CO2, and H20 absorbs the same wavelengths as CO2, the reverse is not true, CO2 does not absorb all the wavelengths of H20, not even close
3) The only wavelengths associated with the GHG and CO2 are 13 to 18µ very long wavelength very low energy IR radiation that does not penetrate or warm water.
4) Remove CO2 from the atmosphere and water vapor would easily absorb all the LWIR between 13 and 18µ that CO2 would have.
5) You can test this on MODTRAN. The first time you even see the CO2 signature is up over 3km after H20 starts to precipitate out of the atmosphere.
6) The net effect of CO2 to the atmosphere is to PREVENT THE ATMOSPHERE FROM COOLING below -80C° CO2 puts a floor in temperatures, it doesn’t warm anything. 13 to 18µ won’t even melt ice, let alone warm water.
Norman Says: Norman Says: With no water vapor overlap the emissivity of CO2 in our atmosphere is around 0.2 (20 percent of a blackbody)
That isn’t even close to true.
1) Remove all GHGs from the atmosphere and you get 443.682 W/M^2
2) Add 415 PPM CO2 and you get 400.35 W/M^2 or about 10%
3) Add only H2O and you get 339.12 W/M^2 far surpassing what CO2 absorbs
4) Add CO2 and H2O to the atmosphere and you get 306.935 W/M^2, so in reality, CO2 adds less than 10% when adjusted for H2O, and CO2’s influence shows a log decay, so adding more won’t really budge those numbers. Adding more H2O does however dramatically add energy. A simple cloud layer add 80W/M^2 or more to the system, easily negating any additional input from CO2.
BTW, that above example is misleading because it is from 70km looking down. In reality, if you lower things down to the Troposphere CO2 doesn’t add anything of significance. CO2 only adds to the atmosphere AFTER H2O precipitates out.
Looking down from 3km:
1) Add H20 and you get 399.722 W/m2
2) Add CO2 and H2O and you get 396.268 W/m2
In other words, CO2’s contribution is well within the normal variability of the climate, and its real impact is less than 1%, not the 10% the IR Spectrum would imply.
In other words, CO2’s contribution is well within the normal variability of the weather, not climate.
Weather avg.d: red and blue lines top post.
Climate avg.d: placement of black line through zero top post.
CO2isLife
Before you suggest my point is not even close to true you will have to show support for your equations.
I can show you my support.
A Blackbody at 300 K will emit 459.27 W/m^2
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Using the MODTRAN tool, setting all values to zero except having CO2 at 415 PPM using Tropical Atmosphere with altitude at zero and looking up the calculator gives a DWIR of 81.357 W/m^2.
81.457/459.27 comes out to 0.177 Which is not far from 0.20. CO2 contributes around 10% when water vapor is added. The emissivity of the atmosphere with GHG’s is around 0.9 or so.
So you need to provide support for you numbers.
Atm. around 0.7 in the dry arctic regions; avg. is about 0.8 emissivity looking up from surface globally.
Norman:
I can show that CO2 only transfers just over 2% of the value of the water vapour at the tropics. Depends what you put first; chicken or egg ie the overlap issue .
In your Modtran example start with BOTH water vapour (1) and CO2 (415ppm). DWIR is abt 367 Wm-2
Now remove the CO2 (0); New H2O only DWIR is abt 359 or 8 difference (so CO2 was only abt 2.2% of the H2O+CO2 effect).
It would be hard for CO2 to get a look in in the tropics.
Extremely easy experiment everyone can run to prove the points I’ve been trying to make.
1) I’ve claimed that back-radiation from CO2 from 13 to 18µ LWIR won’t melt ice, and therefore can’t warm water.
2) I’ve claimed that visible radiation warms water, not 13 to 18µ
3) Experts on this blog have repeatedly disagreed with me
4) None have provided valid scientific experiments to prove their point
Facts:
1) The atmosphere outside my house has 415 PPM CO2
2) The earth outside is > -80°C and therefore is emitting 13 to 18µ
3) CO2 is absorbing that 13 to 18µ, and radiating part of it back to Earth
4) There is plenty 13 to 18µ being transmitted in the atmosphere, in fact, the earth in my area is emitting IR near 10.5 or 11µ peak, basically 0.00°C
Now what is the experiment that a 2nd Grader could understand that the experts fail to understand?
Park your car in a place that is in a shadow that disappears as the sun rises. What you will see if you go out and sit in your car in the early Morning is this:
1) Frost, frozen water, ice, will cover your front windshield
2) That frost is exposed to 13 to 18µ LWIR and that radiation isn’t melting the Frost
3) As the shadow recedes, high-energy radiation will fall on the frost. The frost will immediately melt even though the air temp is the same across the windshield. Only the part of the window exposed to visible radiation melts the frost, the 13 to 18µ LWIR doesn’t melt the frost.
As I’ve said countless times, if 13 to 18µ could warm water, ice would melt itself. The reason is simple. Ice emits 10.5µ LWIR. That means that ice also emits 13 to 18µ LWIR. How could ice emit a wavelength associated with temperatures above the freezing point? It can’t. Funny how the experts haven’t been able to figure that one out, and how to demonstrate it like I have in the above experiment.
Where are the “experts” refuting my experiment?
“How could ice emit a wavelength associated with temperatures above the freezing point?”
Wavelengths are not associated with temperature is a fatal flaw for your experiment.
The experts? Don’t need to be particularly expert; HS physics study will suffice to dispel some CO2isLife assertions.
CO2isLife: “4) None have provided valid scientific experiments to prove their point”
Dr. Spencer has done so. Several times. Yale University has done so. Multiple sources on the internet and google scholar have done so. CO2isLife is the only one that hasn’t done any valid scientific experiments to prove any points or researched the existing databases well enough.
“Park your car in a place that is in a shadow that disappears as the sun rises. What you will see if you go out and sit in your car in the early Morning is this:” I have done just that and found:
1) No frost at all, no ice covering my windshield
Every day experimental evidence differs from CO2isLife assertions.
“As Ive said countless times, if 13 to 18 (micron) could warm water, ice would melt itself.”
If the water doesn’t warm while absorbing radiative transfer increasing its thermodynamic internal energy, you have found a violation of 1LOT AND 2LOT. Your experiment should be controlled & sensitive enough to disprove these theories.
Oh by the way, ice in my refrig. is exposed to 13 to 18 micron radiation and it doesn’t melt itself & yet radiation from that band warms water in certain controlled experiments that Dr. Spencer has performed.
Let me ask CO2isLife: If my instrumentation records a photon in the 13 to 18 micron range, out in the day time natural wild atmosphere, how does CO2isLife go about proving the 13 to 18 micron photon came from 1) high cirrus icy clouds or 2) the sun?
CO2isLife: 4) None have provided valid scientific experiments to prove their point
Dr. Spencer has done so. Several times. Yale University has done so. Multiple sources on the internet and google scholar have done so. CO2isLife is the only one that hasnt done any valid scientific experiments to prove any points or researched the existing databases well enough.
I’ve pointed out the flaws in those approaches, and none of them come close to the clarity of the experiment that I’ve just outlined. The Yale Experiment is a complete joke. Dr. Spencer’s doesn’t isolate the effect of 13 to 18µ LWIR.
You have nothing to say to refute the simple experiment that I outlined, absolutely nothing, and a 2 year old can understand the results of my experiment.
Park your car in a place that is in a shadow that disappears as the sun rises. What you will see if you go out and sit in your car in the early Morning is this: I have done just that and found:
1) No frost at all, no ice covering my windshield
Every day experimental evidence differs from CO2isLife assertions.
That is completely idiotic and childish. Simply wait until there is frost on your windshield and perform the experiment. If you live in an area where there is never frost, then you are out of luck.
If the water doesnt warm while absorbing radiative transfer increasing its thermodynamic internal energy, you have found a violation of 1LOT AND 2LOT. Your experiment should be controlled & sensitive enough to disprove these theories.
You clearly don’t understand physics.
1) The radiation has to reach something to warm it, LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate water.
2) 13 and 18µ LWIR if anything cause endothermic surface evaporation and cooling of the surface much like sweat does to a human body
3) 13 and 18µ LWIR is associated with -80°C, so it isn’t warming much if at all, and that is the entire Blackbody spectrum, and CO2 isn’t a black body, not even close.
CO2isLife: “I’ve pointed out the flaws in those approaches”
You have not experimentally done so, there are no flaws physically pointed out. Put some supposed flaws on trial, controlled for experimentally.
“Simply wait until there is frost on your windshield and perform the experiment.”
Oh so sometimes there is no frost agreeing with me; CO2isLife backs down from earlier comments.
“1) The radiation has to reach something to warm it, LWIR between 13 and 18 doesn’t penetrate water.”
Instruments show it isn’t all reflected nor transmitted so what happens to it? LWIR just vanishes? Actually, ocean water is so good at absorbing such radiation, the incident overhead LWIR is maybe 95% absorbed in a very short distance of water depth (in addition to being maybe 5% reflected) as Dr. Spencer has shown to a surface water depth of several inches with added LWIR warming the water a bit as measured by thermometer.
“13 and 18 LWIR if anything cause endothermic surface evaporation”
CO2isLife debunks CO2isLife 1): LWIR now does penetrate water surface, energy contained in LWIR photons doesn’t simply vanish.
“13 and 18 LWIR is associated with -80C”
13 to 18 micron photons can come from the sun as measured at the surface of Earth. The sun is thought to be a bit warmer than -80C: again, how does CO2isLife go about proving the 13 to 18 micron photon came from 1) high cirrus icy clouds or 2) the sun?
“Simply wait until there is frost on your windshield and perform the experiment.”
Oh so sometimes there is no frost agreeing with me; CO2isLife backs down from earlier comments.
DREMPTY,
“That’s not a solution, bob, that’s just you making the same mistakes again, that we have already been through.”
Here is the place for you to tell me what mistakes I have made in getting the solution 244, 290, 244.
Don’t make any mistakes.
Yes we have been through all the mistakes the DREAM TEAM has made, but they are dreaming if they think they understand.
Been there, done that, up-thread.
No you haven’t DREMT.
I have the correct solution and you haven’t found any mistakes.
The mistakes are all yours.
Incorrect.
The GPE is settled in favor of Eli. The moon rotates on its own axis was settled by Tesla’s momentum analysis of wheel and ball M assembly.
Incorrect.
The blue plate heats and the Moon turns.
Incorrect..
Here’s a few of DREMTY mistakes
The green plates are not an energy source themselves, they only receive energy from the blue plate.
and the energy sent back cannot further increase the temperature of the blue plate.
It is impossible because there is no additional energy to warm the blue plate. Are you a moron? You should be attempting to explain how it is possible, not asking me to explain the obvious.
Name a real-life scenario where breaking an object into three pieces makes the middle piece increase in temperature.
Were not talking about insulation, bob. Were talking about separating three identical objects.
Nonsense, bob. The green plates are no more losing energy on the side facing the blue plates when they are separated than they were when they were pressed together.
We know at equilibrium, Q should be zero (as temperatures are not fixed, only the electrical input of 400 W to the central blue plate) so rearrange the equation:
No error. Heat flow tends towards zero wherever possible, and with this idealized thought experiment, it is indeed possible.
Wrong. There does not have to be heat flow between the plates.
The only thing that changes on separation is the mode of energy transfer between the plates. Why cant you people get it through your heads that splitting an object into three does not result in the middle section spontaneously rising in temperature by 46 K!?
bob, there doesnt need to be heat flow between the plates when they are separated in order to drive energy through the system. The required 400 W is already leaving the system to space by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity.
I can also confirm from a lifetime of occasionally separating objects from other objects that I have never observed any spontaneous warming of the central object.
And here’s one thing he got right
If there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up.
I stand by everything I have said…and you certainly have not shown why any of it is wrong.
Interesting that you agree that if there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up. So you acknowledge that there is no heat flow between the plates at steady state. Good, that’s a start.
No I don’t moron, the green plates only heat up in the transition from the moment the plates are separated, until steady state is reached.
And at steady state there is heat flow from the heater to the blue plate, from the blue plate to the green plates and from the green plates to space.
But you say there is no heat flow from the blue plate to the green plate, which is wrong moron.
Heat has to flow every step.
bob, you have agreed that if there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up. If the green plates are warming up, they cannot be at steady state. Therefore you agree that there is no heat flow between the plates at steady state.
No Moron,
There can still be heat flow at steady state, in fact there has to be, in order for the heat from the heater to get to space.
Moron.
The green plates are not warming up at steady state, they only warm up on the way to steady state.
You know when you perturb the system that is at steady state by separating the plates.
It takes time after you separate the plates for the system to return to steady state.
Moron.
bob, there can be heat flow between objects at steady state, like for instance if the temperature of the objects are fixed in some way. But, the temperature of the plates are not fixed. So, for there to be heat flow between the plates, the green plates would have to be warming, and hence not at steady state.
DREMTPY
You have fixed the temperatures of the green and blue plates, declared your solution the one true path of GOD.
The only requirement for heat flow in a radiative situation is a temperature difference.
Since there has to be heat flow through the plates in order for the energy to leave the system from the green plates, there has to be a temperature difference.
The real GOD ruled in favor of Eli.
“You have fixed the temperatures of the green and blue plates”
No, the plate temperatures are not fixed. That’s the point, as I just explained. And, the required 400 W of energy is leaving the system simply by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. There does not need to be heat flow between the plates.
“And, the required 400 W of energy is leaving the system simply by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. There does not need to be heat flow between the plates.”
If I, again, with NO EXPLANATION, ignore the reality that the Green plate will COOL DOWN if it is emitting heat to space but not also receiving heat from a source at the same rate.
And it IS receiving heat from a source at the same rate. From the warmer BP.
Its just simple logic and common sense, but the TEAM fails to apply it at every opportunity.
And again, 1LOT is absolutely clear, ANY energy transferred here by radiation is none other than HEAT TRANSFER.
“The real GOD ruled in favor of Eli.”
Erm…OK, bob.
Your comment from two years ago happens to be in accord with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment, and helps debunk the GPE.
DREMT gets it right, bob. You don’t have the background to understand.
Yeah, I do, I have taken courses in thermodynamics in Navy Nuc School and at a university.
you two morons haven’t
You don’t have a clue bob, as evidenced by your stupid comments.
No training in thermodynamics eh, ClintR?
Moron.
Another way to show how bob doesn’t understand thermodynamics is to consider the “heat content” of each plate.
All plates are identical so they have the same mass (m) and the same specific heat capacity (C). Before separation, at equilibrium, each plate has 244*m*C Joules. Or 3*244*m*C = 732mC Joules, for the total.
In the idiot solution of the 3-plates, after separation the total energy content would be 244mC + 290mC + 244mC = 778mC Joules.
So the energy in the plates went up, with no additional energy incoming. The idiot solution creates energy from nothing!
bob, and the other idiots, don’t understand thermodynamics!
Well, some insulating space was added, Clint R has neglected to include that in his prose – which would be found from experiment. The GPE is settled in the favor of Eli.
Remember this comment, Ball4?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
ClintR,
You no take physics!
You no take thermo!
You no take candle!
You Moron.
DREMT, the GPE is settled in the favor of Eli. The moon rotates on its own axis, settled with wheel/ball M momentum mechanics. You are left out in the cold. Carry on aimlessly.
Ball4, you wrote:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Agreeing with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment.
The GPE though is settled in the favor of Eli, not Clint R here for entertainment only.
You wrote what you wrote, and thus agree that the GPE is debunked.
“So the energy in the plates went up, with no additional energy incoming.”
Oh darn, a moron forgot about the 400 J/s coming into the system, again.
Nate got burned by his microwave oven. Now he shows he can’t understand energy accounting!
Typical…when the idiots don’t understand physics.
DREMT wanders in aimlessly. What I wrote debunked JD, and thus agreed that the GPE is settled in favor of Eli.
No, Ball4, what you wrote supported JD, at the time. You had obviously got yourself confused because you wrote the comment like you were contradicting him, but actually what you said supported his arguments.
Your comment is in accord with the point made by ClintR above.
For all the dimwits
“So the energy in the plates went up, with no additional energy incoming. The idiot solution creates energy from nothing!”
Not from nothing moron, when the plates are separated, the temperature of the green plates go down, because they are receiving 200 watts but emitting 400 watts.
So less energy emitted means the temperature of the blue plate goes up.
Morons.
Oh yes, this is your wonderful theory that when the mode of energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation, the green plates suddenly require twice as much energy to remain at the same temperature…
The team won’t understand that bob; they obviously don’t even understand my debunking of JD earlier & that the GPE is long settled in favor of Eli.
Ball4 wrote:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Agreeing with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment.
Yes DRMETPY moron,
“Oh yes, this is your wonderful theory that when the mode of energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation, the green plates suddenly require twice as much energy to remain at the same temperature”
That is because, moron, conduction is so much better at transferring heat, moron.
Clint R the moron and idiot,
Next time it is kind of chill wherever you are.
Turn you furnace and set it to 70 F.
Open all the windows and doors in the house, wait a while for temperature to stabilize, write it down with your crayon.
The close all the windows and see if the temperature goes up.
If it is not winter, try it with your AC.
You see dumbass, the temperature is not solely determined by the amount of heat entering the system.
If you weren’t a dumbass, moronic idiot, and if you had studied any physics or thermodynamics, you would know that.
Or we’ve got “your wonderful theory that when the mode of energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation” nothing changes at all!
Because?? Because thats what the TEAM feels should happen based on no known theory or common sense, just their feeling.
Meanwhile kindergarteners have enough sense to know that heat transfer thru contact between fingers and hot things produces a totally DIFFERENT result from heat transfer by non-contact between fingers and hot things.
Why the TEAM doesnt have this sense is truly a mystery.
And we have the new DREMT invention of thermal energy transfer without a temperature difference!
HVAC people would be very excited about this.
No need for those bulky exterior AC units with coils and fans anymore! Just need parallel plates in vacuum!
Also gamers will be super excited. They no longer will need water-cooling gadgets for their over-clocked processors on their gaming PCs.
They’ll simply need to attach parallel plates in a vacuum, and they’ll magically remove as much thermal energy as their processors can produce, with no temperature rise at all!
“That is because, moron, conduction is so much better at transferring heat, moron.”
There is no heat being transferred between the plates when they are at the same temperature, bob, regardless of whether they are pressed together or separated. As you have already agreed, if there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up.
There can be heat flow between objects at steady state, like for instance if the temperature of the objects are fixed in some way. But, the temperature of the plates are not fixed. So, for there to be heat flow between the plates, the green plates would have to be warming, and hence not at steady state.
“As you have already agreed, if there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up.”
Why do you say things that make no sense?
Why would the Green plates be WARMING when they are obviously emitting heat to space?????
Why would any sane person IGNORE the emitted heat of the GP?
“There can be heat flow between objects at steady state, like for instance if the temperature of the objects are fixed in some way.”
The temperatures of the plates , up steady at 290 and 244 K. Thus there is heat flow between them! Nobody is required to FIX the temps, that is taken care of by physics.
“But, the temperature of the plates are not fixed. So, for there to be heat flow between the plates, the green plates would have to be warming, and hence not at steady state.”
Wha???
Who says so?
The RHT equation simply requires a temp difference between the objects, as do all heat transfer equations. There is NO requirement of a CHANGING temperature.
“You see dumbass, the temperature is not solely determined by the amount of heat entering the system.”
The only thing that changes when you separate the plates is that the mode of energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation. You need the energy in or out of the system to change, so you try to argue that when separated, the green plates cool so that there is less energy leaving the system, and as a result the blue plate warms. But, there is no reason for the green plates to cool on separation. There are no radiative losses past the edges of the plates, because view factors are treated as 1 between the plates.
The things that change when you separate the plates is that the mode of energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation and an insulating vacuum gap is added. So, there is a reason for the green plates to cool on separation; thermos bottles employ that same sort of gap.
DREMT is really out of depth in thermodynamics. The GPE was settled in favor of Eli long ago.
Two things about that, Ball4:
1) It is called the “Green Plate Effect”, and not the “Vacuum Gap Effect”. Any warming effect of the blue plate is meant to be due to back-radiation from the green plates, and not due to an insulative effect of a vacuum gap. You are shifting the goalposts.
2) You have already supported ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment in a comment from two years ago, and thus support the idea that the GPE is debunked. The only alternative is that you state you were mistaken two years ago.
GPE is Eli’s construct DREMT & settled in the favor of Eli. The separation of a plate with a vacuum gap is not Eli’s construct.
I’ve debunked JD not GPE. Please at least try to stay on the same page or the abbreviations are too much for you to handle as well as is thermodynamics.
“GPE is Eli’s construct DREMT & settled in the favor of Eli. The separation of a plate with a vacuum gap is not Eli’s construct.”
The three-plate scenario is a direct extension of his logic. That it shows his logic leads to absurd conclusions is why it debunks the GPE.
“I’ve debunked JD not GPE. Please at least try to stay on the same page or the abbreviations are too much for you to handle as well as is thermodynamics.”
Forget about JD. Your comment from two years ago supports ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment and thus the idea that the GPE is debunked. The only alternative is that you state you were mistaken two years ago.
Unfortunately for DREMT, I’ve debunked the absurd 3 plate conclusions because they are, well, absurd.
Clint R moniker wasn’t around two years ago, back then I debunked JD’s absurd claim in the link YOU provided. So sure, forget about that link of yours. The GPE was way back then settled in favor of Eli.
“But, there is no reason for the green plates to cool on separation”
Again more declarations without evidence.
The RHTE gives the initial heat flow B to G, upon separation. Since the temperatures are equal, there is 0 heat flow, but the GP continues to emit heat to space.
By 1LOT, GP:
DeltaU = Qnet = -200 W.
DeltaU is decreasing. It must cool.
It is none other than the laws of physics, which you ever ignore, that requires the green plates to cool.
Enough handwaving BS about your feelings.
“I’ve debunked the absurd 3 plate conclusions because they are, well, absurd.”
Yes, you have already written that the 244 K…290 K…244 K solution is absurd, here:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Agreeing with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment. Thank you for your assistance.
244 290 244 works. It satisfies the laws of physics. 1LOT 2LOT the RHTE. Kirchoffs Law.
Your whining that it somehow feels absurd, is simply that, a feeling, not based on any logic or law of physics.
Meanwhile your guessed ‘solution’ has two or three separated objects in space, one heated, ending up at the same temperature.
That is actually absurd. Ask someone with common sense.
Your notion that thermal energy can be transferred without a temperature difference violates 2LOT and RHTE, and is actually absurd.
But keep on promoting absurdity. Who cares.
You only look more and more foolish.
Well, Ball4 agrees with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment, bob’s gone quiet, and the only other contributor to this thread is my stalker that I no longer respond to, so I guess that’s that.
DREMTPY
Sorry I don’t speak gibberish
“There can be heat flow between objects at steady state, like for instance if the temperature of the objects are fixed in some way. But, the temperature of the plates are not fixed. So, for there to be heat flow between the plates, the green plates would have to be warming, and hence not at steady state.”
Yes the temperatures of the plates are not fixed, therefore they can change, like they do when the green plates are separated from the blue plate.
When the plates are separated the green plates start cooling, and also being warmed by the blue plate.
See if you can understand why that happens and provide a response other than gibberish.
bob, for there to be heat flowing from the blue plates to the green plates, the green plates would have to be warming up. I don’t know how much simpler I can make it. Heat flows between two objects when one of the objects is warming up, yes?
Heat can flow permanently between two objects, if those objects are fixed at certain temperatures so that there is a constant thermal gradient between them. Otherwise, and it applies here because the plate temperatures are not fixed, heat flow between objects tends towards zero as much as possible. When the plates are separated, heat flow between them is zero. So it will remain that way.
A permanent thermal gradient is not going to spontaneously develop between the plates just because you want it to.
DREMT 6;21 pm is so confused, as usual, since JD that I debunked was banned from this blog long ago so “Agreeing with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment.” using a comment out of context I made before Clint R moniker ever showed up is simply wrong, a waste of time. See my 1:30 pm comment response to Clint R 1:15pm.
DREMTPY,
“But, there is no reason for the green plates to cool on separation.”
Yes there is, conduction is different from radiation.
So you have to recalculate.
Which you haven’t done.
There is a long list of things you haven’t done to support your gibberish.
So explain the correct context for your remark that:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
and explain in what way it is not in agreement with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment.
DREMPTY,
Moron, let’s get that out of the way first.
“bob, for there to be heat flowing from the blue plates to the green plates, the green plates would have to be warming up. I dont know how much simpler I can make it. Heat flows between two objects when one of the objects is warming up, yes?”
Nope, there is heat flow from the blue to the green after separation when steady conditions return, it takes a while, the blue plate has to get to 290 and the green plate has to return to 244.
I can’t make it any clearer, no, one object does not have to be warming up for there to be heat flow from another object to that object. I’ll reemphasize.
“Heat flows between two objects when one of the objects is warming up, yes?”
Maybe, but it is absolutely not required for an object to be warming up for there to be heat flow. The plates together is a good example of that.
“Heat can flow permanently between two objects, if those objects are fixed at certain temperatures so that there is a constant thermal gradient between them. Otherwise, and it applies here because the plate temperatures are not fixed, heat flow between objects tends towards zero as much as possible. When the plates are separated, heat flow between them is zero. So it will remain that way.”
Heat can flow between two objects, but your conditions are gibberish. They can flow between two objects even if the objects are at the same temperature, which the green and blue plates are at the same temperature before separation, and yes there is heat flow from blue to green before separation. Heat flow tends towards zero, yes, but not when there is a constant source of energy, which there is in this problem both before and after separation.
Yes, at the moment of separation, heat flow between the plates stops, but not for long, because immediately at that point the blue plate starts heating up and the green plate starts cooling down. Eventually the green plates heat up and return to 244.
“A permanent thermal gradient is not going to spontaneously develop between the plates just because you want it to.”
It’s not because I want it to, it’s because I did the system analysis and calculated the temperatures and heat flows.
You did not do that, you handed in an empty sheet of paper.
8:07 pm: That’s your work to explain DREMT, YOU selected a single past comment out of a thread no doubt. The context is presumably available to you. Go for it. Explaining the context properly in your own words might help you learn about thermo. but that’s a stretch.
“Moron, let’s get that out of the way first.”
I’ve never known a person so upset that I asked them once if they were a moron. Sheesh.
“Nope, there is heat flow from the blue to the green after separation when steady conditions return, it takes a while, the blue plate has to get to 290 and the green plate has to return to 244.”
Wrong, as previously explained.
“I can’t make it any clearer, no, one object does not have to be warming up for there to be heat flow from another object to that object. I’ll reemphasize.”
I’m not saying it has to be warming up. Heat can flow permanently between two objects, if those objects are fixed at certain temperatures so that there is a constant thermal gradient between them. Otherwise, and it applies here because the plate temperatures are not fixed, heat flow between objects tends towards zero as much as possible. When the plates are separated, heat flow between them is zero. So it will remain that way.
“Heat can flow between two objects, but your conditions are gibberish. They can flow between two objects even if the objects are at the same temperature, which the green and blue plates are at the same temperature before separation, and yes there is heat flow from blue to green before separation. Heat flow tends towards zero, yes, but not when there is a constant source of energy, which there is in this problem both before and after separation.”
Nonsense, bob. Heat flow between objects tends towards zero wherever possible, regardless of “when there is a constant source of energy”. If there was no “constant source of energy”, plate temperatures would drop towards zero!
“Yes, at the moment of separation, heat flow between the plates stops, but not for long, because immediately at that point the blue plate starts heating up and the green plate starts cooling down. Eventually the green plates heat up and return to 244.”
Nonsense, bob. There is no reason for the green plates to cool. They weren’t cooling when pressed against the blue plate, and they were still radiating 400 W to space then.
OK Ball4, I will go with the only conceivable interpretation of your comment, which is that it is in accord with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment.
You are free to go with whatever you want DREMT, though I see you will go with the fact you have not learned from, and cannot explain, the context of the old thread from which you selected one comment.
Ball4, do you ever stop trolling?
“Otherwise, and it applies here because the plate temperatures are not fixed, heat flow between objects tends towards zero as much as possible.”
We really need to develop this into a show.
‘Climate deniers say the darndest things’
We’ll sell it to the channel that shows ‘Hillbilly hand-fishing’.
Here’s DREMT declaring more nonphysical absurdities.
How is it he thinks heat flow ‘tend toward to zero’ in a situation with a heater constantly supplying heat!
‘plate temperatures not fixed’ and So what?
Consider the one plate scenario. We all agree that the plate reaches a steady 244K, all on its own. Nobody needs to FIX it. And there is a constant flow of heat from it to space.
In multi-plate scenarios the plates, all on their own, reach steady temperature. Nobody needs to FIX them!
The beauty of heat transfer here is that temperatures naturally reach the values needed to provide the temperature gradient required to maintain the flow of heat thru the system.
And heat flows thru the system because it is being supplied by the heater!
Only a moron-troll could fail to get this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer.
IF DREMT believes heat, or thermal energy, or whatever he wants to call it, can be transferred without a temperature gradient, then it ought to be described in here somewhere.
Please show us where.
Bob says :
“They can flow between two objects even if the objects are at the same temperature, which the green and blue plates are at the same temperature before separation, and yes there is heat flow from blue to green before separation.”
Just to clarify. In the real world of conduction, there needs to be a small temperature difference. In metals, that can be teeny tiny, 0.01 K.
In this problem it is so small that it can be neglected.
By comparison, the same heat flow requires 290-244 K = 46 K when it is transferred by radiation.
As noted over and over, conduction and radiation are quite different.
"You are free to go with whatever you want DREMT"
Well, here’s what you said, again:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
And here’s what ClintR said:
"Another way to show how bob doesn’t understand thermodynamics is to consider the “heat content” of each plate.
All plates are identical so they have the same mass (m) and the same specific heat capacity (C). Before separation, at equilibrium, each plate has 244*m*C Joules. Or 3*244*m*C = 732mC Joules, for the total.
In the idiot solution of the 3-plates, after separation the total energy content would be 244mC + 290mC + 244mC = 778mC Joules.
So the energy in the plates went up, with no additional energy incoming. The idiot solution creates energy from nothing!
bob, and the other idiots, don’t understand thermodynamics!"
I would say that the two comments are in accord. So I will go with that.
You are free to go with whatever you want DREMT, explaining this thread’s comments is not needed as they are currently in plain sight.
I see you will go with the fact you have not learned from, and cannot explain, the context of the old thread from which you selected one comment.
I’m fully aware of the context, as I was there, commenting, in the thick of it, at the time. I conclude that the two comments are in accord. You are obviously not capable of explaining why they are not.
So go ahead explain the former thread context. Or are you too embarrassed to do so?
DREMPTY MORON,
“Nonsense, bob. There is no reason for the green plates to cool. They werent cooling when pressed against the blue plate, and they were still radiating 400 W to space then.”
But after separation the green plates are radiating 400 watts to space and just to piss your morons off, 400 watts of back radiation to the blue plate.
For a total of 800 watts, and since the green plates are only receiving 400 watts from the blue plate, there is an energy imbalance and the green plates must cool.
“Ive never known a person so upset that I asked them once if they were a moron. Sheesh.”
Is that an apology for asking if I was a moron?
Might help things if it was, but it won’t help you grasp the concepts of thermodynamics.
“Wrong, as previously explained.”
Look MORON, I have shown your previous explanation to be incorrect.
“Heat can flow permanently between two objects, if those objects are fixed at certain temperatures so that there is a constant thermal gradient between them.”
Nope, like I said this is just gibberish, everything in this statement is wrong.
Heat flow does not require object to be fixed in temperature.
There doesn’t even need to be a temperature gradient. When you boil water, water at 100 C becomes steam at 100 C, there is heat transfer with no temperature change.
“Nonsense, bob. Heat flow between objects tends towards zero wherever possible, regardless of when there is a constant source of energy. If there was no constant source of energy, plate temperatures would drop towards zero!”
Yes, but the problem has a constant heat source, so saying that heat flow between objects tends towards zero whenever possible, when that situation is not in the problem.
I can’t remember what fallacy that is, maybe denying the antecedent, but it’s very bad logic.
Moron.
Anyone want to take a bucket of hot liquid freon and dump it onto a much colder steel plate and tell me the results in terms of heat transfer.
Probably result in reporting heat transfer against a temperature gradient.
Any smokers amongst the denialati that would like to try?
“But after separation the green plates are radiating 400 watts to space and just to piss your morons off, 400 watts of back radiation to the blue plate.
For a total of 800 watts, and since the green plates are only receiving 400 watts from the blue plate, there is an energy imbalance and the green plates must cool.”
bob, you agree that the green plates have no such energy imbalance when they were pressed together. It’s not like separating them means they become physically bigger objects requiring more energy to remain at the same temperature. They still each have two sides even when they are all pressed together.
“Heat flow does not require object to be fixed in temperature.”
I didn’t say it did. I said if you were going to have heat flow between objects at steady state, one of the reasons could be that the objects are fixed at certain temperatures, such that there is a permanent thermal gradient. Otherwise, heat flow between objects tends to act to reduce that gradient to zero. Like in this idealized thought experiment.
“Yes, but the problem has a constant heat source, so saying that heat flow between objects tends towards zero whenever possible, when that situation is not in the problem.”
You are arguing that there needs to be heat flow between the objects at steady state. I am arguing that there doesn’t. That’s what this boils down to. Pretty simple really.
“You are arguing that there needs to be heat flow between the objects at steady state.”
Yep because that what is required by common sense, basic heat transfer principles and thermodynamic laws, as has been shown to you many times.
“I am arguing that there doesn’t.”
But you are unable to cite any theory or real laws of physics to support your argument. It is just a feeling you have.
Thus, by the standard rules of debate, you lose the argument.
Now the loser will declare himself the winner anyway, thus proving that he is thoroughly dishonest and still has the temperament of a spoiled child.
DREMPTY,
The heat has to flow from the heater to the blue plate, from the blue plate to the green plate, and from the green plate to space.
If you don’t understand that and say that doesn’t have to be the case you are a moron.
End of story.
No bob, there is simply no reason for a thermal gradient to exist between the plates. Heat would always flow between them in order to act to reduce that thermal gradient to zero. In this idealized thought experiment, there is no reason for that not to happen.
ClintR and Ball4 have already pointed out the problems with separation of the plates taking the temperatures from 244 K…244 K…244 K to 244 K…290 K…244 K, with no change in energy in/out. Your first step in recovering from your denial is to acknowledge that it is indeed impossible.
Let me know when you have got to step one.
I have pointed out no such problem DREMT.
Well, here’s what you said, again:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Again, that’s a single comment you dredged up debunking banned moniker JD not moniker Clint R, you remain confused as usual DREMT. My current context response to Clint R is upsubthread, repeat that current comment if you repeat anything.
No, Ball4, what you wrote supported JD, at the time. You had obviously got yourself confused because you wrote the comment like you were contradicting him, but actually what you said supported his arguments.
Your comment is in accord with the point made by ClintR at 1:15 PM.
You are free to make up anything you want to write, my comment to Clint R is in this thread not the previous one debunking JD in another constuct when the GPE was setlled in favor of Eli.
Your comment from two years ago happens to be in accord with ClintRs 1:15 PM comment, and helps debunk the GPE.
DREMPTY,
I already showed you why there was a change in the energy going out.
You just hand waved it away.
Man, your arms must be tired.
Moron.
Yes, you explained that you think the green plates suddenly require twice as much energy to remain at the same temperature, just because the method of energy transfer has changed from conduction to radiation.
DREMTPY
Again claims that 1+1=1
Moron
Does he? Oh.
So lets imagine space was replaced with giant warm walls, 200 K instead of 3K.
Would the 1 plate scenario temperature change?
would it still be 244 K?
If so, then the thermal gradient is less, and the output heat flow in both directions would be sigma(244^4-200^4) = 110 W by the RHTE.
Total output is 220 W.
But the input is still, 400 W.
What would happen?
Where have I claimed that 1+1=1, bob?
Wrong again DREMT 2:33pm, my comment from the past occurred before Clint R moniker even showed up here, that long ago comment can’t possibly be in accord with Clint R since that screen name did not exist at the time of my comment. Leave it to DREMT to play such silly, false games.
The long-ago comment debunked what now banned screen name JD had written on another construct, and the GPE was settled in favor of Eli long ago, both experimentally and theoretically.
Ball4, the words you have written in your comment from two years ago make the same point that ClintR has made, two years later. It is entirely possible for two different people to make the same point at two different times. Your comment helps debunk the GPE, so thank you for your assistance.
Sure, it is entirely possible my long-ago comment debunks both screen names JD and the new kid Clint R on another construct than the GPE. The GPE itself was long ago settled in favor of Eli.
Your words help debunk the GPE, thank you for your assistance.
My long ago words directed to banned JD on another construct have nothing to do with the GPE settled In favor of Eli but you are free to create more falsehoods for as long as you can DREMT. It is really entertaining watching DREMT twist in the wind.
Obviously you are the one twisting and wriggling, Ball4…squirming around trying to escape from your own words.
No DREMT, I stand having debunked the banned for good reason JD; keep twisting…twisting…twisting DREMT, for the entertainment provided. Btw, GPE settled in favor of Eli.
Well, here’s what you said, again:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
And here’s what ClintR said:
"Another way to show how bob doesn’t understand thermodynamics is to consider the “heat content” of each plate.
All plates are identical so they have the same mass (m) and the same specific heat capacity (C). Before separation, at equilibrium, each plate has 244*m*C Joules. Or 3*244*m*C = 732mC Joules, for the total.
In the idiot solution of the 3-plates, after separation the total energy content would be 244mC + 290mC + 244mC = 778mC Joules.
So the energy in the plates went up, with no additional energy incoming. The idiot solution creates energy from nothing!
bob, and the other idiots, don’t understand thermodynamics!"
I would say that the two comments are in accord. So I will go with that. Keep wriggling, Ball4.
Of course DREMT would wrongly say anything; fact remains I long ago debunked the rightly banned JD and wrote a different current comment for Clint R in a different debate not the GPE long settled in favor of Eli.
The discussion two years ago was on the exact same subject – the three-plate scenario GPE, which is simply an extension of the logic of the original GPE. Your comment supported the debunking of the GPE back then, and it still does so today. It is in accord with the comment from ClintR. Keep on wrigglin’.
I long ago debunked banned JD’s faulty science comment on the three-plate scenario in that comment DREMT clipped, the original two-plate GPE settled separately in favor of Eli. Just keep twistin’ word’s meanings DREMT, fun to watch. It won’t work for you, most of the crowd here is way too astute.
Your comment supported JD, and helped debunk the GPE. It still does, to this day. It is the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you for your support, Ball4.
DREMT has had a couple of years to learn a tiny bit of heat transfer theory, and solve ONE homework problem.
But he seems to be incapable and very resistant to learning even the basic principles.
Meanwhile he has successfully translated his playground bullying skills to the internet.
Thank you for your support, Ball4.
Yes, debunking JD was easy and fun long ago, it’s good JD got banned, now it’s just as easy and fun to debunk Clint R and DREMT. GPE is long settled in favor of Eli.
Your comment supported JD at the time, and is similar in content to ClintR’s comment, helping to debunk the GPE.
DREMPTY,
When you said this
“But, there is no reason for the green plates to cool on separation.”
You are claiming that the green plates do not start radiating from both sides when they are separated, or
1+1+1
You know, bob, the plates still have two sides when they’re pressed together.
DREMPTY,
You know when they are pressed together, the green plates are only radiating from one side.
You know that, right?
You know that, right?
You are just trying to **** with me right?
You said the green plates don’t cool when separated, right?
You believe in back conduction, no?
Heat flow by conduction is in one direction, no?
Yes, bob, they only radiate from one side when pressed together. They conduct from the other side. Still two sides in total, the side facing the blue plate just as capable of “losing energy” as much as it can when radiating.
So what you are saying, is when pressed together, there is x watts transferred from green to blue, so the blue plate is getting 400 + 2*x watts, so its temperature is more than 244, right?
So you are admitting that your solution with the plates pressed together is not 244, 244, and 244?
WTF?
No, bob, because back-conduction, like back-radiation, cannot heat anything. So the temperature remains 244 K…244 K…244 K. Together or separated.
“So the temperature remains 244 K244 K244 K.”
This is the Holy Trinity of the faithful. Hallowed be thy name.
Some worshipers describe miraculous events: unheated objects warming, just as if they were heated!
Heat flow apparently stopped, then restarted on the other side of a great divide.
Others are speaking in tongues:
“because back-conduction”
No reply from bob…guess he gets it.
Nope DREMPTY,
I am just giving you up for the rest of Lent.
Good, good.
CO2 does not ‘trap heat’.
That nonsense belongs to those you obtain when PR staffs or journalists try to explain science in the mode ‘keep it as simple as possible’.
Such simplifications are a complete misrepresentation of what happens, and contribute to increase unsound skepticism.
1. CO2, like H2O, CH4, N2O, all CFCs etc, reduces, even if in tiniest quantities, longwave infrared radiation (LWIR) emitted by Earth in response to Sun’s shortwave radiation.
All main constituents of the atmosphere (N2, O2, Ar) show no or very few IR-sensitivity (Ar none at all; N2 absorbs and reemits 10^6 less than H2O and CO2, O2 10^4 less, even though considering their relative atmospheric abundance).
Without all these trace gases, 99.99 % of the LWIR would reach outer space directly.
In the presence of these gases, only one half of what they absorb is on average reemitted to space; the other half is reemitted down to Earth. This process of course can be repeated many times in both directions.
It is amazing to see how ignorant some people are, who brazenly pretend that trace gases cool the atmosphere because they emit radiation from there. Such people simply ignore or dissimulate the fact that what is emitted has been absorbed milliseconds before!
*
2. The higher trace gases move up in the lower layers of the atmosphere, the higher will be the altitude at which LWIR stops being intercepted.
As long as this altitude keeps lower than 50 km, the last reemission temperature keeps far lower than that of the surface; the reemission energy then is correspondingly lower.
This increases Earth’s energy imbalance even a bit more; this imbalance is a greater concern than the LWIR backradiation reaching the surface (for CO2: not much more than 2 W/m^2).
*
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere very certainly will not result in any terrific warming. But this is not a reason to ignore the effect.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you acknowledge once again your failure to understand physics. But, you didn’t include any links that you also don’t understand.
You’re slipping.
Ooops
Should read:
1. CO2, like H2O, CH4, N2O, all CFCs etc, reduces, even if in tiniest quantities, the escape to space of longwave infrared radiation (LWIR) emitted by Earth in response to Suns shortwave radiation.
Better thread placement: You can add to the list O2, N2 reduction in OLR due their massive quantities and collision induced absorp_tion in the infrared.
Ball4
” You can add to the list O2, N2 reduction in OLR… ”
No, certainly not, Ball4.
Unless you bring us a real proof that
– the energy kept by the N2/O2 Brownian Movement due to collisions with the IR interceptors before they reemit
is comparable with
– the energy the latter themselves prevent from reaching space.
J.-P. D.
Certainly not? Here’s some reading for your proof otherwise Bindidon:
Discovered by Crawford et al. [1949], collision induced absorp_tion leads to weak absorp_tion features of N2 and O2 in the infrared [e.g., Hartmann et al., 2008].
Timofeyev and Tonkov [1978] reported that at distinct wavelengths near the band center, O2 absorp_tion may affect the atmospheric zenith transmission by up to 9% for dry atmospheric conditions.
In the atmosphere, the infrared signal of O2 has first been detected through balloon-borne limb-sounding observations [Rinsland et al., 1982].
The mid-infrared absorp_tion of N2 was first observed by Susskind and Searl [1977] by use of ground-based FTIR measurements.
A further detailed analysis of the mid-infrared continuum signals of O2 and N2 has been performed on basis of space-borne observations by Rinsland et al. [1989].
The N2 absorp_tion band in the sub-mm range has been analyzed in atmospheric measurements by Pardo et al. [2001].
We have found that on global average under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 W/m^2 and due to N2 by 0.17 W/m^2. Together this amounts to 15% of the OLR-reduction caused by CH4 at present atmospheric concentrations. [Hopfner 2012] GRL Vol. 39.
Ball4
” You can add to the list O2, N2 reduction in OLR… ”
I know one of the sources, have it on disk:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL051409
All is well therein concerning the measurement numbers.
But sorry, again I repeat: No, certainly not, Ball4.
How can you compare the OLR reduction of H2O+CO2 (90 W/m^2) with the tiny bits – 0.16 W/m^2) N2+O2 account for?
0.2 % ! Are you serious?
By the way: this article has been misused numerous times to push up the effect of N2 and O2 wrt that of the really IR-intercepting gases, even on this blog if I well do remember.
J.-P. D.
Forbes censored an interview with me
http://www.sciencebits.com/forbes-censored-interviewme#disqus_threads
Holá Adel!
¿Qué pasa? ¡Página no encontrada!
J.-P. D.
Adelaida
Luckily, Spain’s people reponsible for fighting against COVID19 are a lot more intelligent than the Abbott guy…
J.-P. D.
You can add to the list O2, N2 reduction in OLR due their massive quantities and collision induced absorp_tion in the infrared.
Hello Bindidon!!
It is very interesting!
I repeat It:
http://www.sciencebits.com/forbes-censored-interview-me
Gracias Adelaida, I’ll read the stuff tomorrow.
J.-P.
I don’t understund …. Abbott guy??
Who is he?
Adelaida
” Abbott guy ”
Sorry for the shortcut, it was a reference to Lubos Motl’s
https://motls.blogspot.com/2021/03/extreme-leftists-react-to-reopening-of.html
which I found in the ScienceBits page you linked to.
I confess: Motl does not at all belong to my preferred scientists, even if I have nothing in common with ‘extreme leftists’.
*
A propos science, dear Adelaida…
What do you think about these papers, written – evidently on the hobby line – by Arbab Ibrahim Arbab, a Sudanese professor for Experimental Physics?
1. Spin – orbit coupling in gravitational systems (2016)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arbab-Arbab/publication/306255599_Spin_-_orbit_coupling_in_gravitational_systems/links/5b87f2b1299bf1d5a731f8ea/Spin-orbit-coupling-in-gravitational-systems.pdf?origin=publication_detail
*
2. The generalized Newtons law of gravitation versus the general theory of relativity (2018)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.1911
You need a lot of knowledge AND cojones to write such a stuff!
I hope you will enjoy the papers.
Mejores saludos
J.-P. D.
Ball4 Says: 13 to 18 micron photons can come from the sun as measured at the surface of Earth. The sun is thought to be a bit warmer than -80C: again, how does CO2isLife go about proving the 13 to 18 micron photon came from 1) high cirrus icy clouds or 2) the sun?
That is one of the most insightful questions I’ve read on this blog. That is actually an interesting observation. Cirrus Clouds can form at any altitude between 5,000 and 13,700 m above sea level. At the lowest layer the temp is -6°C, at the top it is -56°C. At those temperatures the surrounding temperatures keep the ice in ice form. Also, clouds are huge, so the sun may be melting the ice at the surface of the cloud, only to have it freeze again when the drop falls into the cloud and is blocked from the direct sun light.
The experiment I detailed has the temperature right at the margin of melting, ie 0.00°C. The purpose once again is to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures, that Is why I’m looking for the marginal additional energy from visible radiation melts the frost. CO2 and scattered and reflected visible radiation doesn’t melt the frost, but direct visible radiation provides the energy to push the ice over the edge and melt/evaporate.
“The purpose once again is to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures..”
Ok then, try this experiment in your home lab. Set up a black water container fed by water line to keep its water at the same level as it steadily boils above the flame of a Bunsen burner. You have a steady SW IR source at 212F. Slightly less than the sun surface but closer.
Obtain a long (several feet) brass cylinder several inches in diameter with closed end coverings that allow IR (broadband actually is ok) to pass through into the tube that has a thermometer installed sticking the business end into the center of the cylinder which has a valve installed to allow lab air to escape and a valve to allow another gas to enter from its gas container. Shine the SW source light through your closed brass tube with STP lab air and record the thermometer temperature as equilibrium is achieved. Then set up a drying mechanism to dry the lab air as it fills the tube, record dry, much less humid air equilibrium temperature at lab ambient pressure.
Now, let in the CO2 gas through the gas drying mechanism and purge the lab air out until you are satisfied the dry CO2 clear gas essentially fills the container. Now shine the SW light from your boiling water source through the clear gas in the cylinder and record the equilibrium temperature. Fill us in on the two equilibrium thermometer temperatures you have recorded.
Now get some Ar gas, N2 gas, so forth from your local gas supply shop. And fill us in on those dry equilibrium temperatures. You might even hook up a way to exhaust the tube to a really low pressure and experiment with that or a higher than ambient pressure compressor. Go to town on this experimenting & let us know results.
Ball4, unecessarily complicated.
1) Dry Ice is frozen 100% CO2.
2) Place Dry Ice in a container with a hose leading into a balloon that is transparent to IR of 13 to 18µ.
3) Shine longpass filtered light onto the balloon.
4) Measure the temperature against a control.
5) There should be no temperature differential
1) Place Dry ice in a container
2) Shine Longpass filtered IR of 13 to 18µ onto the dry ice
3) Record the volume sublimated by filling a ballon.
4) Compare that to a control.
5) The radiated dry ice should sublimate faster
1) Place water in a plexiglass container (IR transparent)
2) Place the container in a dark room
3) Shine Longpass filtered IR of 13 to 18µ onto the water
4) Record a timeseries of temperatures
5) Compare to a control
6) There should be no temperature differential
Every highschool in the world can run those experiments
And High Schools would have no controlled experiments in all those cases. They will get random answers depending on the multiple variables.
Shine the SW source light through your closed brass tube with STP lab air and record the thermometer temperature
I’m pretty sure SW will warm the brass. That is why you have to use IR transparent Plexiglass and not normal glass for these experiments. Once again, you have to isolate the impact of CO2, 13 to 18µ LWIR, and water. You don’t want the equipment to provide the warming.
This is what you need:
https://www.gsoptics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HSP6_1125_S.jpg
“I’m pretty sure SW will warm the brass.”
The steady SW from your source is not incident on the brass, it shines into the window at the one end and out the other end through the clear gas.
Ball4,
A real scientist does experiments.
A stupid alarmist demands others waste their time and effort on an alarmist fantasy.
Maybe you should read the results of real experimental work done by John Tyndall, back in the nineteenth century.
Tyndall showed that gases can obstruct the passage of energy. He also showed that this obstruction results in lower temperatures. He even found one liquid which blocked heat so effectively that adding a brass plate to the path had no effect.
Some silly people would no doubt leap to the conclusion that brass is a greenhouse material, because it can absorb and emit IR.
As a side note, some alarmists do not realise that Tyndall’s galvanometer was calibrated in degrees of rotation, not temperature, and that direction indicated increased or decreased energy reaching his thermopile.
Carry on fantasising.
Swenson aka Amazed aka Flynn
” As a side note, some alarmists do not realise that Tyndall’s galvanometer was calibrated in degrees of rotation, not temperature, and that direction indicated increased or decreased energy reaching his thermopile. ”
*
This utter nonsense you pretended years ago already.
Here is what Tyndall wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/ffx854tx (link tinyURL’d due to ‘absorp-tion’)
In the text:
*
” The galvanometer quantifies the difference in temperature between the left and right sides of the thermopile.
The reading on the galvanometer is settable to zero by moving the Heat Screen a bit closer or farther from the lefthand heat source. That is the only role for the heat source on the left.
The heat source on the righthand side directs radiant heat into the long brass tube. The long brass tube is highly polished on the inside, which makes it a good reflector (and non-absorber) of the radiant heat inside the tube.
Rock-salt (NaCl) is practically transparent to radiant heat, and so plugging the ends of the long brass tube with rock-salt plates allows radiant heat to move freely in and out at the tube endpoints, yet completely blocks the gas within from moving out. ”
*
You are such a arrogant and ignorant liar, Swenson!
J.-P. D.
Shush you guys; you will get CO2isLife incented to look up past data from real experiments.
And, find the galvanometers registered reduced energy because the incident energy was first absorbed warming the clear gas as indicated by mercury thermometers in the gas.
Binn y,
It is as I said. Reread your Tyndall. Try understanding his experimental setup. His galvanometer needle is free to swing in both directions – degrees of motion, not temperature.
Then carry on with your stupid unfounded ad hominem attacks.
You alarmists are a strange lot. Do you make up stuff as you go, or just repeat any random rubbish you hear?
Anybody interested can read “Heat – a mode of motion”, by Professor John Tyndall, 6th edition, if they so wish.
Ball4,
You are correct. The gas column reduces the amount of energy impinging on an object. This results in a reduction in temperature.
As to mercury thermometers, your fantasy is not born out by Tyndall’s writings. Here –
“Some means must be devised of making the indications of heat and cold visible to you, and for this purpose an ordinary thermometer would be useless. You could not observe its action . . . ”
But hey, alarmists are only tenuously connected to reality, aren’t they?
Swenson aka Amazed aka Flynn
Here is a link to most of Tyndall’s work
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_6gkQA8-8mnMC
Show us the place.
J.-P. D.
swenson…”As a side note, some alarmists do not realise that Tyndalls galvanometer was calibrated in degrees of rotation, not temperature, and that direction indicated increased or decreased energy reaching his thermopile”.
That sounds right. A galvanometer is a form of ammeter that sense the direction of current flow through its coils. It is zeroed at mid-scale and deflects right or left depending on the direction of current flow.
Tyndall would not have had the technology to set up a galvanometer to measure temperature. He even admitted he was measuring differences in heat input from two sources. He was not concerned about the actual temperature just the relative level of heat as generated as a voltage by thermopyles.
GR,
Quite right. A galvanometer shows the direction of current flows.
Tyndall was quite brilliant in both nulling and calibrating his galvanometer to show equal deflection for equal currents in both directions.
Alarmists seem not to comprehend that Tyndall spoke of degrees of deflection, not degrees of temperature. They also overlook the fact that Tyndall used a galvanometer purposefully – to show whether cooling or heating was taking place.
Not terribly bright, some alarmists.
Some commenters such as Gordon and Swenson are not particularly well-read nor informed on the use of galvanometers & CO2isLife should note for the clear gas in the brass tube illuminated at boiling water temperature:
Tyndall 1861: “I subsequently had the tube perforated and thermometers screwed into it air-tight. On filling the tube the thermometric columns rose, on exhausting it they sank, the range between the maximum and minimum amounting in the case of air to 5 degrees FAHR.”
Shine the SW source light through your closed brass tube with STP lab air and record the thermometer temperature as equilibrium is achieved
Unless you are using laser light, plenty of that light will be absorbed and warming the Brass. Licht, especially the short wavelength blue light scatters in the atmosphere.
Some source light indeed will be scattered inside the tube; the amount will be nil effect on tube brass temperature as the gas is abundantly observed clear. Outside the tube, there is incident ambient light on the tube that is part of the lab for each test run, also nil affect on the experimental results. Monitor your tube brass temperature if you wish, compare to gas temperature change.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Some source light indeed will be scattered inside the tube; the amount will be nil effect on tube brass temperature as the gas is abundantly observed clear.”
Binny has an excuse for his poor English.
What’s yours?
Or do you think that incomprehensible gibberish makes you look clever?
You could experiment using a modified NDIR-type instrument. Most CO2 NDIR instruments use optical filters in front the thermopiles. A 3.9 um filter is used for a control since that frequency is not active with common gases. A 4.2 um filter is used to isolate CO2 since that frequency is active for the antisym stretching mode of CO2 but not active for any other common gas. There’s no reason you couldn’t use a 15 um filter to isolate CO2 as well since that frequency is active for the bending mode. However, if using a 15 um filter you would probably want to do one measurement with normal atmosphere as a control and one with elevated CO2. To approximate 2xCO2 you would likely need a very long tube (100 meters) and a very high CO2 concentration (50% or more). I don’t remember the exact CO2 concentration required to approximate 2xCO2’s cross sectional area, but I do know it has be exaggerated since you cannot create a 50 km long tube. And although 4.2 um does contribute to CO2’s radiative force it is minor compared to 15 um. Unfortunately 15 um is active with other common gases so it is much harder to use it to truly isolate CO2’s response. That’s why CO2 NDIR’s typically use 4.2 um.
When you read DREMT’s poorish contributions to Moon’s spin, you can only ask: how can such a person be brazen enough to pretend that the controversy would be ‘over’.
All what DREMT and his affiliates – Robertson, Clint R, Swenson and hunter – until now were able to push up was to discredit, denigrate and distort both historical and contemporary science.
I’m not interested in the discussion concerning the ‘plate stuff’ initiated by Dr Halpern, but I wouldn’t wonder if DREMT’s contribution would be exactly as ridiculous and unscientific as his childish merry-go-round and Tesla blah blah.
J.-P. D.
Pompous Bindidon, the moon debate is settled. It does not rotate on its own axis.
DREMT
The Moon does rotate on its own axis. It is established fact and as Bindidon has pointed out, this fact is used to engineer lunar landings.
You can persist with your view. Obviously no one here can alter your perception.
You can move a Quarter around another and then find you HAVE to rotate it on its axis to make it keep facing the center Quarter.
You are correct, the moon debate is settled. You conclusion of the settlement is wrong. But there is no possible debate with this issue. Logic, evidence do not work so there is not a potential for valid debate.
It is a case of your false belief vs evidence. No one can change your belief.
Norman believes “It is established fact and as Bindidon has pointed out, this fact is used to engineer lunar landings.”
Wrong Norman, something that isn’t happening does not affect reality.
You just swallow what your cult members tell you.
norman …”this fact is used to engineer lunar landings”.
Yes, Norman, because the mother ship from which the lunar lander is launched is flying at considerable altitude and velocity above the lunar surface. When the lander is released, it too is in orbit and traveling at the same speed as the mother ship.
The lander must first be slowed down till it is out of orbit by firing retro-engines. Then, as it breaks orbit, it tends to free fall, other engines are used to keep it from falling too fast.
If the mother ship was orbiting around the Moon so we were looking right at the orbital plane as seen perpendicular to a radial line from the Earth, and the object was to drop the lander in the middle of the plane as seen from the Earth side, complex math would be required to slow the lander to hit that position as it descended from a speeding mother ship.
There would be nothing required in the calculations to account for a local rotation of the Moon because there is none. The only motion would be that of the lander performing translation as it got out of orbit and landed.
No it isn’t, DREMT.
Simply because you and your friends-in-denial until now were unable to contradict dozens of real science contribution in this debate.
Regardless what you think, mean and write: the discussion will not be settled before a majority of commenters involved in the discussion say so.
You can repeat and repeat your stuff – like do Clint R and his predecessors JD*Huffman and ge*r*an – as long as you want.
That won’t change anything.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon has to go with “consensus” since he has no background in orbital motion.
Pompous Bindidon, the moon debate is settled. It does not rotate on its own axis.
…as observed from the accelerated frame.
Pompous Bindidon, the moon debate is settled. It does not rotate on its own axis.
I agree with Sir Isaac Newton.
The Moon is falling towards the Earth. A person at a point on the Moon closest to the Earth, will see the Earth above them (or underneath them, if you wish) – at all times.
No problem. The Moon won’t fall onto the Earth, crushing the Moon-bound observer, because the Moon’s trajectory carries it about one and a quarter millimeters further from the Earth in the one second it takes to fall that same one and a quarter millimeters (or so).
As Sir Isaac said, from the viewpoint of the fixed stars, the Moon appears to be rotating. So would Newton’s cannonball, with a big X painted on the side facing the Earth, when fired from a smooth bore cannon without any spin.
But I suppose that if you want to believe that people on a round the world cruise are all rotating around their axes, along with the cruise liner which is circling the Earth with its keel pointed towards the Earths center of gravity, then good for you!
A career with the National Science Foundation, NASA, or any number of organisations who reject Newton’s Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation, awaits you.
“So would Newtons cannonball, with a big X painted on the side facing the Earth, when fired from a smooth bore cannon without any spin.”
Physics says otherwise.
Your feelings about what his cannonball would be doing are neither evidence nor logic.
“So would Newton’s cannonball, with a big X painted on the side facing the Earth, when fired from a smooth bore cannon without any spin.”
Physics says otherwise.
Your feelings about what his cannonball would be doing are neither evidence nor logic.
Have you told NASA? They plan to put the Lunar Gateway in a stable polar HALO orbit. This remains in the same orientation while the Moon rotates below it.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis. The moon “orbits”, or rotates around an external axis, hence it changes its orientation whilst it moves. In other words, you’re making the same mistake as always. NASA’s Lunar Gateway plan will work fine, so no need to tell them.
Yes DREMT, our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves, spinning once on its own axis per orbit. Only in the accelerated frame is the moon observed to not rotate on its own axis. Like ftop_t showed you here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Ent, if Moon were actually rotating about its axis, we would see that from Earth. You need to appreciate reality, rather than rejecting it.
If our Moon were actually rotating about its axis more or less than once per orbit, we would see all sides from Earth. Commenters need to appreciate reality, rather than rejecting it.
The moon rotating once on its axis per orbit was settled long ago by Tesla in his momentum analysis of wheel and ball M assembly. Many are obviously unable to appreciate the physics employed.
Ball4, there is actually only one frame of reference from which the moon appears to rotate on its own axis. That’s a translating reference frame where the origin is located at the center of mass of the moon, and the Cartesian axes remain aligned towards various distant, fixed stars. From all other reference frames, the moon can be observed to be rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis, as ftop_t showed you in the comment you obsessively link to.
Now DREMT debunks DREMT previously writing “our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves” in that now our moon doesn’t change orientation as it moves. DREMT like Gordon cannot keep his stories straight.
The moon rotating on its own axis once per orbit was proven by Tesla in the wheel and ball M assembly analysis settling the debate long ago and the GPE was settled in favor of Eli. DREMT aimlessly wanders around debunking nothing but himself. Paste a little jetliner in place of the round object to show Gordon what really happens:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves because it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, as is shown in the comment you obsessively link to, and as Tesla argued when he wrote:
"The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one."
The GPE is debunked, as you agreed when you wrote that comment to JD a couple of years ago:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Agreeing with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment.
Clint R
“we would see that from Earth. ”
Very Ptolomaic of you.
“Our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves..”
Very well DREMT now our moon doesn’t just appear to do so, our moon actually changes its orientation in orbit, try to stick with that correct story agreeing with ftop_t demo. I debunked JD on another situation and agreed the GPE was settled in favor of Eli.
Our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves because it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, as is shown in ftop_t’s demo.
Whether or not you debunked JD “on another situation”, and whether or not you think that the GPE is not debunked, what you wrote supports ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment and thus the idea that the GPE is debunked.
I see DREMT still does not understand what I wrote debunks JD but that is to be expected from a commenter doesn’t understand Tesla settled the moon does actually (not only appears to) change orientation rotating once on its own axis per orbit as shown by ftop_t & the original GPE is long settled in favor of Eli.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves because it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, as is shown in ftop_t’s demo, and as agreed by Tesla.
Whether or not you debunked JD “on another situation”, and whether or not you think that the GPE is not debunked, what you wrote supports ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment and thus the idea that the GPE is debunked.
Our moon changes its orientation as it orbits is correct as Tesla proved; our moon also changes its position in space since it is also in orbit thus two different momentums in any ref. frame.
Our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves because it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, as is shown in ftop_t’s demo, and as agreed by Tesla.
…as agreed by Tesla’s editor DREMT not Tesla, you’ve confused the two yet again.
Tesla himself (not his editor) wrote:
"The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one."
DREMT yet again avoids Tesla’s momentum proof our moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit when the ball M is “fixt” on Tesla’s wheel assembly. Once DREMT (or anyone capable) understands that proof, the rest of Tesla’s verbiage can be readily explained.
Get to work understanding the physics involved in Tesla’s proof DREMT, when you have mastered that, the rest of Tesla’s verbiage will become clear.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-631244
binny…”When you read DREMTs poorish contributions to Moons spin, you can only ask: how can such a person be brazen enough to pretend that the controversy would be over”.
Because the debate was proved to be over, not only by non-spinners but by Tesla and the utter inability of spinners to prove their case. That’s especially true for you, someone who used ad homs, appeals to authority, and the recitations of ancient scientists, none of whose theories you understood. You offered no scientific understanding of your own.
Yes the debate was proved to be over when Tesla settled on the rotating on its own axis moon once per Earth orbit with his wheel and ball M assembly for those that can appreciate the momentum physics Tesla employed.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. He wrote one very short section in one of his articles where he went through one of the biggest reasons why people think the moon rotates on its own axis, then went on to debunk that. You have taken that bit out of context and try to pretend that Tesla argued or even proved that the moon rotates on its own axis, without mentioning the debunking, or the fact that he quite obviously and even famously was of the opinion that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. What you do is utterly shameless, but that’s just who you are, I guess.
Tesla’s layman editor argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, Tesla himself proved our moon does rotate on its own axis once per orbit, the debate was settled.
What you do is utterly shameless, but that’s just who you are, I guess.
DREMPTY scores two points for denigration.
You cannot deny that what Ball4 does is a disgrace.
Actually, it is a disgrace that DREMT won’t learn from Tesla’s proof our moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit of earth with his wheel assembly momentum analysis.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
It seems the moon must rotate about the axis. It takes 27.3 days to rotate about its axis and 29.5 days to orbit the earth.
Yes, Ken, that the moon rotates on its own axis is settled science, it has day/night cycles due its rotating on its own axis. There are those intent on perpetuating a myth that wander in aimlessly around here though that provide much 3-ring circus entertainment.
Ball4 won’t even set Ken straight on his error.
ball4…”the moon rotates on its own axis is settled science, it has day/night cycles due its rotating on its own axis”.
If a jetliner could be re-fueled in flight as it flew at 35,000 feet, at constant velocity, it would experience the say day/night cycles as the Moon. Yet we know the jetliner cannot rotate about its COM or it would crash. It’s landing wheels side must always face the Earth as does the Moon’s near side.
If the flaps/ailerons were trimmed for level flight, the only velocity available to the plane is linear velocity. It orbits because gravity acts on it the same way it does the Moon to convert the plane’s linear velocity into an orbital path.
Gordon, correctly if your jetliner could be re-fueled in flight as it flew at 35,000 feet, at constant velocity wrt Earth surface below, it could experience the say day/night cycles as the Moon (depending on jetliner position) and the pilot would rotate the airplane once on its lateral axis per orbit of Earth without crashing into Earth just like our moon.
"the pilot would rotate the airplane once on its lateral axis per orbit of Earth"
Laughably wrong.
Only to those that do not understand physics well enough.
The pilot does not need to make any sort of adjustment to keep the airplane flying with the bottom of the aircraft aligned with the ground. It’s not like when he gets halfway around the world the plane would be flying backwards with the top of the aircraft aligned with the ground unless he gradually and continually rotated the airplane on its lateral axis to prevent that from happening!
“the plane would be flying backwards”
Lol, wrong axis DREMT, note I wrote lateral axis not vertical axis.
Yes, the lateral axis. About which the airplane pitches up or down.
But doesn’t ever go tail first in its safe Earth orbit as you wrote, just keeps parallel to ground on lateral axis all the way around.
Now you are getting it.
Ball4, a circumnavigating airplane exhibits the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string, or Moon. It’s orbiting, not rotating about its axis.
You just don’t like reality.
A circumnavigating airplane exhibits the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string, or our Moon, toy train and Tesla’s “fixt” ball M. They are all orbiting, not rotating about theor own axis as observed from the accelerated frame, and rotating once on their own axis per orbit as observed in the inertial frame. Clint R just doesn’t like reality or understand relativity.
A circumnavigating airplane exhibits the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string, or our moon, toy train and Tesla’s “fixt” ball M. They are all orbiting, but not rotating about their own axes as observed from the inertial frame as shown in ftop_t’s demo.
DREMT also does not understand relativity.The observers on the plane rotate with the plane, not the observers on the surface. DREMT is on the plane so doesn’t observe the rotation as that is the acclerated frame.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-631433
“If a jetliner could be re-fueled in flight as it flew at 35,000 feet, at constant velocity”
A jet can’t fly both a) at 35,000 ft and 2) at constant velocity. Constant velocity would be a perfectly straight line, leaving earth behind as it headed out toward the stars.
This is a relatively minor point, but it shows that people have sloppy thinking and sloppy writing. No wonder there is a lot of misunderstanding.
“Constant velocity would be a perfectly straight line, leaving earth behind as it headed out toward the stars.”
Indeed. The output of the gyros in an airliner INS reports a constant and gradual downward pitch of about 9 degrees an hour at cruising speed as the aircraft follows the curve of the Earth. To avoid confusion this is edited out by the display software.
TS, you’re just trying to distort by being picky and pedantic. Anyone can throw out such nonsense.
For example, I could say a jet can’t leave “earth behind as it headed out toward the stars”. If I wanted to be picky, pedantic and desperate like you.
No wonder there is a lot of misunderstanding.
ken…”It seems the moon must rotate about the axis. It takes 27.3 days to rotate about its axis and 29.5 days to orbit the earth”.
The Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face toward the Earth. Try it. Take two coins, mark them appropriately, and try keeping the marked side of the moving coin against the rim of the stationary coin while completing a full 360 degree rotation of the moving coin.
I ran this past NASA and they dodged the question by claiming they are observing the lunar motion wrt the stars. That’s what the spinners are doing here but both are wrong. If the Moon is not rotating on a local axis it is not rotating on a long axis from any perspective or from any frame of reference.
Frames of reference are a product of the human mind, a dark place where ridiculous theoretical science is conceived.
Gordon,
Your two coin example makes no sense whatsoever. The outer coin is touching the inner? The moon does not touch the earth!
Take a coin which will represent the moon, and place mark on the outside edge. Take a second coin which will represent the earth. Make a revolution about the earth coin with the moon coin, keeping the mark facing the earth during the revolution. You have to continually rotate the moon coin about its axis to keep the mark facing the earth coin. And you ran your two coin thingy by NASA??? LMAO.
Just like ftop_t, you are clueless about reference frames, as well as curvilinear translation, and kinematics in general.
SGW,
As alarmists might say, easy peasy!
Just mount your imaginary coin on an imaginary track, like an imaginary train on a similar imaginary track.
I guess you might come up with imaginary objections.
Such is the imaginary fantasy world of climate alarmists.
Are you one?
How about the ‘imaginary” objection that such a coin on such a train doesn’t face the right direction when the train in on an elliptical path?
Reality is the test of a hypothesis, and this ‘coin on a train’ fails to match reality. The real moon turns at a constant rate relative to the ‘fixed stars, but you coin does not.
Tim,
Maybe you could define your “right direction”?
And you may have misread. I said an imaginary coin on an imaginary track, not a coin on a train.
As to your slightly odd last sentence, you might have to explain what you mean. The Moon’s orbit is elliptical. Even from the fixed stars, the Moon will seem to speed up, and slow down.
From the Earth, the elliptical orbit causes the Moon to appear to wobble back and forth, which of course it does not do. Other forms of libration make the Moon appear to be simultaneously rotating about axes perpendicular to each other.
Maybe you you stick with the imaginary. I have not presented any hypothesis, so you are just making stuff up – as usual.
Ken, look up “sidereal” and “synodic”.
Orbital motions can be confusing….
Ken
” It seems the moon must rotate about the axis. It takes 27.3 days to rotate about its axis and 29.5 days to orbit the earth. ”
Sounds good, but is not 100% correct: with 29.5 days, you mean the so-called synodic period (i.e. relative to the Sun); the sidereal period is 27.3 days, nowadays exactly identical to the rotation period.
But all in all, it’s fine to see one more person willing to trust in millennia of accumulated knowledge than in appealing to the ‘authority’ of an inventer lacking any knowledge in astronomy.
J.-P. D.
Nobody is appealing to authority, Bindidon, except maybe you.
But Bindidon does lack “any knowledge in astronomy”.
Sorry DREMT
You are a gullible believer of Tesla’s quickshot as well as what Aleksandar Tomic wrote, and hence you appeal to their ‘authority’.
You try to dissimulate and manipulate.
J.-P. D.
An appeal to authority would mean I was saying or implying that Tesla or Tomic is correct because of who they are. I have not done so. I’m tired of your false accusations and insults.
Well you have DREMT. You totally avoid Tesla’s momentum analysis of the wheel and ball M assembly & appeal directly to Tesla’s mistaken editor.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. He wrote one very short section in one of his articles where he went through one of the biggest reasons why people think the moon rotates on its own axis, then went on to debunk that. You have taken that bit out of context and try to pretend that Tesla argued or even proved that the moon rotates on its own axis, without mentioning the debunking, or the fact that he quite obviously and even famously was of the opinion that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. What you do is utterly shameless, but thats just who you are, I guess.
Tesla’s editor argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, Tesla himself proved our moon rotates on its own axis with his wheel and ball M assembly analysis which you yet again totally avoid.
What you do is utterly shameless, but that’s just who you are, I guess.
Still avoiding Tesla’s proof our moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit I see…tsk, tsk. Most readers know why DREMT must avoid Tesla’s proof: it’s a good one.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. He wrote one very short section in one of his articles where he went through one of the biggest reasons why people think the moon rotates on its own axis, then went on to debunk that. You have taken that bit out of context and try to pretend that Tesla argued or even proved that the moon rotates on its own axis, without mentioning the debunking, or the fact that he quite obviously and even famously was of the opinion that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. What you do is utterly shameless, but that’s just who you are, I guess.
The mathematical proof is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid#/media/File:Epizykloide_herleitung.svg
theta measures the orbital motion
alpha measures the axial motion
For a point “P” that is nearest the orbital axis, it can only remain that way if alpha = 0
This is a visualization of the proof.
When alpha is zero
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/btdmdw5ws8
When alpha is not zero
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/0vn3xmlrpq
Again ftop
I dont see why you continue to ignore facts and universal definitions from Astronomy and rigid-body-kinematics.
In astronomy and rigid body kinematics, the axial rotation is defined relative to the inertial frame.
Your Alpha (axial rotation) is the angular velocity relative to the vector r, which is rotating.
That is not relative to the inertial frame.
Ftop_t, nice work…but they won’t understand. They won’t get that an object which is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, moves as per the “moon on the left”, here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
and that to keep axial rotation separate to that motion, you must let your alpha measure the axial rotation.
If theta measures the orbital motion then alpha must measure the axial rotation.
If alpha measures the axial rotation then theta must measure the orbital motion.
It has nothing to do with reference frames, and everything to do with how you define “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Is it as per the “moon on the left”, or as per the “moon on the right”? That is the question.
Nate 9:49am: “That is not relative to the inertial frame.”
Emphasis added. Yes, Nate, relativity is the key concept that Tesla, ftop_t, and DREMT are missing. Using my watch, it takes around 24 seconds for the alpha=0 contraption to make a complete 360 circle. The distance traveled is around 31.4 or say 1.308 units/sec. Speed of light is 186,000 miles/sec.
So if ftop’s 5 units of radius are equal to say 40,000 miles or (8,000 miles/unit) then the motion is impossible w/relativity considered yet as can be seen ftop_t’s contraption is still orbiting without change. As Tesla showed with his ball M momentum conservation analysis: mass, energy, and momentum conservation are essential to a physical understanding of the massive moon motion and cannot be ignored as does Tesla convincing himself ball M is welded, DREMT, and ftop_t, et. al.
I should add, the only way that the “Spinners” can claim the “moon on the left” is rotating on its own axis is if they define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right”. It’s as simple as that. It has nothing to do with choosing “the inertial reference frame” over “the accelerating frame”. It all comes down to how you want to see “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Relativity teaches it all comes down to where you want to see “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
There are two options, Ball4. The “moon on the left”, and the “moon on the right”. The two are completely different motions, regardless of reference frame. So the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” positions transcends reference frames.
@Nate,
I have acknowledged that determining orientation of an object in space through universal definitions is required because all objects are in motion.
That does not mean that the physical characteristics of the motion are accurately captured in the choices used to determine a universal process for orientation
https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/6-1-angle-of-rotation-and-angular-velocity
In Figure 6.6, with the image of the fly on the record player, you can claim its orientation is because it translated in a straight line from 12 o’clock to 3 o’clock and turned 90 degrees clockwise to locate the position of the fly; but that is not how it got there.
The actual motion is the fly remained fixed at its position (no axial rotation) on the record and the record turned.
theta moved 90 degrees (record turning)
alpha remained ZERO (fly is in the same position on the record with no axial rotation
The fly’s dv/dt is not zero though, ftop_t, thus the fly has nonzero acceleration facing E then S. The ref. frame attached to the fly is thus an accelerated frame. Velocity does not simply carry a scalar quantity; velocity is a vector.
The rotational on its own axis inertia of the fly on the record must be considered to get the moment of inertia of the record plus fly correct for system rotational momentum and rotational energy conservation. If the fly flies away both its linear and rotational momentum & rotational energy must be subtracted from the system due conservation principles.
The fly’s motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you think of it as a combination of the motion of the “moon on the right” (although CW instead of CCW) plus rotation about its own center of mass. In other words, you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right” in order to see it that way.
Correctly to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” of the fly being movement like the fly is as observed from the accelerated frame attached to the fly. This keeps momentum and energy conserved for the record assembly just like Tesla proved, so go argue with Tesla’s proof.
NB: The change in orientation of the fly means the fly has accelerated since its dv/dt is then nonzero so Gordon and DREMT admitting the moon changes orientation constituted their agreement to accelerated frames matter.
Again, the fly’s motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you think of it as a combination of the motion of the “moon on the right” (although CW instead of CCW) plus rotation about its own center of mass. In other words, you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right” in order to see it that way.
Not only DREMT, the fly accelerates just by changing its orientation in the two positions which you agree so does the moon change orientation, so too the frame attached to moon is an accelerated frame.
Once again, the fly’s motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you think of it as a combination of the motion of the “moon on the right” (although CW instead of CCW) plus rotation about its own center of mass. In other words, you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right” in order to see it that way.
ftop_t moans:
The mathematical proof is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid#/media/File:Epizykloide_herleitung.svg
theta measures the orbital motion
alpha measures the axial motion
It was already explained to you that alpha does NOT represent the axial rotation of the outer circle. Alpha represents the axial rotation of the outer circle with respect to a non-inertial reference frame rotating at the same rate as the orbital angular velocity of the focus of the outer circle.
Yet you continue with this fallacy. You are out of your league here. It’s obvious you have not studied kinematics.
Yep, they didn’t understand.
ftop_t wails:
The actual motion is the fly remained fixed at its position (no axial rotation) on the record and the record turned.
We use the inertial reference frame to describe the fly’s motion. You are using the rotating reference frame of the record.
Here is what Purdue University lecture notes say 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
This will never make sense unless you understand the above.
The fly has rotated 90 degrees on its own axis in its movement from the noon position to the 3:00 position.
For the fourth time, the fly’s motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you think of it as a combination of the motion of the “moon on the right” (although CW instead of CCW) plus rotation about its own center of mass. In other words, you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right” in order to see it that way.
DREMT,
Don’t even bother responding to me. I am not going to bother responding to your ignorant comments.
What I have said is correct, and simply a matter of basic logic.
ClintR’s statement represents the non spinner cult’s position perfectly:
Forget kinematics, and learn orbital motion!
Forget science and believe what we say.
OK, SGW.
FTOP
“That does not mean that the physical characteristics of the motion are accurately captured in the choices used to determine a universal process for orientation”
What physical characteristics?
Your notions about ‘natural’ orientation changes for objects travelling on curved paths are simply not correct.
Again, Kinematics gives the system for DESCRIBING motion, the mechanism is not considered.
Dynamics describes the causes of motion, Forces, Torques, Newton’s Laws.
Newton was content to use the same system for Kinematics that Astrophysics and engineering uses today.
He found that it captured the physical characteristics of orbits quite well.
“The actual motion is the fly remained fixed at its position (no axial rotation) on the record and the record turned.”
Again, we have another rigid body rotator (inclu fly).
That is NOT a good model for a planet or Moon in orbit.
A planet is not attached to any rigid body that is rotating and causing it to move as it does.
A planet is an independent body that has its own trajectory thru space, its own fixed rotation rate and axis of rotation that can be tilted to its orbit (as the Moon’s is).
Unlike the fly, its orbit is elliptical. With a fixed rotation rate, around a tilted axis, it will exhibit libration.
Thus a rigid body model will fail to describe its motion, nor the mechanism for its motion.
What is the point?
@Nate,
So the standard space flight maneuver of using gravity to turn an spacecraft as part of long range missions is false?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_turn#:~:text=A%20gravity%20turn%20or%20zero,vehicle%20onto%20its%20desired%20trajectory.
“Use in orbital redirection
For spacecraft missions where large changes in the direction of flight are necessary, direct propulsion by the spacecraft may not be feasible due to the large delta-v requirement. In these cases it may be possible to perform a flyby of a nearby planet or moon, using its gravitational attraction to alter the ship’s direction of flight. Although this maneuver is very similar to the gravitational slingshot it differs in that a slingshot often implies a change in both speed and direction whereas the gravity turn only changes the direction of flight.
A variant of this maneuver, the free return trajectory allows the spacecraft to depart from a planet, circle another planet once, and return to the starting planet using propulsion only during the initial departure burn. Although in theory it is possible to execute a perfect free return trajectory, in practice small correction burns are often necessary during the flight. Even though it does not require a burn for the return trip, other return trajectory types, such as an aerodynamic turn, can result in a lower total delta-v for the mission.”
The entire steering process of a free return trajectory is achieved by using the gravitational pull of a planetary object to gain angular momentum and change the direction of the spacecraft.
The change in direction and orientation is derived from the tangential velocity interacting with the angular velocity from the gravitational acceleration.
Without any thrusters, a spaceship can leave earth, circle the moon and return with the nose of the ship always pointing in the path of the trajectory.
The spaceship does not return to earth backwards.
ftop,
Gravity can change the path thru space of an object. I have always agreed to that.
“The change in direction and orientation is derived from the tangential velocity interacting with the angular velocity from the gravitational acceleration.”
But a path change or trajectory change does NOT imply an ORIENTATIONAL change.
You are mixing the two with no justification.
“The spaceship does not return to earth backwards.”
Actually, in order to return to Earth surface, it needs to point backwards and fire its engine, thus slowing itself down.
Orienting backwards or forwards is all accomplished with firing retrorockets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WsuNSuIhG0
FTOP the beginning of this video shows that spacecraft will naturally stay oriented to the stars, UNLESS, some mechanism is included to align it with its orbital path.
Ken: This is not evidence that the moon is separately rotating. This is merely evidence that the earth is orbiting the sun. The sidereal period (27.3 days) the the correct rotation period.
Ball4: The existence of day/night is ALSO not evidence for/against rotation. If the moon rotated once every 365.24 earth days, then it would keep the same side to the sun (ie no day/night cycles on the moon) but it would be rotating.
IF our moon rotated once every 365.24 earth days but it doesn’t, so the evidence stands, our moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit exhibiting day/night cycles. Just like ftop_t demonstrated here including the sun:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
You have linked to something that proves you wrong, Ball4. Please continue.
@Ball4,
I have asked you multiple times to not present something you completely lack understanding of.
In the depiction, alpha = 0 (which means no axial rotation)
Line 31 holds the value for the axial rotation and it is ZERO
If you want to see what it looks like when the rotation is:
1 axial per 1 orbital, you have to set Line 32 as:
t = s (now both axial and orbital are the same
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/6duud5dju9
DON’T GET IT WRONG AGAIN!!
Up thread I provided the mathematical proof (recopied here)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-633196
The mathematical proof is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid#/media/File:Epizykloide_herleitung.svg
theta measures the orbital motion
alpha measures the axial motion
For a point “P” that is nearest the orbital axis, it can only remain that way if alpha = 0
This is a visualization of the proof.
When alpha is zero
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/btdmdw5ws8
When alpha is not zero
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/0vn3xmlrpq
ftop_t 8:01 am: “In the depiction, alpha = 0 (which means no axial rotation)”
ftop_t, in the depiction & your math, for alpha = 0 and d(alpha)/dt = 0 (which mean no axial rotation in your accelerated frame of reference).
Your accelerated frame of reference is itself spinning once per orbit relative to the inertial frame of cartesian coordinates meaning your outer ball for alpha = 0 rotates once on its axis per orbit in the inertial frame. I know relativity is hard but you seem capable to up your game and understand relativity for yourself where Tesla had a great opportunity here but failed to make that giant leap.
Tesla elegantly solved the problem using a momentum approach which is a conserved quantity remaining the same amount across ref. frames and you can quickly find his solution with a little google fu. It is way clearer than I can write about here using your construct but I can do that following Tesla’s approach if you would like. Tesla’s conclusion was that to conserve momentum his “fixt” ball M MUST rotate once per orbit inertially on its own axis to keep the same face to the center.
Tesla then asked himself how could that be? because ball M when “fixt” is welded to the wheel assembly spokes so can’t possibly rotate on its own axis! Tesla had a great opportunity here in 1919 to discover relativity for himself as relativity was being invented and tested. But Tesla failed to make that discovery for himself as does ftop_t.
Hint: Eliminate the inner ball & assign mass to your outer ball, then allow your outer ball to go from zero inertial spin to Tesla’s “fixt” ball M while conserving momentum in the same way Tesla did, really an elegant solution which should interest you, or maybe not.
If not, relativity will remain elegantly solved in nature with your outer ball at d(alpha)/dt = 0 not spinning in your accelerated frame construct while rotating once on its own axis per orbit in the inertial frame leaving ftop_t and Tesla behind.
Poor Ball4 is still lost in “reference frames”.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right” in the gif linked to above. The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the left”.
The two motions are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames.
The only way that the “Spinners” can claim the “moon on the left” is rotating on its own axis is if they define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right”. It’s as simple as that. It has nothing to do with choosing “the inertial reference frame” over “the accelerating frame”. It all comes down to how you want to see “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
What Tesla understood was that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement like the “moon on the left”. That is what the rest of the “Non-Spinners” understand.
What Tesla understood was that “orbital motion without axial rotation” was his welded ball M so Tesla ignored his own immediately preceding conservation of momentum analysis proving himself wrong. Tesla observed no rotation of the ball M wrt to his wheel spokes without realizing his observation was from the accelerated frame.
I just explained to you that reference frames are not the issue, and precisely why they are not the issue, and here you are still talking about reference frames. Anyone would think you are a sophist.
Your explanation ignores relativity DREMT. There is a blog for climate sophistry right in its name DREMT, your comment would be well received over there. Here, with astute commenters, it is not as well received. Relativity matters.
That there are only two ways to visualize “orbital motion without axial rotation” is in fact all that matters. The difference between the “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” transcends relativity, Ball4.
Tesla proved you are wrong with his ball M momentum analysis DREMT, go argue with Tesla. Relativity matters for velocity and thus momentum.
Tesla’s “fixt” ball motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you think of it as a combination of the motion of the “moon on the right” plus rotation about its own center of mass. In other words, you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right” in order to see it that way.
No definitions needed, just ride along in the accelerated frame on the moon on the right to observe “orbital motion without axial rotation” just as Tesla wrote about his welded “fixt” ball M.
Again, Tesla’s “fixt” ball motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you think of it as a combination of the motion of the “moon on the right” plus rotation about its own center of mass. In other words, you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right” in order to see it that way.
ftop_t blubbers:
theta measures the orbital motion
alpha measures the axial motion
When are you going to get it through your head that your alpha measurement is based on a rotating reference frame?? Axial rotations need to be measured based on the inertial reference frame.
When are you going to get it through your head that the “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right” in the gif linked to above. The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the left”?
The two motions are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames.
The only way that the “Spinners” can claim the “moon on the left” is rotating on its own axis is if they define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right”. It’s as simple as that. It has nothing to do with choosing “the inertial reference frame” over “the accelerating frame”. It all comes down to how you want to see “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
‘Its as simple as that’
Glad to hear that you now understand that this years long argument boils down to your use of non-standard definitions of Orbit and Rotation, that NOBODY else uses.
So this long blog nightmare can be over.
DREMT said: Its as simple as that.
Yeah. It is simply a semantic issue.
DREMT said: It has nothing to do with choosing the inertial reference frame over the accelerating frame.
Maybe not with your definition. But with ours it is definitely related to the reference frame selected because our definitions use rules that require angular velocity to be calculated. In fact, it requires two angular velocities to be calculated; one in the frame attached to the Moon and one attached to the Earth-Moon barycenter with both anchored to a distant point.
One more point here…
If you want to claim that the Moon does not rotate in the frame attached to the Moon and anchored to Earth then we will all back you up on that claim because the angular velocity in that frame is 0 rad/s.
But in the context of celestial mechanics and by definition that has been agreed upon by everyone in the field and pretty much the entire world “rotation” is defined wrt to the sidereal frame. You don’t have to like the definition. Just understand that it is the way it is and if you want to avoid confusion you either need to go with it or make sure you are explicitly stating that you are using a different definition.
Nate says:
Glad to hear that you now understand that this years long argument boils down to your use of non-standard definitions of Orbit and Rotation, that NOBODY else uses.
—————————
Nate is getting desperate in his argument. He has no physics so he is going to argue semantics. LMAO!!!!
Nate says:
So this long blog nightmare can be over.
————————
Weren’t you recommending people to not participate? Yet you participate. LMAO!!!!
“he is going to argue semantics.”
Even DREMT agrees now that it is all about semantics.
Wow, bdgwx, returning to a comment I wrote four days later, in the hope that I won’t see it? Desperate stuff.
No, it is not about "semantics".
The “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right” in the gif linked to above. The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the left”.
The two motions are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames.
DREMT: “When are you going to get it through your head that the ‘Spinners’ see ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ as movement like the ‘moon on the right’ in the gif linked to above. The ‘Non-Spinners’ see ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ as movement like the ‘moon on the left’?”
“se·man·tics
/səˈman(t)iks/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with MEANING. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
the MEANING OF A WORD, PHRASE, SENTENCE, OR TEXT”
DREMT: “No, it is not about ‘semantics’.”
OMG
bdgwx says:
”But in the context of celestial mechanics and by definition that has been agreed upon by everyone in the field and pretty much the entire world “rotation” is defined wrt to the sidereal frame. You don’t have to like the definition. Just understand that it is the way it is and if you want to avoid confusion you either need to go with it or make sure you are explicitly stating that you are using a different definition.”
Thats simply a strawman. I have pointed out the one additional rotation in the sidereal count is in fact the orbital rotation. Confounding orbital rotation and axial rotation in the generic term ”rotation” is simply sloppy language. The correct term would be ”sidereal rotations”. . . .not a rotation in the ”sidereal frame”. Terrible argument bdgwx just shows how desperate you guys have become to try to make a case.
bdgwx says:
DREMT said: Its as simple as that.
Yeah. It is simply a semantic issue.
——————————-
Nope!
Its a physical matter as well. Looking at earth there are two kinds of rotations going on in the sidereal count.
1. There is only one rotation that creates the seasons.
2. the other 365 rotations create the days.
this becomes blaringly obvious because of a difference in tilt. A miopic view from some distant constellation is like a driver flunking his eye test and he doesn’t see it well enough to clearly make it out.
Bill says:
I am a man, therefore I know stuff. Let me mansplain to all of you.
bill said: Looking at earth there are two kinds of rotations going on in the sidereal count.
I think you meant frame instead of count. But yes. That is not being challenged. Well…to be pedantic the Sun is dragging the Earth with it and the Milky Way is dragging the Sun with it and the local group is dragging the Milky Way with it and so on. So technically the Earth has many kinds of motions and/or rotations in the sidereal frame. But I know what you meant. That’s not the issue regardless.
The issue is with the way DREMT defines “rotation” in the context of astronomical bodies. It is different than the way everyone else defines it. That makes this a semantic issue.
bdgwx says: Nothing
Nice belly dance all around the issue bdgwx. Have nothing to say about the difference in the motions? How does that comport with your concept that the moon simply spun down to one spin?
Only one spin of the earth is unique and that is because its axis is the COG of the Sun.
Nate says:
”Bill says:
I am a man, therefore I know stuff. Let me mansplain to all of you.”
==============================
I sincerely apologize Nate for not adequately celebrating your gender reassignment surgery. I will try to do better.
No, bdgwx. Here is the issue:
The “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right” in the gif linked to above. The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the left”.
The two motions are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames.
I can repeat this indefinitely, if needs be. Eventually, maybe, you will acknowledge the point, or at least start to think about it.
bill said: How does that comport with your concept that the moon simply spun down to one spin?
I never said the Moon spun down to one spin. I don’t think that and I don’t want other people to think it either.
bill said: Only one spin of the earth is unique and that is because its axis is the COG of the Sun.
Just to clarify…
You don’t think the Earth rotates on its own COM?
You don’t think the Earth rotates around the COG of the Milky Way?
DREMT said: The two motions are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames.
I agree that those two motions are completely different.
Ok, sure I believe you that it transcends reference frames for “non-spinners”. The fact you have never told me how to calculate any quantity that could be objectively used to answer questions involving your definition I think is a testament to your position. And it is your definition afterall. Who am I to tell you how you should define something?
But for “spinners” it definitely involves reference frames. In fact, it involves two of them. We have to calculate the angular velocity in two different frames of reference. That is what our definition requires.
That still doesn’t change the fact that “non-spinners” have a different definition than “spinners”. That is the core of the issue.
It’s not "my" definition, bdgwx. "Orbital motion without axial rotation" is just a long-winded way of saying "orbital motion". I have to add the "without axial rotation" otherwise people constantly misunderstand what I mean. There are two separate motions being discussed. "Orbital motion" and "axial rotation". "Orbital motion" (meaning "orbital motion without axial rotation") is actually defined, by astronomers, as motion like the "moon on the left".
Motion like the "moon on the left" is a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the object itself. It is a pure rotation, one single motion, about an external axis. Astronomers (and I can give you an example if you need it) define "orbital motion" as a rotation about an external axis.
Whereas, if you take the "moon on the right" to be comprised of one single motion, the "Spinners" would categorize that as a curvilinear translation in a circle (you already agreed this further down-thread). "Orbital motion" is not a curvilinear translation. It is a rotation about an external axis.
Seems astronomers must be living with an awful lot of cognitive dissonance. Because their own definition of "revolution" is at odds with their beliefs about the rotation of the moon…
“orbital motion without axial rotation” is inertially defined, by astronomers, as motion like the “moon on the right” same as Tesla & Prof. Madhavi. “orbital motion without axial rotation” is defined properly by DREMT observing in the accelerated frame, as motion like the “moon on the left” as properly observed on that moon & as Tesla properly proved with physics.
Ball4 is becoming increasingly incoherent.
“Orbital motion” (meaning ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’) is actually defined, by astronomers, as motion like the ‘moon on the left’.
OMG just stop with the BS!
Now you are not even trying to make sense.
If that were true, then there would be NO ARGUMENT.
There would have been no argument between Tesla and Astronomers.
There would be no need for you to say, so often, that you understood you are not agreeing with the ‘standard model’.
The standard Astronomy model of the Moon’s Rotation is
“This rotation is due to tidal locking synchronous to its orbital period around Earth.”
Obviously, there is no need to state any of this if the Moon was simply ORBITING.
In every list, the axial rotation rate, axial tilt, axial precession rate, the location of the Lunar poles are listed.
None of that would make sense to list if Astronomy agreed with your nonsense definition of Orbit.
Your definitions are not the same as Astronomy. The argument is semantic and done.
Glossary of Astronomy Terms. See Orbit.
http://www.seasky.org/astronomy/astronomy-glossary.html#O
Just one of countless number of sources that say DREMT is wrong.
While you are at it, look under R for Rotation, A for Axis.
Also refer to NASA’s Moon fact sheet.
https://tinyurl.com/6ce8tmz
Sidereal rotation period – 655.728 hours
That is an angular velocity of 2.66e-6 rad/s.
Revolution period = 27.3217
That is an angular velocity of 2.66e-6 rad/s.
And because both periods and both angular velocities are the same the Moon always keeps the same face pointed toward the Earth. This is a tidally locked configuration.
bdgwx, astronomers define “revolution”, or “orbital motion” as a “rotation about an external axis”. You may have seen the links I have supplied previously showing that this is the case. I will assume that you can find them for yourself.
The movement of the “moon on the left”, if taken to be comprised of one single motion, is a rotation about an external axis.
Two facts which you can verify for yourself, if you have the inclination.
” astronomers define ‘revolution’, or ‘orbital motion’ as a ‘rotation about an external axis’.
Astronomers do not use the colloquial term Revolution.
They don’t GENERALIZE as you do from ONE EXAMPLE of a type of orbit, and erroneously assume that all orbits must be like the example.
Apparently you think the multiple sources we have already showed you that explicitly DEFINE ORBIT must be wrong?
How bout this:
Find TWO or more authoritative Astronomy sources that explicitly DEFINE ORBIT.
Or shut the hell up.
http://www.seasky.org/astronomy/astronomy-glossary.html#O
https://www.novac.com/wp/fp/resources/glossary/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_astronomy#O
“Orbit
The path of a celestial body as it moves through space.”
“Orbit The elliptical or circular path followed by a body that is bound to another body by their mutual gravitational attraction”
“Orbit
The gravitationally curved trajectory of an object, such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet. Though the smaller body is often said to orbit the larger body itself, both bodies actually follow approximately elliptical orbits around a common center of mass positioned at a focal point of each ellipse. The word “orbit” can variously refer to the elliptical trajectory itself or the act of following this trajectory, and can refer to a stable, regularly repeating trajectory as well as a non-repeating trajectory.”
5 minutes effort and none agree with DREMT
bdgwx says:
bill said: Looking at earth there are two kinds of rotations going on in the sidereal count.
I think you meant frame instead of count. But yes. That is not being challenged.
===============================
Wrong! I mean count. The expression ‘Sidereal frame’ is a pleonasm as the definition of sidereal is ‘of or with respect to the distant stars’ so frame is built into the word.
Nate says:
”The word ‘orbit’ can variously refer to the elliptical trajectory itself or the act of following this trajectory, and can refer to a stable, regularly repeating trajectory as well as a non-repeating trajectory.”
You are just playing with words. There is no science in words Nate. If you want to boil the argument down to religion you are perfectly welcome to believe whatever you want.
The non-spinners provided two scientific references that classify certain motions as rotations. There are scientific papers that do the same thing. A trajectory is a motion that can be many things.
But on the topic of that motion you have identical situations with both the moon’s orbit and the movement of particles and globes with frictionless ball bearings on a merry-go-round. They all have no torque being applied to them, yet when you apply torque to the merry-go-round they turn. Why? Well the answer is in the forces that bind the system together.
First torque is a twisting force. For a twisting force you need a pivot point and a lever and force. The lever simultaneously applies a force on one part of the object in one direction and another part of the object in the opposite direction.
That condition doesn’t exist for moons, particles in the deck of a merry-go-round, or globes on the merry-go-round with frictionless ball bearings.
Often this is demonstrated with the simple device of having something that like a string, disk, gravitational force, arm on a pivot. The force is applied evenly to all particles in the merry-go-round disk particles or the globes. No torque is applied yet they turn with the disk because every particle is anchored in some way to pivot point of the disk. For the moon the force isn’t equal on all the particles but it is equal for every particle in its own rotational arc with only more force applied to the closest arc and a little less for the furthest arc. The only way any torque can be applied to the globes is the driving force is not dead center and the thing is out of balance in which case it will turn to a point of best balance.
You though cannot visualize the true picture of the role of torque in spinning objects. So you conclude a planet not spinning entering orbit will need some torque. But you ignore what it takes to enter orbit for a natural object. Rocket assisted orbit entry is an entirely different matter. The objects descent into orbit is different than natural entry. In natural entry the forces of gravity have to be just right or its going to plunge into the ground or fly right on by. Like a ball on a string. Strike it with a bat dead center, zero torque, its either going to spin around the axis the string is attached to, drop to the ground, or break the string.
For elliptical orbit just get yourself a paddle ball with an elastic string and elliptical orbits are a piece of cake you in fact will not be able to obtain a circular orbit.
Words with precise and universal meanings ARE key in science.
When an astronomer describes the Orbit of a new celestial object in paper, it is understood what that means to astronomers all over the world.
“globes with frictionless ball bearings on a merry-go-round. They all have no torque being applied to them, yet when you apply torque to the merry-go-round they turn. Why?”
The MGR rotates because torque is applied to it. People who understand the what words like ‘frictionless’, ‘torque’, and ‘rotate’ mean, will understand that the globes will not rotate, unless torque is applied to them.
Because of another well understood term ‘rotational inertia’.
OK, bdgwx, I’m feeling generous, so here is one such definition for you:
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”.
Nate says:
Words with precise and universal meanings ARE key in science.
When an astronomer describes the Orbit of a new celestial object in paper, it is understood what that means to astronomers all over the world.
===========================
I will agree with that there is a whole lot of science being conjured out of thin air using only words, especially around here.
Still waiting for even ONE clear definition of ORBIT from the TEAM.
Meanwhile none of the 3 definitions posted above agree with the TEAM.
Oh well.
Nate says:
globes with frictionless ball bearings on a merry-go-round. They all have no torque being applied to them, yet when you apply torque to the merry-go-round they turn. Why?
The MGR rotates because torque is applied to it. People who understand the what words like frictionless, torque, and rotate mean, will understand that the globes will not rotate, unless torque is applied to them.
Because of another well understood term rotational inertia.
=======================
Since no torque is being applied to the globes they aren’t going to rotate independently of the rotation of the frame of reference they are in.
The torque that starts the merry-go-round simply creates a frame that carries the globes around with it. You need to apply some torque for the globes not to appear to be spinning from some distant star.
A classroom example is a ball attached to a string and you hit it straight on with a bat. The ball doesn’t rotate independently but instead rotates externally on the pivot point of the string.
For orbits the string is gravity. Every particle in every concentric arc through the moon has the same pull on it. That represents zero torque on the moon’s COG axis pivot point. The torque is pivoting instead on the earths COG and the momentum of the object being at just the right speed pivots around the earth.
Torque is nothing more than a force and a pivot point. You guys are just putting the pivot in the wrong place. . . .no pivot in the center of the moon from this form of torque. Dr Madhavi cautions her beginning students right up front to not become confused by what you are confused by trying to call an orbit a translation and ignore the angular momentum to operates off the true pivot point. Curvilinear translations can have pivot points just not only one of them and others like a wheel rolling on a hilly road it exposes all sides of the wheel to the road. Nate you are in mortal danger of completing this course with a grade of F.
DREMT,
That looks like a definition that is consistent with what scientists studying celestial mechanics have mutually agreed upon as well. “revolution” is the motion around an external axis. It is the orbital motion.
So you agree, bdgwx. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the left”, not the “moon on the right”. Welcome to the “Non-Spinners”.
Nate says:
”Still waiting for even ONE clear definition of ORBIT from the TEAM.
Meanwhile none of the 3 definitions posted above agree with the TEAM.
Oh well.”
===============================
You have been given a concise explanation of it Nate. You just won’t accept it. Its the rotation of one celestial body around another due to the gravitational relationship between the two.
What else do you want? a set of calculations that establish outer limits of sustainable orbits?
DREMT,
You know my position on this. “rotation” in the context of astronomical bodies is referring to the body’s own axis and the spin motion it has on that axis wrt to the stars. The Moon is spinning on its own axis wrt to the stars. It’s angular velocity is 2.66e-6 rad/s and has 3.14e23 joules of rotational kinetic energy. The entire world has agreed to call that motion “rotation”. Your own reference even uses “rotation” to describe motion on a body’s axis when it says This graphic shows Earth spinning on its axis (rotation) as it orbits the Sun (revolution). The context is pretty clear…”rotation” is implied to mean the body’s own axis and “revolution” is implied to mean an axis external to the body.
Yes, the text is very clear, bdgwx. A “revolution” is a rotation about an external axis, like the “moon on the left”, and “rotation” refers to axial rotation (rotation about the object’s own center of mass). Notice the text did not say that a “revolution” is curvilinear translation in a circle, which is how the “Spinners” describe the motion of the “moon on the right”.
So, the text supports the idea that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left”.
No DREMT, Tesla has proven you wrong on that assertion; you should actually show the physics as did Tesla to learn where you go wrong.
Ball4, Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
Tesla’s physics argue the moon rotates once on it axis per orbit; it was only Tesla’s layman editor confused by Tesla’s writing habits that argue the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Such a ridiculously outrageous claim, Ball4. So Tesla wrote an article, clearly stating at the outset that he was arguing the moon does not rotate on its own axis…he received lots of letters from astronomers and others arguing that the moon does rotate on its own axis, and so he wrote further articles dealing with their criticisms…such that in the end he wrote three articles arguing that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
But for some reason, you believe that all along Tesla was actually arguing that the moon does rotate on its own axis. It’s a wonder he devoted so much time and energy to write the additional articles in response to his critics, then, don’t you think!?
Sorry he looses, at best 3-1.
This is how the troll DREMT keeps the argument going. Cherry pick and misconstrue one source, and ignore all others, since they must be wrong.
He seems unable/unwilling to find an explicit definition of Orbit.
“The torque that starts the merry-go-round simply creates a frame that carries the globes around with it.”
Not quite. The MGR applies a force on the globes. That translates it in a circle, but without rotation.
As you explained here:
“The force is applied evenly to all particles in the merry-go-round disk particles or the globes. No torque is applied yet they turn with the disk because every particle is anchored in some way to pivot point of the disk. ”
True for the welded Globes. Since every particle is welded, they can experience a torque.
Not true for the Globes on frictionless bearings. For them only the Force is felt thru its center of mass. Thus the CM of these globes starts to translate sideways and on a circular path, an orbit.
But since they experience no torque they cannot rotate by Newton’s First Law for Rotation.
I think it’s a wonder Tesla continued to write such a confusing mess arguing in the accelerated frame the moon does not rotate on its own axis with his ball M and ball on string of mass M. The field of relativity was being invented, extended, and tested at the time so my guess is Tesla had not studied that field enough or was just unaware. It’s good you acknowledge Tesla received lots of letters seeking to set him straight.
If you make the effort to follow Tesla’s physics in detail & jumping back and forth in frames unannounced though, they do show our moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit. I urge you to write them out here and learn that is the case.
DREMT “he received lots of letters from astronomers and others arguing that the moon does rotate on its own axis, and so he wrote further articles dealing with their criticisms”
And yet here you have the chutzpah to claim Astronomers agree with your definitions!
Ball4, the fundamental difference between us is that you think a ball on a string rotates once on its own axis per orbit, and I am aware that the ball on a string is just rotating around an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. You think that I, and Tesla, and ftop_t, and the rest of the "Non-Spinners", are only arguing that point "from the accelerated frame", as you continuously and obsessively assert. We are not. We are arguing that point, regardless of reference frame. I don’t know how many times you need me to repeat that. Regardless of reference frame.
As Teslas physics point out “Regardless of reference frame” is physically wrong as others are astutely pointing out; but ftop_t did get it right in the sunshine:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Switching ref. frames cannot make momentum disappear to alone stop the moon from rotating on its own axis, the moon’s inertial momentum must be findable from all frames.
The ftop_t link is a good example of what I mean. We’re both looking at the exact same thing, but you see it as rotating on its own axis once per orbit, and we see it as rotating about an axis in the center of the screen, and not about its own center of mass.
Correctly per Tesla’s physics: …and we see it from the accelerated frame as rotating about an axis in the center of the screen, and not about its own center of mass.
No, not from the accelerated frame.
Which is physically wrong.
No, it is not, Ball4. Even some of those on your own side of the argument can understand it.
Well go ahead physically prove your position then, you have Tesla’s correct physics to guide you in your misguided effort, assertions matter not at all.
I may have written the odd comment about it, already, Ball4.
Nate says:
The torque that starts the merry-go-round simply creates a frame that carries the globes around with it.
Not quite. The MGR applies a force on the globes. That translates it in a circle, but without rotation.
=========================
Well you have a problem there Nate. You claim the globes will not rotate wrt to the merry-go-round disk. But if we continue to use your logic of frames and make the merry-go-round disk ‘the frame’ they are rotating wrt to the disk. . . .so since you guys are insisting that there is an angular momentum in that instance where did it come from?
Answer of course is the Frame B description is unphysical, an artifice, an invalid move all based on a false assumption.
As I told bdgwx. Using a frame involves discarding the moons rotation, make an assumption the moon rotates anyway, and then claim it rotates on its own axis. Talking about pulling the wool over your own eyes. LMAO!!
Misusing frames only confuses you. When you select the moon on the right without the rotation around the sun you have effectively stopped that rotation. And when you have done that there is no rotation to be seen anymore. . . .and you guys are simply pretending there is.
“‘Orbital motion’ (meaning ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’) is actually defined, by astronomers, as motion like the ‘moon on the left’.”
So here DREMT dreamily believes Astronomers believe the Moon on the LEft, AND thus our own Moon, is orbiting without axial rotation.
But at then he goes on to report:
Tesla “received lots of letters from astronomers and others arguing that the moon does rotate on its own axis, and so he wrote further articles dealing with their criticisms”
Clearly DREMT has an amazing ability to claim mutually exclusive ideas are true.
It is indeed like 1 + 1 = 1 for him.
Either Astronomy describes the Moon as 1. orbiting with axial rotation or they describe the Moon as 2. orbiting without axial rotation.
Only one of these is TRUE. And most of us realize it is # 1.
Actually Nate when you get down to it. The issue is unresolved by the science of astronomy. The various concepts in astronomy are contradictory in this issue.
Evidence of that is how little weight of total argument for the spinner side. Its nothing but implied definitions with pronoun reference problems. e.g. it remains almost totally unaddressed by astronomers and about all that can be pointed to is ”tradition” dating back to pre-heliocentrism.
And of course nobody has defined the issue as a political or religious cause like has occurred with the anti-oil baron folks so there isn’t even any phony science surrounding it. You know what that is the basic lapse rate theory that has no empirical justification beyond claims of curve fitting both natural and man made.
bill said: Well you have a problem there Nate. You claim the globes will not rotate wrt to the merry-go-round disk.
There is no problem. Nate’s claim is correct. In the frame where radius r=0 goes through the COM of the global and angle a=0 radial line points to the center of the MGR at all times the globe will never experience an angular velocity other than 0 rad/s as long as it is on a frictionless mount such that no torque is applied to it. It will certainly translate with the MGR but it will not spin wrt to it.
bill said: But if we continue to use your logic of frames and make the merry-go-round disk the frame they are rotating wrt to the disk.
Correct. And just to be precise this frame is radius r=0 through the axel of the MGR and angle a=0 radial line locked onto a specific point on the perimeter of the MGR. This frame is rotating with the MGR.
bill said: so since you guys are insisting that there is an angular momentum in that instance where did it come from?
From the fictitious Coriolis force. Remember, the frame you’ve selected is rotating with the MGR. It is a non-inertial reference frame. The frame is accelerating. Fictitious forces (centrifugal, Coriolis, euler) have to be invoked to explain motions.
bill said: Misusing frames only confuses you. When you select the moon on the right without the rotation around the sun you have effectively stopped that rotation. And when you have done that there is no rotation to be seen anymore. . . .and you guys are simply pretending there is.
First…the Moon on the right is not real regardless of reference frame. The Earth and Moon simply do not exhibit a motion like that no matter what observational perspective you use.
Second…I think what you actually meant was the placement of a reference frame where radius r=0 goes through the COM of the Moon and angle a=0 radial line always points at a specific spot on the surface of the Moon itself. In this frame we have effectively stopped the rotation of the Moon. The keyword here being effectively is implied to mean illusion. Remember, this reference frame is accelerating. It is non-inertial. That means you have to invoke fictitious forces to explain motions in this frame.
The point…I think it may be you who are getting confused. My advice…be very precise in how you define the reference frame and carefully analyze whether it is inertial or non-inertial. The best hint I can give you here is that if your frame is oriented to a point on the body itself it is likely non-inertial. If it is oriented to point external to the body it is probably (but not always) inertial.
bdgwx says:
The pointI think it may be you who are getting confused. My advicebe very precise in how you define the reference frame and carefully analyze whether it is inertial or non-inertial. The best hint I can give you here is that if your frame is oriented to a point on the body itself it is likely non-inertial. If it is oriented to point external to the body it is probably (but not always) inertial.
=================================
Well that moves close to my point. Very clearly you are wrong in the non-inertial frame.
For the inertial frame I would caution you in placing a rotation on an internal axis that is in fact on the external axis simply by donning horse blinders and considering it to be there as an assumption because you believe you still see it.
I have already made the point that your rotation is harder to see. It harder to see because in fact even if you exclude the earth the object is moving about the frame as you do have the not small matter of a movement about a barycenter. But no doubt you want to exclude that in your frame even though it is relevant to all frames. And of course a rotation is harder to see from the stars precisely because of that movement.
“The issue is unresolved by the science of astronomy. The various concepts in astronomy are contradictory in this issue.”
Nope. One more issue that science has no issue with, but is unresolved for people who are unwilling to learn the science, and simply go with their gut.
This is helpful here:
https://tinyurl.com/3msvweps
Nate says:
”Nope. One more issue that science has no issue with, but is unresolved for people who are unwilling to learn the science, and simply go with their gut.”
And I am supposed to believe some yahoo that can’t come up with the work that proves it? You come in here and hawk all sorts of political science like some kind of econut for which you have zero science to establish. LMAO! You are like a babe in the woods all book indoctrinated and zero substance.
I was posting basic textbook physics. You dont get it, cannot rebut it, and refuse to learn it.
But you feel enabled to declare it wrong or unproven.
And then it somehow turns into political science!
What a loser.
bill said: Well that moves close to my point. Very clearly you are wrong in the non-inertial frame.
Now hold on. That is the point I’ve making. The point being that when you select a non-inertial frame, calculate 0 rad/s in that frame, and then declare no rotation you are doing so by invoking fictitious forces to explain that motion whether you knew you were doing it or not. I think most would consider that motion less “real”.
bill said: For the inertial frame I would caution you in placing a rotation on an internal axis that is in fact on the external axis simply by donning horse blinders and considering it to be there as an assumption because you believe you still see it.
I don’t even know what this means. An internal axis is completely different from an external axis. Rotation on an internal axis is NOT the same as rotation on an external axis. Nobody is doing a calculation on a reference frame fixed to an internal axis and then declaring those results are valid for an external axis.
And I’m not selecting an axis arbitrarily here. The choice of axis is selected for me by the question. For example, if you ask what is the angular velocity of Hyperion wrt to its own axis then I obvious do all of the calculation on…ya know…its own internal axis and I get 5.6e-6 rad/s. If you ask what is the angular velocity of Hyperion wrt to Saturn then I obviously do all of the calculations on…ya know…the external axis at the COG of Saturn-Hyperion system and get 3.5e-6 rad/s.
How do you choose an axis or reference frame?
"How do you choose an axis or reference frame?"
You don’t "choose" an axis. To discern the number of axes of rotation there are in any particular situation requires you to observe the entire system and consider the motion involved. For example, take a ball on a string. Look at the entire system from above, so that you can see the central point that the ball is revolving around, and the ball itself, and the entire length of the string as it sweeps round in a circle. You must be "zoomed out" enough such that you can see the entire system as the rotation occurs, in full. From such a vantage point you will be able to discern that there is only one axis of rotation, external to the ball. The ball rotates about an external axis, and not about its own internal axis/center of mass.
If the ball were rotating about both an external axis, and about its own internal axis (in other words, if there were two axes of rotation), the ball would be presenting all of its sides to that external axis, whilst it moves around it, and the string would have to be wrapping around the ball.
In reality if the ball were rotating about both an external axis, and about its own internal axis more or less than once (in other words, if there were two axes of rotation), then the ball would be presenting all of its sides to that external axis, whilst it moves around it, and the string would have to be wrapping around the ball.
Incorrect, Ball4.
“You claim the globes will not rotate wrt to the merry-go-round disk.”
The Globes on frictionless bearings will not rotate wrt to the stars, the inertial frame.
“But if we continue to use your logic of frames and make the merry-go-round disk the frame they are rotating wrt to the disk. You claim the globes will not rotate wrt to the merry-go-round disk. ”
YOU are trying to use the MGR frame, not me.
I have always been consistent in using the inertial frame of reference to describe rotation.
“so since you guys are insisting that there is an angular momentum in that instance where did it come from?”
Again for the dozenth time… will you listen this time??
There is Orbital angular momentum that comes from an object of mass m, simply translating with velocity v, past a center point at a distance r, and that is Lorb = mvr. This is basic physics.
That comes from the sideways Force on the CM of the globe that gives it a sideways velocity.
That is SEPARATE from SPIN angular momentum that comes from rotation. The welded globes will have that in addition to their orbital angular momentum.
The total ang momentum of a globe is L = mvr + ICM*omega.
That is why, and Tesla also showed, when the Globes are welded, the MGR will end up with a LARGER total angular momentum and LARGER kinetic energy.
I agree Nate. If the globe is on a frictionless mount then there is no way for any angular momentum to transfer into the globe. The globe’s inertia will keep it rotationally stationary wrt to a rotationally inertial frame. BTW…this is the exact behavior we observe with well constructed gyroscopes.
But do you agree that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the "moon on the left", as per the definition of "revolution" I linked to?
It only requires you to logically connect two facts:
1) An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, always keeps the same face oriented towards that external axis, whilst it moves (I already have written agreement from at least one of the "Spinners" commenting here that this is the case).
2) "Revolution" is defined as "rotation about an external axis".
Here is the written agreement I mentioned in 1). So if you disagree about 1), I will expect a debate between the author of this comment, and yourself, bdgwx:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566712
Similarly if you spin the globe up to say 10pi rad/s wrt to the ground and then spin up the MGR up to 10pi rad/s wrt to the ground then a mark on the globe will remain stationary wrt to the MGR. If you change the MGR angular velocity from 10pi rad/s to 9pi rad/s or 11pi rad/s the mark on the globe will begin moving wrt to the MGR again. And finally if you reduce the MGR speed all the way down to 0 rad/s wrt to the ground the globe will continue to spin at 10pi rad/s wrt to the ground just like it was when the MGR was spinning at 10pi rad/s wrt to the ground. And since our chosen frames of reference are inertial we need not invoke fictitious forces so we can rightfully claim both the global and MGR motions are real. So even when both body’s are rotating at 10pi rad/s wrt to the ground and with the globe maintaining a synchronous orientation wrt to the MGR the globe is still spinning.
10:09 AM and 10:35 AM, bdgwx.
I don’t see a basis of applying gyroscopic motion to the presumption that gravity doesn’t apply an angular acceleration of Newton’s 2nd law to every particle in the moon in a similar way it does to the puck in the diagram below.
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
We know a moon with an independent spin takes extraordinary amounts of time to become tidal locked, but that doesn’t distract from gravity providing an angular acceleration in the exact same way as demonstrated in the table and puck of the link above. Only difference is the string of gravity is weaker in terms of imparting acceleration.
That issue might be important to exactly how things enter and depart orbits but it is perfectly OK to fundamentally distance it from the idea of a string breaking or being released as gravity never enters that realm.
All Tesla’s point of view suggests is that objects entering and leaving orbits is fundamentally different from what happens when the string breaks in the Newton 2nd law of rotation demonstration as the string of gravity never breaks. He is absolutely right on that.
Within that model its easy enough to provide an angular acceleration and generate lots of angular momentum in a gyroscope by other means that will cause spin to occur for a long time since gravity isn’t directly creating much of an accelerating force but simply acts as a string without much resistance to the revolution of the puck.
While I suppose you book learners slaves to your inculcation by perfect models can’t absorb the entire picture. Your version might be true in an inflexible imaginary world but there are no such worlds.
So I think you guys are simply not seeing the nuances in the system, that Tesla was right, Madhavi is right and that practical kinematics rule the day. Fact is gravity is sufficient to eventually get the job done and broken strings are not.
So when you boil this down indeed its an issue that can be demonstrated in a frame using the gravitational friction to bring about the end result and deal with the acceleration. . . .after all current theory supports the idea of some kind of day for all objects in the universe. I am not going to blame astronomy for not getting down into the details on this. . . .before anybody really does that they need a reason. . . .a pay back for the effort.
That reason has been found in kinematics and if kinematics ever becomes important to astronomy they will find the same thing. Tesla apparently imagined it but probably got stumped on the practical application of it so didn’t flesh it out a lot.
Meanwhile the inculcated will argue endlessly on the basis of imaginary perfect worlds/universes and will remain blind to the actual physics present.
And you will also do so in the world of climate and simply ignore the power of natural variation. Dummies will always be dummies. Perhaps we can make that a law.
10:09: No. I do not agree. I don’t think your link agrees either. It makes it pretty clear that revolution is synonymous with orbit and that rotation is implied to be wrt to the axis that goes through the body’s COM at least in this context. Your link says This graphic shows Earth spinning on its axis (rotation) as it orbits the Sun (revolution). where “this graphic” is clearly depicting the revolution axis as being external to the body and rotation axis as being internal to the body. That’s straight from your link.
10:35: I don’t know the context of that discussion so I can’t really comment.
"where “this graphic” is clearly depicting the revolution axis as being external to the body and rotation axis as being internal to the body. That’s straight from your link."
That’s the point, bdgwx. The revolution "axis". Meaning that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is still a rotation…about an external axis…the revolution axis! Don’t you get it!? Again:
Do you agree that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is movement like the "moon on the left", as per the definition of "revolution" I linked to?
It only requires you to logically connect two facts:
1) An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, always keeps the same face oriented towards that external axis, whilst it moves (I already have written agreement from at least one of the "Spinners" commenting here that this is the case).
2) "Revolution" is defined as "rotation about an external axis".
You can dispute Fact 1), or you can dispute Fact 2). Which fact are you going to dispute? If you dispute Fact 1), then you get to argue with the author of the comment I linked to.
It only requires you to illogically believe two things that are mutually exclusive are somehow BOTH true.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-639838
And it requires you to repeatedly pretend ALL contradictory facts, simply don’t exist.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-638470
Yep, it requires one to behave just like a Flat Earther or any other Zealot.
Oh and it requires you to use only ONE ambiguous self-contradictory source for your definitions, and to cherry pick and misinterpret them.
And you are required to NOT search, even for 5 minutes, for any OTHER reputable, unmabiguous sources for your basic definitions, as that may lead to contradictory facts, that, as you recall, you are required to avoid at all costs.
I see Bill, Globes not working for you? So switch to a different situation, a puck.
Cmon, just try to focus, understand whats been discussed with the Globes. Ask questions, learn.
“gravity providing an angular acceleration in the exact same way as demonstrated in the table and puck”
Nope!
Gravity only attracts, it does not push an object SIDEWAYS as shown here.
“Lets exert a force F on a point mass m”
DREMT said: Do you agree that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement like the “moon on the left”, as per the definition of “revolution” I linked to?
No. We (as in NASA, JAXA, ESA, celestial mechanics scientists, and everyone else) separate that into “orbital motion” and “without axial rotation”. The orbital motion part is in reference to an axis external to the body and the axial rotation part is in reference to the axis internal to the body. Two motions. Two frames of reference. I don’t accept you to accept this definition. But I’m telling you that’s how we do it. And the article you linked to is consistent with this definition. That’s why “orbital motion without axial rotation” would be most like the configuration on the right in that gif.
"That’s why “orbital motion without axial rotation” would be most like the configuration on the right in that gif."
You fail at basic logic, bdgwx. You would describe the motion of the "moon on the right" from the gif as curvilinear translation, in a circle, as you agreed down-thread. In which case, your statement "the orbital motion part is in reference to an axis external to the body" is self-contradictory. There is no "axis of rotation" for curvilinear translation!
Again, which of the two facts below do you disagree with?
1) An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, always keeps the same face oriented towards that external axis, whilst it moves .
2) "Revolution" is defined as "rotation about an external axis".
Yep folks one axis! One axis only folks! One axis thats all. You can’t go around dividing stuff up into multiple frames create multiple axes that way. DREMT is dead right, if there are more than one axis then the moon would show all sides to the earth. as in period.
I see so none of the facts or disussion about globes, angular momentum matters. Because in the end its all about declared ‘truths’.
"if there are more than one axis then the moon would show all sides to the earth."
Exactly. Just a fact about rotation. Even those who think the moon is translating in an ellipse whilst rotating on its own axis should agree with your statement, as there is still only own axis of rotation involved there. If the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Those who get it, get it. Those who don’t, don’t. And they never will.
"as there is still only own axis of rotation involved there"
should read…as there is still only one axis of rotation involved there…
If the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis more or less than once per orbit, then you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Incorrect, Ball4.
Richard M,
How do the current ENSO anomalies gel with your prediction for a zero UAH anomaly for March?
I haven’t been following the Moon Rotation Posts, but the Great Courses have a great series on astronomy that covers all those kinds of questions. This is what they describe.
The moon does rotate on its axis. One rotation takes nearly as much time as one revolution around Earth. If the moon were to rotate quickly (several times each month) or not rotate at all, Earth would be exposed to all sides of the moon (i.e. multiple different views).
https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/young-naturalist-awards/winning-essays/2004/afpectus-lunae-does-the-moon-rotate-on-its-axis#:~:text=The%20moon%20does%20rotate%20on,(i.e.%20multiple%20different%20views).
That’s inertially correct CO2isLife, DREMT and Clint R et. al. always observe from an accelerated frame to write our moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis observed from their spinning frame.
No, they do not.
Ball4,
True. Here is proof:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-561673
In the above comment, DREMT says:
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 moon on the right actually IS rotating CW if measured with respect to a CCW rotating reference frame rotating at the same rate as the orbital angular velocity.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
And I should have added that the moon on the left does not rotate on its own axis wrt that same rotating reference frame.
Here is the clown’s whole quote:
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.
It is clear the reference frame is CCW, moving at the same rate as the orbital angular velocity.
That is the proof that the difference between the “Spinner” and “Non-Spinner” position transcends reference frames. The “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right”. The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the left”.
The two motions are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames.
Exactly DREMT.
This “reference frame” nonsense is just one more of their futile attempts to pervert reality. The string does NOT wrap around the ball. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis, nor is Moon. They need to get into the “reference frame” known as “reality”.
But, they just can’t leave their cult.
The string does NOT wrap around the ball obviously because The ball is rotating about its own axis once per orbit.
“But, they just can’t leave their cult.”
As Ball4 neatly demonstrates.
Actually ftop_t demonstrates no wrapping of string as the ball always faces the orbital axis & rotates once on its own axis per orbit:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
The linked comment shows an object that is rotating about an external axis without rotating about its own center of mass. You can even see that only the external axis rotation slider is moving, in order to make that happen.
As usual, the linked comment shows an object that is rotating about an external axis without rotating about its own center of mass for DREMT observing from the accelerated, spinning frame. For observers in the inertial frame, as Tesla proved, the object is rotating on its own axis once per orbit just like Tesla’s “fixt” ball M.
The “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right” in the gif that SGW linked to above. The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the left”.
The two motions are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames.
CIL, you’re joining the argument late, and that leaves you way behind. NASA, and most colleges and universities promote the “synchronous rotation” and “tidal locking” nonsense. It all started in astrology, centuries ago, and has never been corrected, because it doesn’t matter. Spacecraft can land on Moon regardless of any imaginary axial rotation.
The way to understand the issue is to realize how easy it is. Orbital motion is simply the motion of a ball-on-a-string, being swung over your head. The same side of the ball always faces you. Newton discovered how gravity affects an orbiting body. Gravity does NOT cause axial rotation.
You should see similarities in how the idiots try to distort reality to claim CO2 can warm the planet. They attempt the same distortions with the Moon issue.
It’s actually incorrect to claim CO2 can warm the planet, only the sun does that. Added PPM CO2 increases atm. IR opacity allows sun to warm the near surface atm. thus equally cooling the upper atm. regions over climate timeframes observed as the black line in top post moves on up.
Ball4 Says: IR opacity allows sun to warm the near surface atm. thus equally cooling the upper atm. regions over climate timeframes observed as the black line in top post moves on up.
What the? IR opacity allows the sun to warm the surface, and cool the upper? The Sun also emits IR, a whole lot more than the earth does. CO2 doesn’t even register until you are up 3 km, and in the thin air, CO2 helps move energy OUT of the system. In thin air, it is easier to move energy out than back towards the earth.
Added IR opacity of the atm. allows the sun to additionally warm the entire atm. directly; added CO2 opacity allows sun additional warming to the lower regions consequently cooling the atm. upper regions which are now more in the LWIR shade.
Cloud cover is measured too stable to change the SW albedo much if at all while all the CO2 ppm accumulates over climate length periods.
I’m not certain and I’m prepared to be wrong about this but I thought the last time I looked this up the spectral irradiance value at which terrestrial radiation is higher than solar radiation at TOA was around 2 um. So while the Sun emits more IR than Earth the amount crossing the TOA perimeter is ends up being less. So anything that impedes the flow of radiation at 2 um or higher would have a net positive radiative force. CO2 has but a tiny response 2 um and below. It’s response at 4.2 um is higher and at 15 um it is significantly higher. Terrestrial spectral irradiance is small below 8 um and becomes large above 10 um. That’s why CO2’s response at 4.2 um is minor. And it’s response around 2 um is moot since H2O mostly saturates this channel already.
bdgwx thanks for the refreshing substantive comment. Think I know where to look for a response. Will advise.
CO2isLife
1. ” The Sun also emits IR… ”
Yes. And?
We are talking here about energy leaving the system, and not about that entering it.
*
2. ” … and in the thin air, CO2 helps move energy OUT of the system. ”
Utter nonsense!
If CO2 was not in the thin air, the energy would reach outer space directly.
The consequence of CO2 in that thin air is that it absorbs the IR energy reaching it, and reemits on average only half of it to outer space, because the direction of reemissions is arbitrary: exactly what H2O does near the surface.
How long will you need to learn such a simple thing?
To understand Moon’s rotation is 100 times more complicated.
J.-P. D.
bdgwx, it’s complicated: “…the spectral irradiance value at which terrestrial radiation is higher than solar radiation at TOA was around 2 um.”
I think you are getting at which illumination interacts more with CO2 absorp_tion cross section for warming air.
Looking at charts is much better but some eyeball prose is all I can do here. Water vapor absor_bs thus warming all across both terrestrial and solar IR bands. CO2 is more limited absor_bing more across the terrestrial dominate illumination bands and tailing off quickly.
The textbook Planck function irradiance at the top of the atmosphere from a 6000 K blackbody at the Earth-sun distance plotted alongside the Planck function irradiance of a blackbody at a typical terrestrial temperature of 300K shows the two curves intersect where the wavelength at which a photon is equally likely to be of solar as of terrestrial origin at about 3.5 micron vs. your 2micron.
Longer wavelength photons than that have higher terrestrial irradiance up to about 12 microns vs. shorter photon wavelengths down to about 0.2 micron have higher solar irradiance
ball4, gotcha. I knew it was in the low single digits.
CO2isLife, The point being made here is that there is more terrestrial radiation that responds to IR barriers than solar radiation. I’m not sure if that was what you were challenging or not. I do agree that the Sun emits more IR, but it’s not the emission we care about. It’s what it is received at TOA at Earth.
CO2isLife
Welcome to the group of Discreditors and Denigrators (DREMT, Robertson, Clint R, Swenson, hunter) and a few others who agree to their unscientific nonsense).
*
What you have shown with the link is very nice, I appreciated it.
But if you were able to read German, you would see what e.g. Tobias Mayer did in 1748-49 (!!!) in order to prove, by both own observations using an own micrometer, and own computations, that the Moon rotates about an internal 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
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913769?name=Tafeln
*
Mayer was very unsatisfied with Cassini’s results, not only because the telescope Cassini used decades earlier was a lot more primitive, but above all because Cassini didn’t publish how he came to his numbers.
So Mayer ran the entire computation again, starting with a proof – based on Newton’s laws of gravity – that the 3-D shape of the Moon was sufficiently spherical to allow computation based on spherical trigonometry! Who would do that today?
*
His computations of both
– the inclination of Moon’s axis wrt the terrestrial ecliptic
and
– the duration of Moon’s rotation about this axis
were incredibly accurate.
*
A very good contemporary reconstruction of Mayer’s calculation of Moon’s axis inclination was done by the Dutch scientist Steven Adriaan Wepster, and is here (see Chapter 9, based on Mayer’s section 13):
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/index.html%3Bjsessionid=42D429814C688D0C5038F5F265EDD4B2?sequence=19
*
We have definitely very different meanings about CO2, but this does not imply that we shall differ everywhere.
J.-P. D.
A link to where I have discredited and denigrated, please, or else withdraw your false accusation.
DREMT
You are exceptionally right: you are the only one in the group who indeed doesn’t.
Aplogies for having unduly included your pseudonym in the lsit.
But the way HOW you persistently react to scientific material, however, after all is not so terribly far from my false accusation, and you perfectly know that.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon uses the same format as Norman and SGW — insults, links he can’t understand, and “appeal to authority”.
They all must have gone to the same Troll School.
Clint R
1. Who does insult here, by naming everybody an idiot who has understood that the Moon rotates about an internal axis?
Is it me – or you? Feel free to look at all your comments of the last 12 months.
2. Who has – and that is REALLY disgusting – insulted Andrew Motte, the translator of Newton’s Principia Scientifica with the words
” In other words, Motte was a cheating SOB. ”
just because he was too dumb to read a Latin text correctly
Is it me, or Robertson?
Stop your lies, Clint R.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you are obsessed with your cult. You’ll seemingly do anything to defend that nonsense. It has been explained to you numerous times that the designation “idiot” is for people that reject reality. That’s people like you.
Your link to Mayer proves NOTHING about Moon’s imagined axial rotation. Mayer’s observations were related to lunar topography and orbital motion. You understand NOTHING about such topics. You just grab onto something you believe supports the nonsense. You can’t understand the links you provide.
You’re WAY over-impressed with yourself.
Clint R
” Mayer’s observations were related to lunar topography and orbital motion. ”
Manifestly, you are not only unable to read German; you are also unable (or unwilling) to read English.
In the document the link points to
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
you see ‘rotation’ numerous times.
1. On page 172
” An investigation of Mayer’s work and model fitting has to take Mayer’s lucidly written tract on the rotation of the moon
Abhandlung über die Umwalzung des Monds
into account. ”
2. On page 173
” In section 13 of his libration tract, Mayer sets out to determine the orientation of the lunar polar (or rotational) axis. ”
etc etc.
*
If you were a honest person, you would search, in the c9.pdf, for ALL occurences of ‘rotation’.
And in Mayer’s original text, the word ‘Umwälzung’ (rotation) occurs numerous times.
Due to the elder typography, Google Books is unable to find them all.
*
You can try to discredit, denigrate, distort as long as you want.
J.-P. D.
You’re a special class of idiot. You’re a nitwit. I almost feel sorry for you.
They were talking about Moon’s orbital motion, when they used the word “rotation”. That’s the only motion involved. Believing Moon is rotating about its axis just means you STILL don’t understand orbital motion.
I almost feel sorry for you.
Clint R
” They were talking about Moon’s orbital motion, when they used the word ‘rotation’. That’s the only motion involved. ”
Manifestly, you don’t want to read texts correctly. That is dishonest.
Here is what you should have read, again on page 173:
” Third, the rotational axis of the moon is not perpendicular to its orbital plane. ”
You see in the sentence two different kinds of motion:
– rotation
– orbiting.
But I know: you are in permanent denial, hence you certainly will invent something new allowing you to further stay in denial, instead of accepting evidence.
No problem for me!
J.-P. D.
Again Bindidion, they were talking about Moon’s orbital motion, when they used the word “rotation”. That’s the only motion involved.
Clint R
” Your link to Mayer proves NOTHING about Moon’s imagined axial rotation. Mayer’s observations were related to lunar topography and orbital motion. ”
You are an excellent reader.
In Mayer’s treatise on Moon’s rotation about its axis, we can read in section 2, page 57:
” Man mußte die Erscheinungen auseinanderwickeln, und diejenigen, die von der Umdrehungs des Mondes um die Achse entstehen, von denen damit vermischten und von der ungleichen Bewegungs des Monds um die Erde verursachten absondern.
Translation:
” The phenomena had to be unwound, and those arising from the rotation of the Moon around the axis had to be isolated from those caused by the uneven motion of the Moon around the Earth. ”
*
Based on numerous among your comments, one could anticipate your next reaction:
“Like Cassini, Mayer was not an astronomer. He was an astrologer. ”
Right?
J.-P. D.
Bindidion, they were talking about Moon’s orbital motion, when they used the word “rotation”. The reference is “to the fixed stars”. That’s the only motion involved.
Even the “uneven motion of the Moon around the Earth” is referring to orbital motion.
This has all been explained to you numerous times. Like several others, you don’t understand the sources you find.
The sun is a star & it provides day/night cycles to our moon thus our moon must be rotating on its own axis once per orbit of earth as proved by Tesla’s wheel assembly ball M momentum analysis.
Give it a rest, Ball4.
ERA reports February 2021 was 0.24C below the trend line. It was the coolest February since 2014.
Its still 0.6C warmer than Feb 1979.
Let’s hope it stays warmer. A cool planet is trouble for everyone.
Bindy Says: CO2isLife
Welcome to the group of Discreditors and Denigrators (DREMT, Robertson, Clint R, Swenson, hunter) and a few others who agree to their unscientific nonsense).
Unscientific?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-630699
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-629937
Here is all the science you need to know, and it totally debunks CO2 driving temp.
http://www.remss.com/research/climate/#Atmospheric-Temperature
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
Simply look at:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/#
CO2isLife
Sorry, I did not mean you as a part of that group, but welcomed you as one of their new targets.
J.-P. D.
CO2isLife
And let me add that you will never be able to convince me with your alleged debunking using such terrifyingly trivial arguments.
I have explained that many times.
*
At least we agree about Moon’s spin, that is more than nothing.
J.-P. D.
Spinners see orbital motion without axial rotation as movement like the moon on the right in the gif that SGW linked to above. The Non-Spinners see orbital motion without axial rotation as movement like the moon on the left.
Basically. Although the word “see” is a bit misleading. Pretty much everyone can see and understand both perspectives. The question is “which more accurately describes how the universe behaves?”.
And this cannot be answered by analogies, like balls on strings or horses on merry-go-rounds or train cars on tracks. All of these have some similarities to real moons and planets. But all are just analogies. Just because a ball pulled in a perfect circle by a string does “x” “y” or “z” does not prescribe how a moon travelling in an ellipse pulled by gravity will act.
If your theory cannot accurately predict the actual motion of the center of mass of a moon in an elliptical orbit AND accurately predict the orientation of surface features relative to the ‘fixed star’ , then your theory fails. First and foremost, you must be able to match the real universe. If you are not ready to address the calculations involved, then you are not ready to take on scientists and engineers who actually CAN make those predictions to very high degrees of accuracy.
“Pretty much everyone can see and understand both perspectives”
No, Tim. If people understood both perspectives, there would be no more talk of reference frames…because people would understand that the differences between the “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” transcend reference frames. If people understood both perspectives, you would not have hundreds of responses of the type made by Ball4, bobdroege and SGW, among others, that simply waste time because they do not understand the “Non-Spinner” perspective.
Pretty much everyone does not see and understand both perspectives.
If you think you understand both perspectives, then speak up next time one of your fellow “Spinners” gets it wrong. Which is all the time.
I think people *do* understand both. Everyone can read those two descriptions you wrote and understand each. Basically, if you say a merry-go-round horse is “not rotating” you could either mean “not rotating relative to the platform“, or “not rotating relative to the ground under the platform“. You could mean “the nose is always pointed forward (and one side is always pointed inward)” or “the nose is always pointed north (and one side is always pointed east)“.
Surely everyone in this inane discussion at least understands the two descriptions. Surely everyone recognizes that either of these two different “frames of reference” could be used as a definition.
Which brings us to the question of which is better. Which more accurately and completely describes the motion of actual moons in actual orbits? Not which more accurately predicts train cars on tracks or balls on strings. And for this you have too actually make predictions and test them against actual moons. [Spoiler alert: both work perfectly fine for circular orbits. Only one works well for elliptical orbits.]
It is nothing to do with reference frames, Tim. The horse on a merry-go-round is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis…regardless of reference frames.
So you have just proved that you do not understand both perspectives.
Tesla’s wheel and ball M when “fixt” momentum analyis explains Tim’s points with physics and exactly applies to the rotating on its own axis “fixt” horse. DREMT makes no note of that because DREMT has to avoid the proof Tesla supplies in order for DREMT to remain so confused about relativity.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. He wrote one very short section in one of his articles where he went through one of the biggest reasons why people think the moon rotates on its own axis, then went on to debunk that. You have taken that bit out of context and try to pretend that Tesla argued or even proved that the moon rotates on its own axis, without mentioning the debunking, or the fact that he quite obviously and even famously was of the opinion that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. What you do is utterly shameless, but that’s just who you are, I guess.
No. I can define a frame of reference that has the x axis east, the y-axis north and the z-axis up. I can define my origin to move with the axle running up through the horse. This is a perfectly legitimate frame of reference.
In this frame, the horse IS rotating about the z axis as the merry-go-round turns.
Tesla’s layman editor argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis; Tesla himself used first principles to prove our moon does rotate on its own axis once per orbit with his wheel and “fixt” ball M assembly.
Once DREMT bothers to learn Tesla’s wheel assembly physics proof, the rest of Tesla’s statements become clear. Get to work understanding the proof DREMT, unless you aren’t capable which is what I suspect.
No, Tim, in that reference frame the horse appears to be rotating on its own axis. The horse, in reality, is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
Ball4, stop lying about Tesla.
DREMT, please bother to learn about Tesla’s wheel assembly physical proof our moon rotates on its own axis; the rest of Tesla’s statements on the subject then will become clear.
Tesla briefly discussed the parallel axis theorem, and how this was one of the main reasons that people thought the moon rotates on its own axis. He then went on to debunk that idea. Please bother to learn about the debunking that followed that brief discussion; the rest of his statements on the subject become clear.
Tim,
“Imagine the thrill Newton must have felt to realize he had discovered, and verified, a law that holds for Earth, apples, the Moon, and, as far as he knew, everything in the universe.”
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. It works. That’s why it’s called a “law”.
Don’t like it? The universe doesn’t seem to care what you think, does it?
Swenson, It happens I *do* like Newton’s Law of Gravity, exactly because it does work very well.
Similarly, I will choose whichever model for orbits works better. And that model is that the moon is spinning on its axis at a constant angular speed as it moves around the earth at varying angular speed (as predicted by that exact same law of gravity you just quoted).
Trying to tie the rotation of the moon to “pure orbital motion” with the moon ‘locked’ to the line between the moon and the earth simply cannot give an accurate answer. The universe doesn’t seem to care about “pure orbital motion”.
tim…”I will choose whichever model for orbits works better. And that model is that the moon is spinning on its axis at a constant angular speed as it moves around the earth at varying angular speed …”
Tim…not trying to be unkind. However, if you’d get out of your conditioned mind for a bit and observe with a choiceless awareness, you might begin to understand the impossibility of the Moon rotating about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed to Earth.
TF attempts to make up his own physics, again:
“Similarly, I will choose whichever model for orbits works better.”
Wrong TF, you have to obey the laws of physics. You don’t get to choose based on your bogus beliefs.
“And that model is that the moon is spinning on its axis at a constant angular speed as it moves around the earth at varying angular speed (as predicted by that exact same law of gravity you just quoted).”
Partially correct, TF. Moon does have a constant angular speed about its axis, BUT that angular speed is ZERO. Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. And the “same law of gravity” does NOT predict axial rotation.
“Trying to tie the rotation of the moon to ‘pure orbital motion’…”
YOU are the one trying to tie the rotation of Moon to “pure orbital motion”. Again, for the umpteenth time, “pure orbital motion” is the model of the ball-on-a-string, which shows that the same side always faces the center of the orbit.
Quit trying to pervert reality. Learn something about orbital motion.
Clint R could “Learn something about orbital motion.” by studying, and learning from, Tesla’s proof that our moon rotates on its own axis while orbiting using conservation of momentum physics with his wheel and “fixt” ball M assembly.
Tesla made no such “proof”. Here’s what he said about the parallel axis theorem:
“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.”
Tesla then went ahead and dispelled the illusion that the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis with his wheel and “fixt” ball M assembly momentum physics. DREMT never goes there to challenge Tesla’s work because DREMT knows Tesla’s physics analysis proves DREMT wrong.
It was a discussion of kinetic energy, not momentum, and he argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis by showing that the “fixt” balls had no kinetic energy of rotation.
Exactly DREMT, you are getting there, the moon does not rotate on its own axis as observed from the accelerated frame since Tesla’s “fixt” balls are welded to the spokes, they have no rotational KE as observed from the accelerated frame of the orbiting spokes.
The balls, like the moon, are rotating about an external axis, and not about their own center of mass. From the inertial reference frame.
Tesla proved you wrong DREMT, you were almost there understanding Tesla’s proof and subsequent verbiage. Pity.
Relativity was being developed and tested back when Tesla wrote his moon papers in 1919, Tesla wasn’t yet schooled in relativity.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-631433
DREMPT,
I understand the non-spinner position, it’s just wrong, and in order to support it you have to ignore a ton of astronomical observations.
What does Feynman say about ignoring observational evidence that contradicts your theory.
bob, you do not understand a thing.
DREMPTY,
I’ll tell ya what it means.
It means your theory that the Moon doesn’t rotate on its very own axis is wrong because observations say otherwise.
No point talking to you.
Then why don’t you stop responding to my posts moron.
I said MORON, did you hear me?
Maybe I will. You are such an entertaining child, though.
Poor TF, he still believes the ball-on-a-string is a model of Moon’s motion. The simple analogy is a model of pure orbital motion.
You can’t makes things simple enough for some idiots….
“The simple analogy is a model of pure orbital motion.”
So what use is this model? You just admitted that the moon’s motion is not described by your model. Indeed, nothing in the universe exhibits such a “pure orbital motion”. Your “pure orbital motion” is in the realm of mathematics. Now try to move on to “impure orbital motion” and describe actual moons.
“Pure orbital motion” = “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
…in the accelerated frame.
You are not even paying any attention to what you are replying to, now.
I have to ask – why do so many people here care about the rotation of the moon?
Provided you don’t care about the energy of the earth-moon system or angular momentum, these are two equally valid points of view based on different reference frames.
If you DO care about energy/momentum then the points of view are different, but what the hell does it have to do with climate? How about not clogging up the comments with this pointless debate.
There you go, Tim…another one who thinks it is all about reference frames…will you set them straight?
You seem to believe I want to take part in this BS debate.
OK, Rob.
Rob, if you believe energy and angular momentum are based on reference frames, you’re as unqualified as the other idiots.
Welcome to the debate!
I believe energy is based on reference frames.
What is the gravitational potential energy of a 1 kg object held 0.1 m above a lab bench that is 1 m above the floor that is 5 m above the ground that is 1000 m above sea level? Oh yeah, gravitational potential energy depends on the reference frame and where you choose to call “zero elevation”.
What is the kinetic energy of a 1 kg object sitting still on the lab bench? Zero of course. Unless you consider that the lab bench is moving eastward at 1000 km/hr due to the rotation of the earth on its axis. Oh, and the earth is orbiting the sun … which is orbiting the Milky Way, which is hurtling toward the Andromeda galaxy. hmmmm … it seems kinetic energy ALSO depends on your choice of reference frame.
The fact that you believe that I said energy and momentum is based on the reference frame means you lack basic comprehension skills.
Here Rob is replying to Clint R. Not Tim.
TF, your understanding of physics is so poor I don’t even know where to start!
Potential energy due to gravity is based on distance. So a book on the top shelf has more potential energy than a book on the lower shelf. But, both books are in the same “reference frame”.
Rob, I’m glad to see you back away from your own words. It’s embarrassing, but at least you’re trying to not be an idiot.
Potential energy due to gravity is based on distance from a zero-reference. The books are at different distances from the zero PE reference thus have different PEs. Clint R – still learning about relativity.
“Potential energy due to gravity is based on distance. “
More precisely, the CHANGE in potential energy is based on distance. Which was precisely the point. I can define an object at any elevation to have zero potential energy if I want. Just like I can define an object on a lab bench to be stationary — or define it as moving 1000 km/hr eastward.
Or I can define a frame of reference moving with my car. In that frame, I get pushed back when the car accelerates forward and I get pushed to the right when the car turns to the left. This non-inertial reference frame can be made to work, but it is tough. Much simpler to stick to inertial frames.
TF makes another mistake: “I can define an object at any elevation to have zero potential energy if I want.”
Fine, TF. Let’s put you 50 feet under a hoisted 5000# boulder, and define the boulder to have zero potential energy. We’ll release the boulder and you’ll only get squashed if you’re an idiot.
Jesus effing christ, I ask for the nonsense to stop, and instead the idiocy is triggered.
Will the sane side please show the rest how mature you can be.
tim…”I can define an object at any elevation to have zero potential energy if I want. Just like I can define an object on a lab bench to be stationary or define it as moving 1000 km/hr eastward”.
Yes, Tim, there are all forms of weirdos and pretenders out there using your methodology and coming up with pseudo-science like Big Bangs, evolution theory, space-time curvature, time dilation, and all forms of mental distortions.
Can we forget the reference frames for a bit and LOOK at physical reality?
tim…”I believe energy is based on reference frames.”
What you believe is irrelevant. Physical reality is what is left here on Earth when you remove all human minds with their conditioning and belief systems.
Clint imagines “youll only get squashed if youre an idiot.”
No, the boulder will lose potential energy as it falls ie it will have negative potential energy in the chosen frame. And it will gain kinetic energy as a consequence. The total will remain zero as it falls.
If you know much about physics, you will know that one of the most common, most useful conventions for the zero of gravitational potential energy is when the object is infinitely far away. Using that convention, the boulder ALWAYS has negative potential energy at any height above the earth. It is simply MORE NEGATIVE the lower it is.
Its really not that tough.
TF, as the boulder is released the potential energy becomes kinetic energy. That’s what will squash you.
As I’ve stated several times, I can’t teach physics to idiots, especially squashed idiots.
Clint R,
I am afraid you are not qualified to teach physics, having never passed a physics course.
Yes you are afraid, bob. You’re afraid of reality.
That’s why, as a troll, you have to continually make up nonsense.
(I won’t respond, so you get to make up some more nonsense.)
Clint R,
You could, you know, actually post that you have qualifications to teach physics.
Or an easier bar is to post where you took any physics courses, like I have done and others here have done.
Except you, DREMPT, Gordon, Swengoolie, and a few others.
R,
Given that climate is just the average of weather, derived from past records, pretty well all the comments here are irrelevant, pointless, or useless.
How people choose to waste their time is their own business, I suppose.
Wouldn’t you agree?
The coolin has been triggered
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/global_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2021_day_66_1981-2010.png
And now for the actual data:
https://tinyurl.com/4rswhxku
You left out Antarctica.
Indeed. But a short-term excursion in Antarctica can’t trigger global cooling while the circumpolar current is running.
rob…”And now for the actual data:”
About your graph, Mr. Dimwit, if you check 2021, it shows the entire year, even though we are only in early March. Besides, this is a modeled graph intended for eco-weenies.
The nonsense replies show the level we operate on in here.
For the really slow ones The chart I posted is the same data as Rob posted , in his chart in upper left corner you can switch from arctic to antarctic , my chart shows both combined.
And no, checking 2021, does not show the entire year
dremt…”Any warming effect of the blue plate is meant to be due to back-radiation from the green plates, and not due to an insulative effect of a vacuum gap. You are shifting the goalposts”.
That’s right. Eli Rabbett, aka Josh Halpern, was told this by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner. When G&T told him the 2nd law covered heat only and that heat was constricted to flow from hot to cold, Eli, in a Homer Simpson ‘DOH!!!” moment, claimed that would mean with two radiators of different temperatures in close proximity, one of the radiators would not be radiating.
All the alarmists like Eli, ball4, etc., fail to understand that even with EM, heat can only be transferred, by its own means, in one direction, hot to cold.
As Dremt implied, Eli’s blue/green plate experiment is intended to demonstrate back radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it, according to AGW theory. That not only contradicts the 2nd law, it is perpetual motion represented by a heat cycle in which heat is manufactured out of nothing.
Too bad there is such a thing as back-radiation.
And it doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics, which you Gordon no nothing about.
…and it doesn’t heat anything/cause anything to be at a higher temperature than it would otherwise be.
More gibberish from DREMPT.
Just plain English that anybody could understand, bob.
Except that it is meaningless due to the way you phrased it, so gibberish.
anything/cause is not a recognized word in the English language.
Also it is incorrect.
All of the above is also a valid answer.
Back-radiation does not heat anything nor cause anything to be at a higher temperature than it would otherwise be.
…except when the backradiation is increased from an object replacing a colder object.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
Ball4, you wrote:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Thus agreeing that the GPE is debunked.
Gordon fails to understand that even with EM, heat cannot be transferred from object to object because heat does not exist in any object only the KE of the object’s constituents can transfer out.
No heat can be manufactured Gordon, there is no substance called heat in existence. Think it was Joule that did the precise measurements showing an object does not gain mass as it warms since no thing was transferred during the warming process.
Still, Gordon continues to write a nonexistent thing Gordon makes up in his imagination called heat can somehow miraculously contradict AGW.
Strong decline in solar activity from early 2021.
The graph shows the number of sunspots.
https://i.ibb.co/vkyPZPJ/from-2017.png
The temperature above the 80th parallel has dropped.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2021.png
Sea ice extent anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010
While in the Arctic, the sea ice extent suddenly dropped and then came back to the 2019 level:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
we see that in the Antarctic, there was at the same time a serious uptick:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
what in the Globe’s sum looks like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
and in absolute form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IcDTCs6ywcbg_iIAwe-xhEJMm2iT3fn9/view
J.-P. D.
If a moving airliner is not rotating on its pitch axis as it flies parallel to Earths (as claimed by DREMT and the other suspects), why do INS systems need Schuler tuning to compensate for the curvature of the Earth?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuler_tuning
Answer- Because the INS gyros detect rotation relative to the inertial reference frame and not to an Earth based reference frame.
Similarly the INS accelerometers detect the centripetal acceleration due to Earth’s rotation.
Thq1e Apollo LEM INS systems detected centripetal acceleration on the Moon’s surface. Since this does not occur on non-rotating bodies, the Moon must be rotating relative to the inertial reference frame.
In summary, the inertial reference frame is the objective frame. All the rest are artificial human constructs.
"Since this does not occur on non-rotating bodies, the Moon must be rotating relative to the inertial reference frame."
The moon is rotating, just not on its own axis.
…in the accelerated frame.
…no, in the inertial frame, as you can tell from context.
Tesla proved you wrong DREMT, please study his “fixt” ball M momentum work closely. ftop_t also demonstrated DREMT is wrong for the earth-moon-sun system showing the object rotate once once its own axis per orbit:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Tesla proved you wrong Ball4, please study what follows on from his discussion of the “fixt” balls. ftop_t also demonstrated Ball4 is wrong for the earth-moon-sun system showing the object not rotating on its own axis whilst rotating about an external axis:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
As you can see, only the external axis rotation slider is moving, in order to make that happen.
“please study what follows on from his discussion of the fixt balls.”
I have, and if anyone capable in physics does so, the reason for Tesla’s other verbiage becomes clear, except to DREMT. And ftop_t’s slider is correct, it is set to show zero rotations on the orbiting object’s own axis observed in the accelerated frame.
Agree to disagree.
You are free to do so, it remains Tesla still has proven DREMT is wrong about the moon’s orbital motion using his wheel and ball M assembly showing our moon rotates on its own axis in orbit.
If your argument rests on believing Tesla proved the moon rotates on its own axis, then you have lost the argument, Ball4.
Tesla’s wheel assembly analysis is the correct argument basis which DREMT avoids completely because it proves DREMT wrong in that our moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit from momentum considerations of Tesla’s ball M.
Once again, if your argument rests on believing Tesla proved the moon rotates on its own axis, then you have lost the argument, Ball4.
Ent, you are confusing gyroscope-type motion with orbital motion. Someone (maybe it was you?) made the same mistake with Foucault’s Pendulum.
Throw something else out there to protect your bogus beliefs. The list gets longer and longer.
Gyroscopes and Foucault Pendulums follow similar physics. They remain stationary relative to the inertial reference frame and the planet (or Moon) rotates around them.
Yes, it’s basically the same as if viewing “from the stars”.
Orbital motion can be confusing.
…as Clint R demonstrates.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
They detect changes in orientation. The moon changes its orientation because it is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis…from the inertial reference frame.
“The moon changes its orientation” yes DREMT now you get it. The orbiting moon does rotate on its own axis changing orientation for a lunar day/night cycle while staring at the earth; Tesla’s momentum analysis is correct.
“Changing orientation” does not equal “rotating on its own axis”.
Tesla argued the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
DREMT again fails to write Tesla’s editor argued the moon does not rotate on its own axis as can be plainly seen; Tesla himself proved the moon does rotate on its own axis due physical momentum considerations in hs wheel and ball M assembly.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. Ball4, please stop trolling.
Tesla’s wheel assembly momentum analysis proves otherwise DREMT, you were almost there but have slipped back.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team or DREMT, keep up the great work. You are angering the right people.
CO2isLife
If I were you, I’d be careful.
Because one day, you might suddenly begin to think like DREMT and Co, just in the way others suddenly begin to believe that the Sun rotates around Earth.
J.-P. D.
And for my part I must add that I don’t feel ‘angered’. It’s rather afflicting.
“Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain”
Schiller
No.point getting angry with the non-spinners, but showing why they are wrong is useful intellectual exercise and debate like this is fun. Smile emoji.
Thanks!
Solar flux F10.7 cm: cycles 23-24 vs 24-25
It is always good to compare:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ls0t2D00ifmPGGsNJVYSDGjgwF-Xz_2B/view
We are way way away from any solar decline.
J.-P. D.
You are wrong because activity is going down instead of up. And the cycle has long since begun.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
ren
I observe SSN and F10.7…
… and not CMgII.
J.-P. D.
Did SSN and F10.7 drop markedly in January and February? Yes or no?
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/auto_generated_products/solradmon_eng.png
Such short term variations are normal. Don’t mistake a couple of months of short term noise for a long term trend.
Entropic man
Should activity drop so much in the second year of the solar cycle, or should it increase?
Yes. Look at the graph and you see short term variations exceeding 40 sfu. The 15 sfu variation in 2021 you are getting so excited about is well within the normal range.
Entropic man
In your opinion, are we past peak solar activity yet?
For persons who use to look above the tidbits, solar activity’s highest recent peak was in October 1957.
J.-P. D.
“Entropic man
In your opinion, are we past peak solar activity yet?”
For this cycle? No. I expect it to peak around 2030.
Will this cycle peak higher than 1957? Probably not.
The graph shows the number of sunspots.
https://i.ibb.co/vkyPZPJ/from-2017.png
Sunspots currently show extremely low magnetic activity. Even coronal holes in the solar disk are now absent.
https://i.ibb.co/PYbLjyZ/AR-CH-20210307-hres.png
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
An apparent spike and drop in activity in the solar southern hemisphere. Very low activity in the northern hemisphere (now a slight increase).
https://solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png
Observing the strong decrease in UV radiation and weak sunspot activity, I predict a marked decrease in TSI throughout the 25th solar cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/yX0GhL0/tim-level3-tsi-24hour-3month-640×480.png
Snow cover surface in the NH looks fine:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uBLq_FlpeaYvwf4eCcF6a2Hjgj0KqQBO/view
Ni trop, ni trop peu.
Btw: an increase in snow cover weight when the surface keeps nearly constant mostly is a hint on wetter snow.
J.-P. D.
Snowfall in the lowlands of the northern hemisphere increases in March.
http://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg
Btw: an increase in snow cover weight when the surface keeps nearly constant mostly is a hint on wetter and thus heavier snow [and not on more snow].
J.-P. D.
Binny,
“. . . mostly is a hint . . .”? Really? What about when it isn’t?
A bit of wishful thinking perhaps.
Maybe you need to learn the difference between heavier and denser, in any case.
Otherwise you join the medieval people who believed that a pound of lead was obviously heavier than a pound of feathers!
La Nina is weakening but may rebound as fall begins in the South Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202103.gif
Wake me up when you see the red ‘El Nino’ bar
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
moving back from 20 to 10!
J.-P. D.
Looks like a cool autumn in the southern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/23xFWNL/S-iqr-timeseries.png
Rob
You wrote upthread
” I have to ask – why do so many people here care about the rotation of the moon? ”
*
My answer is that this discussion is not so much centered around the Moon itself, but rather around
– intentional misinterpretation and misrepresentation of scientific results,
and
– discrediting and denigrating those who published them, together with those who discuss their results on this blog.
*
Nearly everyday on the blog you can read things like
” When he mentioned lunar rotation, it was in relation to the stars. ”
” Yes, it’s basically the same as if viewing “from the stars”. ”
*
All the so-called Non-spinners have tried to insinuate that the observation of the motions of celestial bodies with respect to fixed stars in astronomy not only affects the measurements of these motions in time, but the motions themselves as well.
That is incredibly brazen.
*
In his Principia Scientifica, Newton clearly used the concept ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ to specify the duration of motions, here: the rotation about an internal axis:
” 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 clear from the text that Newton used this concept solely in order to obtain more accurate time measurements for the motions of celestial bodies by making the measurements independent of Earth’s motion relative to these bodies.
Nowhere in the Principia would one find a place where a motion, let alone its existence, would depend of how the motion’s duration time is measured.
*
But the Non-spinners wouldn’t be Non-spinners if they didn’t use EVERY opportunity to stubbornly deny the Moon’s rotation as it has been described for centuries.
J.-P. D.
Moon only appears to rotate on its axis relative to the stars. Moon is NOT really rotating about its axis.
Newton got it right.
The Antiscience is settled.
J.-P. D.
I haven’t really read any of the Moon Rotating around its Axis arguments, I just see that there are many posts about it. To be honest, I never thought there was even an issue about it.
Anyway, is the same side of the moon always facing the Earth? Yes
Does the moon rotate around the earth? Yes, every 27 Days.
How then could the same side of the moon always point to the earth if it didn’t rotate?
The rate of rotation is one rotation every 27 days.
It is rotating, about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not about its own center of mass.
Think of a horse on a merry-go-round. The horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis. The horse keeps the same side always facing towards the center.
Think of something that actually moves like the Moon, like another moon, not some my little pony on a carousel.
But then the my little pony actually does rotate on its own axis.
It’s not what morons think that counts.
b,
You wrote –
“It’s not what morons think that counts.”
Very true. That’s why your thoughts are studiously ignored by anybody of average intelligence.
I guess that’s why you ignored my comment.
The horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis. Just another fact about rotation for you to deny, bob.
Parallel axis theorem moron.
Then you would be asserting that the center of mass of the horse translates in a circle, whilst the horse rotates about that center of mass.
But we weren’t talking about translation plus rotation.
We were just talking about rotation.
The horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis. Just another fact about rotation for you to deny, bob.
I said parallel axis theorem.
Maybe you should look it up.
In order to calculate the energy that is in the horse……
Yes, bob, the parallel axis theorem. In which the motion is resolved into two components, one translational, and one rotational.
But we werent talking about translation plus rotation.
We were just talking about rotation.
The horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis. Just another fact about rotation for you to deny, bob.
DREMTP
If you think that is what the parallel axis theorem is about, you’re wrong.
It makes it obvious you didn’t even bother to look it up.
It’s two rotational components of the motion.
Moron.
Wrong, as always, bob. When you actually come to apply the parallel axis theorem to a problem like the horse on a merry-go-round, you end up with a translational component, and a rotational component. Study Tesla’s Fig. 4 from his third paper, and what he writes about it. Or any of the many examples that SGW has dug up.
The horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis. Just another fact about rotation for you to deny.
Yes DREMT, anyone including bob can study Tesla’s Fig. 4 from his third paper, and what he writes about the momentum of ball M “fixt” on the wheel assembly proving the horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and, on its own axis once per orbit. Just another fact about rotation for you to deny.
Let the denials begin in 3…2…1…
Here you go, bob…from Tesla’s third paper:
“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.”
“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.”
Tesla then successfully endeavored to dispel the illusion that our moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis with wheel and “fixt” ball M assembly which facts DREMT has never successfully directly challenged.
Let even more fact denials begin in 3…2…1…
Ball4, I am trying to have a discussion with bob. Please stop trolling, and butt out. You have nothing worthwhile to offer.
I have something to offer bob who evidently understands momentum and inertial frame rotation; there is nothing to offer entertainer DREMT due obviously avoiding reality at every twist…twist…twist…
Yawn.
dremt…Tesla nailed it. Even NASA can’t understand the Moon’s alleged rotation. Their reply was that they regard the Moon from the perspective of the background stars but even then, if the Moon is not rotating from the perspective from Earth, it’s not rotating from any perspective.
It’s simply impossible for the Moon to keep the same face pointed to the Earth and rotate about a local axis. The Moon is translating and that fully explains it’s change in orientation over an orbit. The rotation theory cannot explain it.
DREMTP
That bs from Tesla is not what I was referring to, if we can’t even talk about the same things………..
And I was referring to what SGW posted, a video from MIT I believe.
two of the videos he posted
Furthermore, it’s not translation and even Tesla says so
“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.”
The former is translation,
the latter is what the Moon is actually doing, the particles having different velocities, which is what rotating objects do.
Something I tried to point out weeks, months or even years ago.
Tesla was talking about the using the parallel axis theorem to calculate the kinetic energy of an object moving like the horse on a merry-go-round. The videos from SGW also involved a translational and a rotational component, not two rotational components.
“the latter is what the Moon is actually doing, the particles having different velocities, which is what rotating objects do.”
Sure, the moon is rotating…just not on its own axis. Like the horse on a merry-go-round, it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. Just another fact about rotation for you to deny, bob.
DREMPTY
You answered too fast, I don’t think you even bothered to check.
Does the far side of the Moon move faster than the near side?
That is what Tesla was going to endeavor to dispel, looks to me like he failed.
Are we having a discussion or are you just repeating the same crap over and over and over and crimson and clover
bob, you are utterly incapable of following this discussion, what I am getting at, what Tesla was getting at, or anything else for that matter. You seem hopelessly lost.
That’s nice DREMTY
You totally miss the point with the parallel axis theorem, which is not about kinetic energy, it about moment of inertia.
I was trying to lead the discussion, not follow all your mistakes, missteps and generally bogus information.
And you are trying to make like SGW agrees with you.
That’s a hoot.
So tell me dear boy, are the particles of the far side of the Moon moving faster than the particles on the near side?
And can you show me how Tesla managed to dispel that “illusion?”
Cause he didn’t.
You claim
“You seem hopelessly lost.”
That’s because you are hopelessly lost and can’t even follow my simple arguments, let alone the more complex ones dealing with the parallel axis theorem.
Re-read my previous comments until you are up to speed with the discussion.
I follow very well thank you.
You are just full of shit and an asshole to boot.
Now are the particles of the far side of the Moon moving faster than the near side, and tell me again where Tesla managed to dispel that notion.
You cannot follow the discussion, bob, so there is no point talking to you.
Yeah DREMPTY,
I have been following your my little pony arguments for months, you were full of shit then, and still are, still the Moon turns.
Sorry for your loss.
Saying I am not following the argument is like saying you quit.
Now go join Tesla and feed the pigeons.
Cause science ain’t your strong suit.
Whatever you say, bob.
Gordon, Tesla did indeed “nail it” as you write, showing the moon changes orientation also as you write, completely changing lunar orientation once per orbit of earth. Tesla also nailed it with his wheel and “fixt” ball M assembly showing the one complete change in lunar orientation per orbit from a momentum approach.
If your argument rests on believing Tesla proved the moon rotates on its own axis, then you have lost the argument, Ball4.
My argument doesn’t rest on “believing”, DREMT, it rests on the proven physics Tesla employed to prove our moon changes orientation (Gordon’s term) completely once per orbit with his wheel and “fixt” ball M assembly. None of Tesla’s ball M momentum physics has been challenged by you because you know the physics are unassailable.
Even DREMT agrees our moon changes its orientation while orbiting so there really is no debate, DREMT just likes twisting in the wind & entertaining readers.
“Changing orientation” does not equal “axial rotation”, Ball4. But if your argument rests on believing Tesla proved the moon rotates on its own axis, then you have lost the argument.
Please, then, demonstrate a change in orientation that does not involve an axial rotation. A normal basketball should be useful.
A basketball on a string, swung in a circle. The basketball faces through e.g. N, W, S, E and back to N. The basketball is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. Just another fact about rotation for you to deny, Ball4.
The basketball completely changes its orientation through e.g. N, W, S, E and back to N so that won’t work DREMT.
It changes orientation, without rotating on its own axis. Works.
It changes orientation, without rotating on its own axis in the accelerated frame. Works.
It does not rotate on its own axis in any reference frame, though it may appear to do so in some reference frames.
You just do not understand rotation about an external axis, Ball4…and you most likely never will.
Kepp twisting things DREMT, it is so fun to watch. Tesla’s proven physics prove it is you that does not understand.
Ball4, if your argument rests on believing Tesla proved the moon rotates on its own axis, then you have lost the argument.
Here are Tesla’s own words on how to tell if an object is translating or rotating.
“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.”
So it’s simple
If the particles of an object all have the same velocity, then the object is not rotating.
If the particles of an object all have different velocities, then the object is rotating.
Are the particles of the following objects all moving at the same velocity?
My little pony on the merry-go-round?
The chalk circle on the merry-go-round?
The ball on a string?
The Moon?
It’s probably too hard of an argument to follow if you are not as smart as Tesla.
Yes, bob:
My little pony on the merry-go-round? Rotating…
The chalk circle on the merry-go-round? Rotating…
The ball on a string? Rotating…
The Moon? Rotating…
They are all rotating…
…but not on their own axes. They are all rotating about an axis that is external to the body, and not about their own center of mass.
Nope, Tesla’s test was for rotation around an internal axis, not an external one.
Sorry you don’t understand and just can’t follow a discussion.
Lol.
Tesla said “axial rotation… the particles have different velocities.”
LOLRONTHFFLMFAOATSTDREMTPYS
Another one that thinks Tesla has proven the moon rotates on its own axis…
…I don’t think that’s what Tesla meant, bob. What he was explaining was that the equation of motion associated with his Fig. 4 (which makes use of the parallel axis theorem) has a translational and a rotational term. Which suggests an impossible combination of movements in which particles are moving both in one direction with the same velocities and simultaneously in another direction with different velocities. And that’s why he is saying that it is “still more remote from palpable truth”, and only an “abstract idea” of angular motion rather than evidence that the moon is actually rotating on its own axis in any real physical sense.
But if you want to believe otherwise, I know there is no point in trying to stop you…
No, DREMPTY,
What I am saying is that Tesla set up the conditions for determining whether and object rotate on its axis or not, and then stated he would prove that the Moon does not meet the condition for rotating on an axis.
I am saying he failed to convince me, at least, that the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
Because the conditions he stated for determining whether the Moon rotates on its axis are still met.
Tesla’s conditions for rotating on its own axis is still met.
DREMPTY,
Is this you or Tesla?
“Which suggests an impossible combination of movements in which particles are moving both in one direction with the same velocities and simultaneously in another direction with different velocities.”
Because whomever wrote that is confused about velocity and direction.
“What I am saying is that Tesla set up the conditions for determining whether and object rotate on its axis or not, and then stated he would prove that the Moon does not meet the condition for rotating on an axis.”
bob, it’s just one short section from one of the papers, that you are taking out of context. It is not “the conditions for determining whether and (sic) object rotate on its own axis or not”.
DREMPTY,
I was just quoting from the part you cut and pasted from the Tesla paper.
If anyone took anything out of context it was you.
Here is the rest of the quote
“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 failed to dispel by additional evidences.
bob, you seem to deliberately steer any conversation as far away from the initial point as you possibly can. Is there a reason for that?
I was responding directly to what you cut and pasted, you got a problem with that?
OK, bob, you bizarrely aggressive weirdo.
“They are all rotating about an axis that is external to the body, and not about their own center of mass.”
But those two ‘rotations’ are at different rates. Why then would you claim they are the same thing? The only way to make libration work with your model is for the moon to actually be rotating slightly forward and slightly back on its own axis each time if goes around the earth.
“But those two ‘rotations’ are at different rates. Why then would you claim they are the same thing?”
There are not two rotations, Tim. That is a statement of absolute truth. The moon is not rotating about both an external and an internal axis. If it were, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. If you want the moon to be making two motions, then it would have to be a combination of motion like the “moon on the right” plus a rotation on its own axis. Not two rotations. Until that is agreed by all parties I am not re-discussing (for the twentieth time) libration.
CIL, your experience challenging the CO2 nonsense should allow you to recognize the same flak. The idiots believe if NASA says something, it must be true. And, like with the CO2 nonsense, none of the idiots really know anything about the science. You’re fighting a cult mentality.
If you know what pure orbital motion is, that is the motion of Moon. It keeps the same side facing the center of the orbit. You can also get there if you’ve ever studied vectors.
And the “tidal locking” is also bogus.
co2…”How then could the same side of the moon always point to the earth if it didnt rotate?”
Elementary…glad you asked.
The Moon’s only motion is linear momentum. The only force on it is Earth’s gravity. Without gravity, the Moon would fly off on a straight line. Each instant, the Moon is experiencing a force moving it slightly off its linear path and the culmination of that effect pulls the Moon into a slightly elliptical orbit.
The Moon is actually translating in a straight line that is bent into an orbit by gravity. Picture an aircraft flying at 35,000 feet with constant velocity, just enough to keep it at 35,000 feet. If it was flying along the Equator, it would follow the curvature of the Earth because gravity is holding it at 35,000 feet above the surface against the lift provided by its wings.
That’s what happens with the Moon. It has no engines but it needs none since there is no air resistance. The aircraft does not rotate nose over tail so why should the Moon? Yet the aircraft’s orientation changes through 360 degrees per orbit without rotation.
Gordon, are you saying that if I look down on the Earth and Moon in a plane perpendicular to the Moon’s Orbit, that the moon would appear not to rotate around its axis? Anyone with a tennis ball and basketball can prove that theory is wrong.
co2…”are you saying that if I look down on the Earth and Moon in a plane perpendicular to the Moons Orbit, that the moon would appear not to rotate around its axis? Anyone with a tennis ball and basketball can prove that theory is wrong”.
It may appear to do so but closer examination reveals that all particles on the Moon are moving in concentric orbits. As you look down from your perspective, visualize a circular orbit with a radial line connecting the centre of Earth, as an axis, and with the line going through the centre of the Moon.
That radial line sweeps out 360 degrees per orbit. Every point along that radial line sweeps out 360 degrees per orbit. Therefore, the point where it intercepts the near face of the Moon sweeps out 360 degrees per orbit. Ditto for the COG where it touches the line and the far side where the line emerges. All points on the Moon along that radial line sweep out 360 degrees per orbit. Furthermore, each one of those points is moving parallel to the other points. That alone, rules out local rotation.
It is impossible under those circumstances for the Moon to rotate about its COG when every point is on a concentric orbital path. The path of each point touching the radial line forms an instantaneous tangent line to its respective curve. As the radial line rotates, the direction in which the tangential line points changes direction each instant and cumulatively, the tangent line changes direction through 360 degrees over an orbit.
That’s why the Moon appears to rotate on a local axis, but like I said earlier, a closer examinations reveals it cannot possibly rotate while the near side is perpendicular to the radial line. The Moon is, in fact, translating, as Tesla claimed. That translation explains its constantly changing orientation wrt the stars.
CO2isLife, Gordon has admitted the moon changes its orientation as it orbits. When Gordon, Tesla, and DREMT et. al. write the moon does not rotate on its own axis, they are observing that from the accelerated frame which is itself spinning. You just have to catch on to their unique lingo.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Moon’s path around the earth is elliptical. There is 8 degrees of each side of the moon that becomes visible. The moon might be tidally locked to the earth but its still rotating independent of the gravitational ‘string’ Its not just orbiting, its rotating about its axis, else you wouldn’t get that 8 degrees of ‘wander’ for lack of a better term, due to its elliptic orbit.
That extra 8 degrees is due to the elliptical orbit, and position of observation from Earth. The effect is known as “libration”.
And you forgot that it is also caused by the fact that the Moon spins on its own axis which is not parallel to the axis which the Moon revolves around the Earth.
There are not two axes of rotation, bob. If there were, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Just a fact about rotation for you to deny.
Yes there are Moron, these have been observed for hundreds of years.
You can’t make up your own facts.
Moron.
You cannot observe an axis, bob…regardless, if there were two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Just a fact about rotation for you to deny.
DREMPTY,
You can observe an axis, what makes you think you can’t. Astronomers observe and plot axes all the time.
And cut it out with the “you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.” bullshit.
bob, a rotational axis is only an imaginary line. You cannot observe something imaginary. If the moon rotated about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Just a fact about rotation for you to deny.
Yes, Moron, it’s only an imaginary line, so is the Earths equator, every line of latitude and longitude, the axis the Earth rotates around and the plane of the ecliptic.
But they are determined by the motions of real objects.
You are getting really stupid now.
If the moon rotated about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Just a fact about rotation for you to deny.
Nope, that’s not a fact.
And can you stop repeating things that have been debunked a thousand times.
I guess it’s time for a break and to stop feeding the troll.
It is a fact, bob. If the moon rotated about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
The fact is, if the moon rotated about both an external orbital axis and and completely changed lunar orientation on internal axis more or less than once per orbit, Earth inhabitants would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
If the moon rotated about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
I can see all sides of the Moon from Earth, because I have seen the videos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon
Again, if the moon rotated about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Again, if the moon rotated about both an external and an internal axis more or less than once, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth & the string would wrap.
I can tell the Moon is rotating by all the string wrapped around it and I can see all sides of the Moon from Earth, as I know what the far side of the Moon looks like.
Once again, if the moon rotated about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
K,
Minor problem with your thinking.
As you pointed out, extra portions of the Moon’s surface become visible due to its elliptical orbit – in both directions.
The Moon does not actually rotate backwards and forwards. Nor does it simultaneously rock up and down, when it exhibits latitudinal libration.
You don’t seem to appreciate the Moon is continuously falling around the Earth, due to the combined effects of gravity and the Moon’s linear motion. Without gravity, the Moon continue in a straight line. Without its linear motion, it would simply fall to Earth.
Why does the Moon travel at about 1 km/sec? I don’t know. Do you?
“The Moon does not actually rotate backwards and forwards.”
Yes, this is true, it actually only rotates in one direction.
b,
So the longitudinal libration observed in both directions, and recorded for centuries does not really exist? And you don’t accept latitudinal libration, either?
Or are you claiming rotation of the Moon about an internal axis makes it appear to be wobbling back and forth equally in both directions? In that case, what about observed latitudinal libration – do you have the Moon simultaneously rotating about an axis at right angles to your other one?
Are you confusing astrology with astronomy?
Or are you just another alarmist trying to appear intelligent, while castigating others as morons?
Carry on.
Swengoolie,
Are you feeling left out because I haven’t called you a moron?
Libration exists, and you not figure out why.
The Moon moves around the earth, sweeping out equal areas in equal times, remember Kepler.
So it moves faster then slower, but always rotating at the same speed, that’s how it exhibits longitudinal libration.
Then the orbiting axis is tilted, that causes another kind of libration.
Then the rotational axis is tilted too, causing another form of libration.
Just basic stuff any moron can learn if they want to stop being a moron.
I guess that puts you in the I wanna be a moron camp.
bob, if the moon rotated about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Just a fact about rotation for you to deny.
That’s not true, the Moon is rotating on at least two axes, one internal and at least one external, and you don’t see all sides from Earth.
Wrong, bob. If the moon rotated about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Just a fact about rotation for you to deny.
The fact is, if the moon rotated about both an external orbital axis and completely changed lunar orientation on internal axis more or less than once per orbit, then Earth inhabitants would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
If the moon rotated about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Just a fact about rotation for you to deny.
You can tell the Moon is rotating due to all the string wrapped around it.
Again, if the moon rotated about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Just a fact about rotation for you to deny.
I do see all sides of the Moon from Earth and all the string.
Once again, if the moon rotated about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Just a fact about rotation for you to deny.
Yes the moon does fall around the earth. 1km/sec? Yeah it has its own speed same as every body in the universe has its own speed. It also rotates at a constant rotational velocity … which is why we get to see 8 degrees either side due to the elliptical orbit. Otherwise it would rotate backward and forward and we would not see those elliptical effects.
K,
No, if the Moon was rotating about its axis, you would not see equal degrees of longitudinal libration which is due to the elliptical orbit.
But tell me, why are equal latitudinal excursions observed due to the inclination of the poles to the Moon’s orbital plane?
Look at a tine lapse series, and you will see the Moon appearing to rotate back and forth about 2 axes simultaneously. Even the supposed magical properties of CO2 would be hard put to achieve this seeming miracle!
So you might consider figuring out why a falling body in a vacuum would start rotating. More CO2 magic?
Ho, ho, ho!
ken…”which is why we get to see 8 degrees either side due to the elliptical orbit.”
If the Moon was rotating on a local axis, you’d see all sides of the Moon since the Earth rotates 28 times during one lunar orbit.
You are talking about libration, an illusion of rotation. If the Moon’s orbit was totally circular, you would not see libration. In a circular orbit, a radial line from the Moon to the Earth would connect centre to centre. That’s not the case with a slightly elliptical orbit.
To find the action of gravity on the Moon in an elliptical orbit, you must draw a line from each focus on the ellipse to the Moon then bisect the angle formed. That gives the tangent (perpendicular to the bisector) to the orbit and the radial line along which gravity must act in order to be at full force, as in a circular orbit.
Therefore, gravity is acting at less than full strength on the Moon, especially in the more eccentric parts of the orbit, which allows the Moon to speed up and slow down during one orbit. At the same time, the Moon is oriented at a slight angle to Earth and that allows us to see a few degrees around the edge (longitudinal libration).
At no time is the Moon moving around its axis, it’s the eccentricity of the orbit that causes libration, which gives the illusion of local angular motion.
want to clarify the following: “At the same time, the Moon is oriented at a slight angle to Earth and that allows us to see a few degrees around the edge (longitudinal libration)”.
If the lunar orbit was a circle, a radial line from the Earth’s centre would go straight through the Moon’s centre. Gravity would act along that line at all times and there would be no way to see around the edges of the Moon. That is, no libration.
In a actual linear orbit, that radial line is not centre to centre, the radial line from the Moon’s centre is a bit off Earth centre. As I said, the radial line from the Moon is calculated by drawing lines from each focal point to the Moon and bisecting the angle formed.
That means, as the Moon moves into the more eccentric parts of the orbit, the near face is not pointed directly at the Earth. Rather the near face points along the radial line from its centre, which is a few degrees away from Earth’s centre. Therefore, in those regions of the orbit, we can see a few more degrees around the Moon’s near edge. Someone said 8 degrees, which sound reasonable.
The Moon has not rotated at all and libration is only an illusion of rotation. The Moon is always moving in a straight line and that linear path is slowly bent into an elliptical orbit by gravity.
“So you might consider figuring out why a falling body in a vacuum would start rotating. More CO2 magic?”
Yes indeed, to all primitive people, modern science and technology does seem like magic.
Oh well.
Suppose the Moon was tidal locked with the Sun [I would guess in 5 billion or so years, it might be].
So one side of Moon would then always face the Sun, just as one side of Moon always faces Earth.
In that situation, in regards to Earth, the Moon would not have a near side and far side. From Earth one sees both “the far and near sides”.
It would look like the Moon was spinning on it’s axis- once every orbital period of Earth. Or the Moon orbiting further from Earth in 5 billion year, so instead of about 1 month, it would be months of time. I just to pick a wild number and say it’s 6 months, so surface of moon rotates once every 6 months- allowing to see both “far and near side” of the Moon. And say “near side” is always facing the Sun- and the “far side” is very cold.
So, from Earth it looks like the Moon is spinning on it’s axis.
And from Sun’s direction, would it be spinning on it’s axis?
Or is not spinning on axis in regard to both the Sun and Earth?
Bindidon
Be prepared for rain through March 16 and frost at night from the 16th.
1. correct
2. wrong
We had the frost nights already, none forecasted for the next 2 weeks.
So you can confidently sow seeds from the boat on the plot.
Record low temperatures in Russia since March 8.
https://i.ibb.co/ByT526c/Screenshot-3.png
Any reason for not mentioning the record high temperature in Michigan?
Rob
In case you haven’t noticed it yet: this gentleman likes it warm, like we all do after all, but is heavily subscribed to the cold.
J.-P. D.
I’ve noticed it, hence the challenge.
His methodology is exactly the same as that of adapt 2030 … cherry pick the cold temperatures that will always occur, and pretend they are the norm instead of the exception.
ren does a great job of spoofing Alarmists.
He is too literal to consider “spoofing”.
It’s always funny to look at ren’s coolista comments!
Here is a bit of Moscow’s March temperature history, coming from the weather station there:
RSM00027612 55.8331 37.6167 156.0 MOSCOW GSN 27612
RSM00027612 58-87 1967 2 3 -31.9 (C)
RSM00027612 58-87 1966 2 3 -29.5
RSM00027612 58-87 1950 1 3 -29.0
RSM00027612 58-87 1964 3 6 -27.9
RSM00027612 58-87 1952 3 23 -27.1
RSM00027612 58-87 1999 2 3 -26.7
RSM00027612 58-87 1956 2 3 -26.4
RSM00027612 58-87 1960 3 7 -25.8
RSM00027612 58-87 1952 3 24 -25.6
RSM00027612 58-87 1958 3 5 -25.6
RSM00027612 58-87 2002 1 3 -25.1
RSM00027612 58-87 1963 3 18 -24.6
RSM00027612 58-87 2012 2 3 -24.6
RSM00027612 58-87 1963 3 21 -24.5
RSM00027612 58-87 1976 2 3 -24.3
RSM00027612 58-87 1953 2 3 -24.0
RSM00027612 58-87 1982 1 3 -24.0
RSM00027612 58-87 1955 3 3 -23.9
RSM00027612 58-87 1987 1 3 -23.9
RSM00027612 58-87 1952 3 20 -23.5
J.-P. D.
binny…”Tobias Mayer did in 1748-49 (!!!) in order to prove, by both own observations using an own micrometer, and own computations, that the Moon rotates about an internal axis:”
He did not prove anything. He messed up his analysis by trying to apply particle theory to a rigid body and getting the forces wrong.
@Gordon Robertson
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-631609
“About your graph, Mr. Dimwit, if you check 2021, it shows the entire year, even though we are only in early March.”
If that’s what you think then you have NO ability to read a graph. The 2021 stops in MARCH.
Seriously – this the level of education we have to deal with.
This might be of interest to the Moon rotation debaters.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4874
Note particularly the first and fifth animations which show the effect of the Moon’s axis of rotation on libration. This axis is not aligned either with the plane of the Moon’s orbit, nor with the Earth’s axis.
If the Moon has an independent axis of rotation it must have independent rotation. Smile emoji.
Ent, in simple terms, “libration” is what we observe from Earth. The peculiar motions are not really happening. It is just caused by the differences in orbital planes and the slightly elliptical lunar orbit. The lunar orbit is tilted, compared to Earth. At one point in lunar orbit, Moon is slightly “above” Earth. On the other side of its orbit, it is slightly “below” Earth. Combined with its elliptical orbit, the portions of Moon we see from Earth change slightly.
Moon does NOT have an axis of axial rotation because it is NOT rotating about its own axis.
Now, since those facts don’t fit your beliefs, you get to deny reality.
An imaginary line passing through the moon remains aligned a certain way with regards to the plane of the moons orbit, whilst it moves through its revolution. This does not prove axial rotation about that imaginary line.
This point has been brought up, discussed and debunked several times already.
Smile emoji.
Yes Morons think they have debunked some very standard well understood topics of Astronomy, but they really don’t know what they are talking about.
You don’t need to prove the Moon rotates on its very own axis, you can just observe it.
Don’t be silly, bob.
Me silly?
So you are abandoning the argument again, cause you lost.
If you say so, bob.
bobd…”You dont need to prove the Moon rotates on its very own axis, you can just observe it”.
You likely believe the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
@Gordon Robertson
I see you chose to ignore my post addressed to you. This is going to follow you until you address it. Here it is again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-631609
“About your graph, Mr. Dimwit, if you check 2021, it shows the entire year, even though we are only in early March.
If that’s what you think then you have NO ability to read a graph. The 2021 stops in MARCH.
Seriously – this is the level of education we have to deal with.
An imaginary line passing through the Earth remains aligned a certain way with regards to the plane of the Earths orbit, whilst it moves through its revolution. This does prove axial rotation about that imaginary line.
And nothing imaginary about the Lunar Poles, they are specific locations with specific craters, that point always at specific stars. They exist.
And their existence proves the Moon has an axis of rotation, which passes thru the poles.
What is a liar-troll-moron to do?
Just deny their existence, as DREMT has done.
Entropic Man, you may as well argue that since there are specific locations on the moon labelled as the lunar poles, that means there really is an axis of rotation passing between them. I mean…if you want to be really stupid.
“since there are specific locations on the moon labelled as the lunar poles, that means there really is an axis of rotation passing between them. I meanif you want to be really stupid.”
When confronted with inconvenient, irrefutable facts, the TEAM reliably attacks the (wrong) messenger.
Given that the Team has repeatedly used the term ‘axis of rotation’ they must have in mind a definition.
Will they share that with us?
Hint:
All points on the Moon change their orientation to the stars (ie rotate), except the Poles.
That unique property defines them, as being ON THE AXIS of rotation.
Entropic Man seems to have gone quiet, and as the only other person responding is my stalker that I no longer respond to (who gets himself confused over the simplest of things), I guess that’s that.
We got his number now.
We know hes caught in a pickle and has no ready answers, when he tosses the ‘Im not responding’.
The rest of the time responding immediately (pretending its to someone else) when he thinks he has answers.
EG ‘Entropic Man, you may as well argue that (Nate’s argument goes here)’
All just part of the long silly con.
“(who gets himself confused over the simplest of things)”
As you can see, he is so desperate for communication with me, that he even imagines I am talking to him! Sad.
Whatever you need to say to soothe your loss.
Science has moved on without you.
“Sad.”
Though a little bit funny.
Does the sun ever illuminate the back side of the moon? When and how often?
pochas94
Just a hint, you may look yourself for further info:
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-02/07/c_139727982.htm
https://spacenews.com/change-4-powers-down-for-second-lunar-night/
J.-P. D.
pochas…”Does the sun ever illuminate the back side of the moon? When and how often?”
It does when the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun. It should be illuminated for roughly half the orbital period or about 14 days.
When the Earth is between the Moon and the Sun, the near side is lit. That’s mainly when we see the different phases of the Moon, with the Earth’s shadow causing the crescent shapes.
No Gordon,
The Earth’s shadow doesn’t cause the crescent shapes.
This eco-weenie aint gonna bother explaining it to you, if you can’t figure it out yourself.
Jesus christ – this person believes that the earth’s shadow causes the moon’s crescent. Apparently he thinks that there is a near-permanent partial lunar eclipse.
I’ll say it again – this is the level of education we are dealing with.
R,
I suppose your use of profanity makes you feel important and powerful. Good for you!
Instead of just complaining about the level of education you are dealing with, why not just ignore it, or do something about it?
People are free to believe what they like.
For example, from NASA GISS –
“Atmospheric carbon dioxide performs a role similar to that of the house thermostat in setting the equilibrium temperature of the Earth.”
A grand statement of belief. You may agree if you want to. I don’t.
Feel free to use as much obscenity as you want. Facts won’t change, will they?
Carry on.
No – the use of profanity is merely a response to him using profanity against me.
Keep changing the topic to protect him from idiocy.
R,
The kindergarten excuse – “He made me do it. He did it first, anyway.”
Have you tried self control? I decline to feel offended, upset, angry or insulted by anybody’s words.
Why should I?
Why should you?
If Gordon Robertson did not pretend to be an engineer and allegedly studied College physics, you could be sympathetic to his ignorance of Moon Phases. I found this and it seems most non-scientists do think it is the Earth’s shadow that causes Moon phases.
https://ed.ted.com/best_of_web/XA7WNT0o#:~:text=The%20moon%20phase%20name%20is,when%20looking%20at%20the%20moon.&text=So%20the%20basic%20explanation%20is,the%20moon%20orbits%20the%20earth.
I wonder if, at least on this issue, Gordon will admit his ignorance and learn what is really going on. I think that might be a good thing for him. Maybe he would open his eyes and see that the Contrarians he thinks are brilliant are actually stupid con-artists that prey upon ignorant people like him. One can always hope.
Norman, please stop trolling.
“with the Earth’s shadow causing the crescent shapes.”
OMG!
Bindidon,
Sorry for the delay and also because it appears here, since I write from a mobile.
Thank you for the publications that you invite me to read, they seem attractive to me, but they are too technical for me and I need some time, which I don’t have, to see them.
I’m sorry!
On the other hand,
I had not seen the Lubos Motl’s …
But I’m talking about what is close to me:
In my country, the left that was previously moderate is now a shameless social communist, and at this moment the government is trying to overthrow the president of the Spanish capital (of the Community of Madrid) through a maneuver, a disguised motion of no confidence. , to which the president has responded by calling early elections.
I say this, because this woman Isabel Daz Ayuso, is achieving the balance of keeping the expansion of the coronavirus under control and maintaining the economy of a city of more than four million inhabitants and a fundamental piece for the economy of the entire country, through surgical closures for neighborhoods and districts without having to completely close the city as happened in the closing of March.
However, our social communist government seems to want the total confinement of Madrid (which would mean an economic catastrophe for thousands of families) and at the same time encouraged the face-to-face demonstrations of 8M for International Women’s Day (which last year were key in the expansion of the coronavirus throughout the country)
Adelaida
Thanks for the reply!
I also had no time to read the paper you had linked to, concerning solar irradiance as the major climate factor (an idea I don’t support, it’s too simple, as is the ideas that CO2 is the main factor – or conversely doesn’t play any role).
*
I do not live in Spain and therefore cannot judge the political situation.
You were probably happier with Mariano Rajoy … We all have our ideas, conceptions and preferences.
I follow the COVID situation everyday for Germany, France, Spain and my impression is that a very good job is done there:
https://tinyurl.com/hyta5k67
The government definitely wants to avoid a third bump, that’s evident.
And believe me, Adel: the conservative Germans implemented as much lockdown as did the socialists in Spain.
And they do next to nothing to really help small shops and businesses get out of the chaos.
J.-P. D.
The daily ENSO 3.4 value is up to -0.16 as of March 10. There has been 7 days of ENSO neutral conditions. Dynamic and statistical models are suggesting neutral to weak La Nina conditions for the remainder of the year. The ONI peaked at -1.3 in November. Using a 4 month lag one would expect March (give or take one month) to have the lowest TLT temperature for the most recent ENSO cycle.
So what do you guys think? Are we going to hit the lows of the 1985, 2000, 2008, 2012, or even just 2018?
A nice job, that will of course be immediately discredited, denigrated and distorted by the usual, ignorant suspects:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EGUGA..20.9977S/abstract
J.-P. D.
Better take this link:
https://tinyurl.com/97frmdu2
Already discussed.
That doesn’t interest me at all.
J.-P. D.
Exactly. So why post it?
Bindidon
I do like your effort to provide actual evidence for your valid and correct position on Moon rotation.
You will find it does not matter. DREMT is just a troll, this poster is not interested in facts, data, evidence or even science. You can tell when the first post on the blog was about the Moon rotation and the Green Plate concept.
ClintR is another unscientific troll.
Gordon Robertson is just a dumb person. No intelligent thought will alter his beliefs. I do not think this poster is a troll just not very intelligent and very gullible. He will believe all nonsense from crackpot contrarians but rejects textbook physics. That is truly a fanatic.
Norman, please stop trolling.
About Robertson’s incompetent blah blah
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-632174
*
I lack the time to give a more elaborated reply.
But it will be enough to say that once again, Robertson shows us how incredibly ignorant and pretentious he behaves.
Robertson doesn’t understand German, reads a few lines out of Mayer’s treatise about Moon’s rotation (130 pages)
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
and pompously concludes:
” He messed up his analysis by trying to apply particle theory to a rigid body… ”
*
But at the place where Robertson superficially sniffed (section 3 of Mayer’s treatise), Mayer did nothing else than to ensure that the Moon’s spheroid would be sufficiently spherical to allow for the use of spherical trigonometry.
And he did that by relying 100 % on Newton’s Gravity law:
” Every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. ”
And Mayer showed how perfectly able he was to use differential equations to solve his problem, what Robertson never and never would be able to do.
No wonder: he isn’t even able to read and correctly interpret a trivial graph, as Eben and Rob noted:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-631609
J.-P. D.
AND …. he believes the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow.
And he said it as though he thought he was educating us.
He is the quintessential example of a Dunning-Kruger sufferer.
R,
Do you have a point, or do you just enjoy pounding your keyboard?
rob..”He is the quintessential example of a Dunning-Kruger sufferer”.
The parrot squawks, the ape apes. Rob can’t even use an original ad hom, has to steal it from someone else. More like Freddy Kruger only with you it would be the Dumb & Kruger effect.
binny…” Every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.
And Mayer showed how perfectly able he was to use differential equations to solve his problem, what Robertson never and never would be able to do”.
****
Even worse than I thought. Only particles with opposite charges attract, normal particles have no effect on each other. We can forgive Mayer this indiscretion since he wrote the article circa 1750. What we cannot forgive is Binny’s utter stupidity in persisting in using Mayer as a reference and an appeal to authority.
Mayer would not know a thing about atoms since the electron was not discovered till the 1890’s and, oddly enough, the proton, was not named till 1920, by Rutherford. The electrostatics involved would have been utterly unknown to Mayer.
I’ll give him credit for giving it the old college try, however. Problem was, he did not understand the forces involved in the lunar orbit and trying to calculate the motion of the Moon based on summing the properties of an amalgamation of particles was ingenuous at best. Some might even say dumb.
We know now that an amalgamation of particles as a rigid body has certain properties which are unrelated to the individual particles. Dumbo Skeptic can’t get over the fact that a particle on the far side of the Moon, traveling at a greater velocity than a particle on the near face has nothing to do with the Moon’s average velocity in its orbit.
He simply cannot understand that all particle in the Moon must complete one orbit in the same time and that the speed of an outer particle as opposed to the speed of an inner particle is due to that fact, not the cause of it. However, a spheroid like the Moon, of near equal or balanced density throughout, has a centre of mass near its centre. It’s the velocity of that COG that is taken as the velocity of the Moon.
Mayer obviously did not have a clue about that fact. Newton understood it but Mayer was so thick that he tried to calculate the motion of each lunar particle, using statistical analysis, and still got it wrong. In his calculations, he used a centrifugal force that does not apply to the Moon’s orbit.
Mayer may have been good with creating lunar tables, and we can thank him for his diligent research in that capacity, but his understanding of orbital physics was null and void. Just like Binny’s understanding of physics.
Now address your BS claim that the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow.
Or are you going to use the Trump method …. when you show your ignorance just pretend it never happened.
rob…people who cast stones should not live in glass houses. I have lost count of the number of times you and other alarmists/spinners have dodged your inability to do basic physics.
So you can’t even admit that you got it completely wrong.
AND that you couldn’t read a simple graph.
But it is clear that you KNOW you got them wrong.
Which mean you should be questioning your ability to determine what correct science is.
But you will NEVER do that.
Gordon, Gordon, Marsha, Gordon
“Only particles with opposite charges attract, normal particles have no effect on each other.”
You want to take a crack at retracting this statement, we’ll let you make a physics mistake every now and then.
We’ll give you credit for admitting that you are wrong.
A couple guys that disagree with you
Einstein
Van der Waals
Here is a definition of translation:
TRANSLATION It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body.
Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.
https://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf
This is what Gordon said upthread:
That’s what I have been saying all along, that every point on the Moon moves along concentric circles
LMAO. Gordon debunks himself!!! Concentric circles are not congruent, Einstein. So the moon does not exhibit curvilinear translation.
One common feature of curvilinear translation is that all points on the body have the same velocity. A point on the far side of the moon has a greater velocity than a point on the near side of the moon, therefor it is not translating. Even ftop_t agrees with that:
Bottom line is the far side of the moon is moving faster by the diameter of the moon (times the same angular velocity) than the near side.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-608283
The non spinner clowns cannot even agree among themselves!
I have provided kinematic lecture note references from prestigious universities, and every one has the same definition for translation. And they do not agree with Gordon’s dumbass idea of curvilinear translation.
SGW,
All very fine, but: The Moon (all of it, far side, near side, center, crater tops and bottoms), is falling towards the Earth, at a rate of about 1.27 mm/sec.
I hope you agree with this, and also agree that this is translation, rather than rotation.
If you disgeee with the first sentence, maybe you could indicate why.
As far as I know, Newton’s First Law of Motion and Newton!s Law of Universal Gravitation are sufficient to describe the orbit of the Moon. Just steady initial velocity, and one force acting at right angles to it.
Swenson,
Kinematics does not deal with why an object moves a certain way.
With that said. the moons motion does not meet any of the criteria for curvilinear translation. Translating bodies maintain their orientation. The moon does not. Rotating bodies change their orientation.
SGW,
I thought it was a simple question – do you agree with my first sentence or not?
I didn’t mention kinematics.
If you disagree with anything I said, maybe you could be courteous enough to indicate what, and why.
I am happy enough to pursue this, but I have to know what facts we can agree on.
Your first question is unimportant. It does not matter what causes the moon to move the way it does. The discussion is centered on describing the moon’s motion.
So we have just under 10,000 years before the Moon crashes into the Earth?
Swenson
The moon’s radial velocity is periodic, and varies over a period of 27.55 days (the anomalistic month), spending half of that time moving towards the earth and half away.
On top of this cyclic radial variation is superimposed a general motion AWAY from the earth of about 4 cm/yr (compared to your ridiculous figure of 40 km per year).
How could you get the direction wrong AND be out by a factor of ONE MILLION?
It’s looking like Gordon all over again. Tell me – do you happen to also believe the earth’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow? Are you going to run away from your nonsense like Gordon and pretend it didn’t happen?
Let be try that again with the correct bolding:
Swenson
The moon’s radial velocity is periodic, and varies over a period of 27.55 days (the anomalistic month), spending half of that time moving towards the earth and half away.
On top of this cyclic radial variation is superimposed a general motion AWAY from the earth of about 4 cm/yr (compared to your ridiculous figure of 40 km per year).
How could you get the direction wrong AND be out by a factor of ONE MILLION?
It’s looking like Gordon all over again. Tell me – do you happen to also believe the earth’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow? Are you going to run away from your nonsense like Gordon and pretend it didn’t happen?
… the MOON’s phases …
And then Gordon has the nerve to call me Dumbo Skeptic when he claims the crescent moon is caused by the earth’s shadow!!!! Hilarious.
binny…”No wonder: he isnt even able to read and correctly interpret a trivial graph, as Eben and Rob noted:”
The typical graph as you put it, is a mish-mosh of brightness temperatures gathered by a microwave unit on two different satellites. I did fail to see the small squiggly blue line representing 2021 but that prompted me to read their manual and get their association with NASA. Like GISS, they take huge liberties with data interpretation. The even fudge data, like GISS.
How the heck does a brightness temperature tell you anything about Arctic sea ice extent when it cannot measure depth? All it can do, at best, is give an indication of what is open water and what is ice. Even at that, they readily admit there are gaps in the data up to several month duration.
As I have pointed out before, sea ice is normally 10 feet thick over most of the Arctic in winter. On top of that, as the ice sheets collide, they pile ice up to 40 feet high. How much volume is there in each ridge and how many ridges are there? NASA cannot tell you that and they have no scientists up there doing measurements.
The aim of NASA seems to be that of justifying their existence. They spend bazillions of dollars sending Mickey Mouse rovers to Mars, to collect soil samples, trying to prove that life existed on Mars. Who cares, go there and find out directly. It’s all aimed at supporting the inane theory of evolution.
Now, they are trying to support the AGW theory by trying to show we are losing ice in the Arctic and Antarctic. Nonsense. As long as the Earth maintains its current orbit and tilt, there will be little or no solar input at those locations much of each year, hence the build up of ice every winter.
Only total numbskulls can read the slightest significance into their ice extent charts. They are meaningless, and claiming new ice versus old ice is a dodge to get around the obvious. There is no problem with either the Arctic or the Antarctic sea ice extent. They are likely the same, on average, as they have always been, except for during ice ages.
“Only total numbskulls can read the slightest significance into their ice extent charts.”
So you are calling your fellow denier who raised this in the first place a numbskull?
“They even fudge data
PROOF please
“How the heck does a brightness temperature tell you anything about Arctic sea ice extent when it cannot measure depth? All it can do, at best, is give an indication of what is open water and what is ice.
Yes – that is what EXTENT is … DUH.
“How much volume is there in each ridge and how many ridges are there? NASA cannot tell you that and they have no scientists up there doing measurements.”
No – but the European Space Agency can. They have a satellite dedicated to measuring sea ice thickness.
Do you EVER investigate FULLY?
As usual, Robertson’s technical competence is inversely proportional to his to his derogatory arrogance.
30 lines full of pretentious guesses and claims, zero knowledge, zero content.
Who would waste his time with such a 2-coin-like trash?
J.-P. D.
Alas …. we do. What do you think is the psychology behind us continuing to beat our heads against this brick wall, knowing it will always be a brick wall?
Moscow looks to have had no warming since 1890:
Moscow U Of I (46.7281N, 116.9558W) ID:USC00106152
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00106152&ds=14&dt=1
This is really interesting. There are 3 Moscoow stations. 2 show no warming and one does. This is a great example of how the UHI effect to manufacture warming.
No Warming:
Moscow U Of I (46.7281N, 116.9558W) ID:USC00106152 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00106152&ds=14&dt=1
Moscow (35.0711N, 89.4117W) ID:USC00406274 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00406274&ds=14&dt=1
Warming:
Moscow (55.8331N, 37.6167E) ID:RSM00027612 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=RSM00027612&ds=14&dt=1
CO2isLife said: There are 3 Moscoow stations. 2 show no warming and one does.
2 show warming and one does not.
CO2isLife said: This is a great example of how the UHI effect to manufacture warming.
One is in rural Idaho, one is in rural Kentucky, and the other is in urban Russia. And the well known Moscow, Russia station’s time series is primarily after 1950 and after urbanization and the UHI effect had already stabilized.
Also, the context of your post makes me think you’re not understanding that there is a difference between the UHI effect itself and the potential bias it can cause when doing spatial averaging. A station can have a strong UHI effect and contribute no bias to the global mean temperature. This happens when the station’s time series starts after urbanization and after the UHI has peaked. Furthermore, if that station happen to move to a more rural setting it would still be subject to an UHI enhancement, but that enhancement may be lower at the new site. This is how the UHI can contribute a cooling bias to the global mean temperature. If you don’t understand the difference between the UHI effect itself and how it may or may not contribute to the global mean temperature then please ask questions.
bdg…”A station can have a strong UHI effect and contribute no bias to the global mean temperature”.
Especially when the fudgers at NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut make sure it has no effect. When the surface global mean is so carefully fudged to synthesize most temperatures, the UHI that is grudgingly admitted by all three would make much of a difference.
What the fudgers are doing is removing the UHI effect so it doesn’t show more warming than there actually is.
GR said: the UHI that is grudgingly admitted by all three would make much of a difference.
I see 2 hypothesis here.
1. NOAA, GISS, and Had.CRUT fraudulently synthesizes their datasets.
2. The UHI effect makes “much” of a difference.
Now it is time for you to 1) present falsification tests that you would accept and 2) present evidence to support them.
Please do so now and submit for review.
bdg…”1. NOAA, GISS, and Had.CRUT fraudulently synthesizes their datasets”.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Look through the entire site, it’s all there.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
-featured luminaries(??) from NCAR, realclimate (therefore the Gavin Schmidt connection, now head of NASA GISS), Had-crut, etc.
-A primary focus in Climategate was Phil Jones of Had-crut, that he and Kevin (presumably Kevin Trenberth of NCAR) would see to it that skeptic papers would not reach the IPCC review stage. Both were Coordinating Lead Authors and had the power to do so.
re UHI…
http://surfacestations.org/
b,
Can you name just one person who would be so foolish as to give an anonymous alarmist like you anything to review?
I believe the plural of hypothesis is hypotheses, but no matter.
You claim you see 2. Do you also see dead people?
GR,
I didn’t see anything on that blog that I would categorize as fraud. NOAA and GISS do adjust data. They do this to correct for known biases and errors. We want them to do this. It would be fraud if they didn’t. If that blogger feels otherwise he is free to publish his results and have it reviewed by the entire world.
Climategate has been investigated ad-nauseum. No investigation has uncovered anything even remotely suggesting that NOAA, GISS, or even Had.CRUT had fraudulently synthesized temperature data. Nevermind that NOAA, GISS, and Had.CRUT are not the only players in the global mean temperature space. BEST, Cowtan & Way, JMA, the dozen or so reanalysis datasets, etc. all corroborate NOAA, GISS, and Had.CRUT’s findings. In fact, the others provide convincing evidence that at least for NOAA and Had.CRUT that they are actually underestimating the warming due to the fact they are only partial sphere estimates.
Perhaps I missed it, but surfacestations.org does not even provide their own global mean temperature surface analysis nevermind a quantification of the UHI bias upon the GMST that is significantly different than all of the other analysis available.
And just so we’re clear here, the best way to convince skeptics like me is to provide a dataset that publishes a global mean surface temperature with accompanying uncertainty analysis including the UHI effect bias that comes to a significantly different conclusion than what is already available. It must be peer reviewed; not because I think peer review adjudicates correctness, but because my knowledge and ability to identify incorrectness is not even close to matching the collective wisdom of all the worlds experts. I want to make sure there aren’t any obvious problems with that and the best way to do that is to have as many people as possible review it.
Swenson said: I believe the plural of hypothesis is hypotheses, but no matter.
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I didn’t notice I spelled it incorrectly until you said something. It is maddening that the comments are not editable otherwise I would definitely change it. I’ll definitely be more careful about my spelling in the future. Actually, it is mistakes like this that remind to me to always carefully proof read my posts. Unfortunately proof reading won’t do me any good if I made a substantive mistake. I cringe at the thought of how many of posts may contain misinformation however minor it may be. Anyway, thanks again.
As we can see, CO2isLife’s analysis becomes tougher and tougher!
So let’s feed him with some more source for his amazing work:
GM000003319 52.4639 13.3017 51.0 BERLIN-DAHLEM
GME00111445 52.4683 13.4039 48.0 BERLIN-TEMPELHOF
GME00121150 52.5656 13.3106 36.0 BERLIN-TEGEL
GME00127438 52.6325 13.5039 60.0 BERLIN-BUCH
GME00127642 52.4056 13.7328 33.0 BERLIN-KANISWALL
GME00127762 52.4081 13.4142 47.0 BERLIN-LICHTENRADE
GME00127798 52.4156 13.3053 43.0 BERLIN-LICHTERFELDE (SUD)
GME00127822 52.5458 13.5617 60.0 BERLIN-MARZAHN
GME00127850 52.5331 13.3831 35.0 BERLIN-MITTE
GME00127882 52.4056 13.4856 38.0 BERLIN-RUDOW
GME00127930 52.3819 13.5325 46.0 BERLIN-SCHONEFELD
GME00127990 52.5681 13.1708 32.0 BERLIN-SPANDAU
GME00128062 52.6056 13.2967 36.0 BERLIN-TEGELER FLIESSTAL
GME00128126 52.4567 13.4717 35.0 BERLIN-TREPTOW
GME00128146 52.4303 13.2342 45.0 BERLIN-ZEHLENDORF
USC00180752 38.3500 -75.2000 6.1 MD BERLIN 2 NE
USC00200723 42.9333 -82.9167 -999.9 MI BERLIN
USC00260805 38.8667 -117.5833 2113.5 NV BERLIN SP
USC00270690 44.4536 -71.1856 280.4 NH BERLIN
USC00300641 42.6167 -73.3667 347.5 NY BERLIN 5 S
USC00320720 46.3833 -98.4833 448.1 ND BERLIN
USC00470735 43.9667 -88.9500 238.0 WI BERLIN LOCK
USC00470742 43.9900 -88.9411 233.5 WI BERLIN WWTP
USW00094700 44.5761 -71.1786 353.0 NH BERLIN MUNI AP
J.-P. D.
Temperature, temperature, temperature!
Meaningless trends of same!
Don’t agree? There are seven columns of temperature related figures in Dr Spencer’s post.
The last period is 2021 02. What are the seven figures for 2021 03?
Prediction not so easy where the future is involved? Trends need monthly adjustments after the fact?
The nearly-all-seeing eye of Nils, looking at the table of figures, detects chaos at work.
Go on – use your vast knowledge of weasel words to excuse your inability to actually peer into the future!
Ho, ho, ho!
Swenson: yes indeed, trivial temperature variations year on year – so what?
When will all this CO2 and climate nonsense end?
Gordon
Please do not denigrate the Mars rover projects.
They are doing real science.
NASA’s problem is that they are dependent on funding from the US government and that is slowly being overtaken by people with political agenda’s not scientific ones.
That’s correct, Mark. But, NASA is also part of the problem.
I have seen NASA deteriorate from about 90% science and 10% politics, to its current 10% science, 40% political agenda, and 50% people just needing a job.
I like the Mars Rover Projects and agree they are making MASSIVE strides in science and engineering.
I can’t imagine anyone voluntarily moving to colonize Mars. There really is no benefit to humans moving from one gravity hole to another that is way more inhospitable than anything we have on earth.
What I don’t like is the oft repeated claim they are searching for signs that life exists or has existed on Mars when it is patently obvious that is does and has not.
typo: line should read ‘what I don’t like is the oft repeated claim they are searching for signs that life exists or has existed on Mars when it is patently obvious that it does ~ not ~ and has not.
Ken
I doubt that we’ll meet little green men, but microfossils or stromatolite fossils in the Martian lake sediments are a possibility.
You might even find living microbes in brines or rocks well below the surface.
I wouldn’t get too excited. We find meteorites from Mars in Antarctica and it is not impossible for a big impact on Earth to send material the other way. There are microbes tough enough to survive the trip and times when both planets were habitable, for microbes if not for us.
I have a bet with myself that if we find life on Mars it will share a common structure with life on Earth and have a common origin.
Why is it “obvious” that it has not?
Rob, your beliefs don’t also include “little green men” and Martian canals, do they?
Oh dear – you think “life” must be intelligent. Or even multi-cellular. It’s worse than I thought.
Well, if you believe Mars has dumb greenies, we’ve got those here on Earth….
Why is it obvious? Because if there was life on Mars it would have proliferated over billions of years as it has done on earth and there would be signs of it everywhere. That has not been the experience.
Mars used to have water. Now it has very little. Why would dead single-celled organisms be everywhere on the planet.
Some of the exploration has explored areas thought to have been impacted by water. No dead single cell organisms were found.
Yeah, someone might find signs of life on Mars one day but I would bet a tidy sum that its not ever going to happen unless we’ve managed to contaminate the place with earth origin life.
The concept of finding life on Mars shouldn’t be used as a reason for exploration of Mars; its absurd and stretches the credibility of scientists making such claims.
Now you’re talking about explorations. That’s a far cry from saying “it’s obvious”.
You’d be better off arguing about how the flat moon spins on its axis like a coin.
Huh??
Perhaps write something a bit less meaningless.
Mark Wapples
Robertson discredits, denigrates and distorts everything that he does not understand or that does not fit his narrative.
If the target of his insults was only NASA, or the US president, or commenters on this blog, me of course included: so what!
But when you read in one of his comments above
” … Mayer obviously did not have a clue about that fact. Newton understood it but Mayer was so thick that he tried to calculate the motion of each lunar particle, using statistical analysis… ”
you see that this guy, who visibly did not understand a bit of what Mayer did, and certainly never learned anything about differential equations and integration, is ready to insult anybody.
*
And I recall to have seen, in a comment written by Robertson some weeks ago about the translation of Newton’s Principia by Andrew Motte in 1729, the text: ” In other words, Motte was a cheating SOB “.
I just find that disgusting. A shame on this blog.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
JD, do you ever stop whining?
That sounds like a whine.
binny…” Mayer obviously did not have a clue about that fact. Newton understood it but Mayer was so thick that he tried to calculate the motion of each lunar particle, using statistical analysis ”
If I’m wrong, prove I’m wrong. A simple appeal to authority with Mayer as your authority figure is not sufficient. Your native tongue is German and you can read what Mayer wrote. So, give us your interpretation of his work in which he proves the Moon rotates about a local axis.
Gordon trying to divert our attention away from his disastrous crescent moon comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuAKnbIr6TE
mark…”Please do not denigrate the Mars rover projects”.
Why? NASA spends a whopping amount of money for this kind of Mickey Mouse exploration of Mars that could be better spent elsewhere. What is this Rover doing that is so helpful? No proof of anything can come from the project, only speculation about the past.
Until we humans get serious about exploring space and establishing bases on places like Mars, nothing of significant scientific worth will come of it. Meantime, NASA GISS mocks real science by turning to climate models to synthesize current temperatures while arbitrarily re-writing past temperatures in support of AGW theory.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that political interests, as well as special interests, are taking over our way of life. They are not only imposing their belief systems on the rest of us they are rigging elections to bring it about.
Despite my negative comments about NASA I am not against them in an overall sense. I think they do important scientific work and should have adequate funding. NASA is at the effect of not only corrupt politicians, they are facing corruption within science itself. There are factions within the scientific community trying to steer science in a certain direction and steering science is the antithesis of the scientific method.
As an example, when Einstein produced his theories on relativity, his ideas were anointed as the truth. Many scientists objected to the generalizations in his theory, like time/space dilation and space-time theory in general but their concerns were dismissed.
Today, we have students being taught nonsense about space-time to the extent that gravity is no longer considered a force but a space-time anomaly. There is not a shred of scientific evidence behind that theory, only conjecture based on incorrect kinematic assumptions.
NASA plays into that pseudo-science by making incredible claims about unproved entities like black holes and the Big Bang. The basis of their Mars exploration is to gather evidence as proof of the Big Bang and evolution theory. Sorry, but that is not money well spent.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Today, we have students being taught nonsense about space-time to the extent that gravity is no longer considered a force but a space-time anomaly. There is not a shred of scientific evidence behind that theory, only conjecture based on incorrect kinematic assumptions.”
This is a false statement. There is a lot of scientific evidence supporting Einstein’s theory and that is why the scientific community accepts it as valid..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wish it were possible for you to quit making up false statements. Your contrarian conspiracy laden thought process is deeply flawed. It comes up with really terrible points.
You remind me of this Beatles song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtUH9z_Oey8
“Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It’s getting hard to be someone
But it all works out
It doesn’t matter much to me”
norman…”This is a false statement. There is a lot of scientific evidence supporting Einsteins theory and that is why the scientific community accepts it as valid..”
***
Einstein admitted that his relativity theory portion is covered by Newtonian physics. No one is arguing about the motion of bodies relative to each other. The beef is over arbitrary claims Einstein made about time dilation and space-time curvature.
Einstein arbitrarily added a highly theoretical multiplier to time which is based on a ratio of the speed of an object to the speed of light, claimed to be a universal constant. Louis Essen, who discovered the atomic clock, claimed those portions of Einstein’s relativity theory are not even theories, but highly speculative arguments. He claimed further that Einstein did not understand measurement.
That’s obvious. In one of his paper on relativity he referred to time as ‘the hands on a clock’. I could not believe that such utter rubbish would come from such an esteemed scientist. A clock, like the type he referenced, would be a mechanical machine with gears driven by an unwinding spring that is synchronized to the rotation of the Earth.
That would make time a relative constant and incapable of dilation or variation. Therefore his time multiplier was based on a thought experiment which was itself based on a misunderstanding of time.
His entire theory is based on thought experiment. He did not understand measurement as Essen claimed. According to Einstein, a measuring stick would change length based on its velocity but what he meant was that the length of the stick would appear to be different lengths in the mind of a human observer, based on its velocity as it passed the observer or the observer passed the moving or stationary stick.
There is nothing in the atomic makeup of a measuring stick that should vary with velocity. Time does not even exist as a physical quantity so how could it dilate?
With small errand to poetry, or analogy, if you like, the peering into the future is not so difficult. In the graph, the pattern of the red line after 2015 is similar to the pattern after 1986. I you connect max(1987) with max(2016), min(1989) with min(2018) and max(1991) with max(2020), you get almost parallel lines.
It is easy to draw another parallel from min(1992) and you get next minimum of the red line near 0 departure in 1993. It means that the blue points are bound to descend further in the next months. We do not know the nature of the similarity but it is visible with a poetic eye.
Sorry, not in 1993 but 2022
bohous
Sorry, but I read poetry since about 60 years, and can’t imagine anything further from poetry than what you write.
It rather reminds me
“The Moon does not rotate because it shows always the same face to us.”
Weiter so, bohous! Aus Ihnen kann ja noch was werden.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
I can see your German language background when you say “I read poetry since about 60 years”.
I know “seit” is used in this way in German, but it doesn’t look right in English.
It also doesn’t look right to use the present tense here.
It should be “I have read poetry for about 60 years”.
If you want to use “since” then it would be “I have read poetry since about 60 years ago “.
I hope you don’t mind the correction.
Quite right Rob, ‘I have read poetry for about 60 years’ is the English way of putting it.
As an additional point worth making, ‘I’ve read poetry for about 60 years’ is the way that this sentence would typically be spoken, with ‘I have’ shortened to ‘I’ve’.
Rob, Carbon500
Thanks for the accurate correction!
Yeah… English indeed is only my third language.
The French ‘Je lis de la poésie depuis environ 60 ans’ is in the same vein as the German version, and would have led to the same mistake.
{ As expected, Google Trad translated the sentence above perfectly into German, but ‘in the same vein’ went lost, and the tool gave ‘error’ instead of ‘mistake’ upon translating back to English. }
Believe me: I am happy with my English – especially when I remember how incredibly few Anglo-Saxons speak a second language besides their native tongue.
J.-P. D.
Sie schreiben sehr gut Englisch!
“I remember how incredibly few Anglo-Saxons speak a second language besides their native tongue.”
It’s a relic of Empire. Many British people still have that arrogant “Let them learn English!” attitude.
Americans are just parochial.
I have enough French to get by and I used to read botany papers in German; but have not retained enough fluency to chat up a lady in either language.
bobdroege
Merci / Danke / Thanks!
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Bitte
Bindidon: Ich bin sicher, das Sie können Deutsch besser als Ich sprechen!
rob…”I can see your German language background when you say I read poetry since about 60 years”.
I have to defend Binny here. I have never had a problem understanding the meaning in his usage of English and that’s good enough for me. I don’t care how he phrases his English, if the meaning is clear that’s all that matters.
He’s well ahead of most of us in that he can speak German, French, and English.
Defend?? There was no attack. It was merely education. Do you always go on the defensive when someone tries to educate you? Oh wait – stupid question – we’ve seen the evidence.
rob…”Defend?? There was no attack. It was merely education.”
Education my butt, you came on like a smarmy twit, as you usually do.
Please indicate what words I used which indicate smarminess.
Forgive the subsection,
Bindidon,
The first person in charge of having a socialcommunist government in Spain has been Rajoy, due to his inaction as president of the government in the face of the corruption of his party and his cowardice in the face of the Catalan independence radicals …. I had to clarify it for you!
A looping jet stream will cause one of the largest snowstorms ever in Denver.
https://i.ibb.co/NLxfDTt/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f072.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_250_NA_f072.png
And what about in the northern hemisphere as a whole?
These plots present time series (updated daily) of the current amount of water stored by the seasonal snowpack (cubic km) over Northern Hemisphere land areas (excluding Greenland).
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
Do you ever answer a question directly?
I want to know how much snow there will be in the next couple of days at Denver’s latitude around the entire northern hemisphere.
rob…”Do you ever answer a question directly?
I want to know how much snow there will be in the next couple of days at Denver’s latitude around the entire northern hemisphere”.
Maybe if you learned to ask politely and with civility you might get an answer.
R,
Why do you think ren would want to comply with your demand?
Are you trolling fro fun, or do you suffer from an obsessive compulsive disorder?
Gordon
What was impolite or uncivil about my original question?
And wasn’t calling me a “dimwit” somewhat more uncivil, especially when it turned out that it was YOU who was the dimwit who couldn’t read a graph? What was it you said about casting stones?
Are autumn temperatures already visible in Australia in two days?
https://i.ibb.co/gFTT8H0/gfs-T2ma-aus-9.png
It will be chilly in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/GCKWH22/gfs-T2ma-aus-13.png
Atmospheric river over Bavaria.
https://www.accuweather.com/de/de/munich/80331/weather-radar/178086
skeptic…”That’s what I have been saying all along, that every point on the Moon moves along concentric circles
LMAO. Gordon debunks himself!!! Concentric circles are not congruent, Einstein. So the moon does not exhibit curvilinear translation”.
***
If you were not so bent on proving me wrong by nit-picking phrases from my posts, you might learn something about physics.
For one, translation is not a definition, it is a description of real motion in a physical world. If you want to get hung up on textbook definitions, then you must live in that mental prison. Real science is about observation and I am trying to clue you in to that. Curvilinear translation must be more than a textbook definition, it must describe accurately the motion of a body along a curve. The textbook examples you have provided are just plain stupid.
I did not claim that concentric circles are congruent and congruency has nothing to do with translation. Have no idea where you dug up that stupid definition. Why don’t you try actually observing the problem first hand rather than getting caught up in petty definitions.
We can agree that with rectilinear translation, all points on a body are moving in parallel lines. So, what is the difference between rectilinear and curvilinear? Is it not obvious, one describes motion in a straight line and the other describes motion along a curve. There is really no difference between the types of motion other than the basis for defining parallel.
The point is to describe who a particle or a rigid body got from A to B, and the properties of motion of the body along the way.That is, was the body rotating, or not. If it was rotating, then you have another set of parameters to deal with on top of the translation parameters.
On a curve, or a circle, parallel is another word for concentric. The basis for concentricity is instantaneously parallel tangent lines to common points on concentric circles/curves. A tangent line defines the instantaneous rate of change in the direction of a point on a curve.
Therefore, if two curves/circles are concentric at a common point they must have tangent lines that are parallel at that point. If you have a body located with its top at 6 o’clock on a circle and its bottom at 6 o’clock on a circle of larger diameter, then a point at the top of the body is moving parallel to a point at the bottom of the body. That is true of all points in between the upper and lower points unless the body is rotating.
For example, in order for a gondola car on a Ferris wheel to remain upright, the car must rotate independently of the wheel. That is NOT curvilinear translation, as some textbook claim. That is curvilinear translation with rotation.
All points on the first body will move parallel to each other and that is true at any point along either circle as long as the points track each other, as if a radial line from the centre of both circles is drawn through both points. Therefore at each point along both circles the top particle and bottom particle will always be moving parallel to their originating position.
You are simply incapable of thinking in terms of the difference between a rigid body moving horizontal to the ground and one moving along a curve. Because a beginner’s textbook put it in your head that parallel means parallel as applied to parallelism related to a horizontal line, you simply cannot conceive of parallelism as applied to a curve.
You problem is obvious: you have not studied enough math and science, nor have you done enough problems involving kinematics, to understand the problem. Yet, you shoot off your big mouth as if you have a clear understanding of the problem.
Do you not get it that some authors of textbooks have never worked with or understood curvilinear translation? They are simply regurgitating what they have heard. Then along comes some donkey who accepts their definitions verbatim. The fact that you have to reach for definitions rather than having the ability to discuss the kinematics and the math behind it reveals you as an ignoramus of the highest proportion.
Gordon, let me give you something to ponder.
You make the claim: “You[r] problem is obvious: you have not studied enough math and science, nor have you done enough problems involving kinematics, to understand the problem. Yet, you shoot off your big mouth as if you have a clear understanding of the problem.”
Yet the people who wrote the textbooks clearly have studied even MORE math and MORE science than you. They have done MORE problems in kinematics. These are not “beginner” textbooks; nor general articles for the masses. These are professors with years of schooling, years of real-world engineering experience, and years of teaching advanced engineering courses who are writing textbooks to teach engineers like you. The textbooks are reviewed by other engineers who ALSO have more experience than you. By your own words, these professors and textbook authors are the ones we should listen to for advice about curvilinear motion, not you.
We are certainly not going to resolve these issues here. But hopefully we can all at least ponder the idea that others who have spent decades studying and teaching and applying these ideas *might* have something useful to tell us. Perhaps we can think about two different ways of describing motion. For example, consider two statements:
* “the car must rotate independently of the rotating Ferris wheel”
* “the car must NOT rotate with the rotating Ferris wheel”
Each can accurately describe the motion of the car. Only with ‘enough math and science and problem-solving practice’ will it become clear which view might be more useful in a given situation.
And since there is no possible way to discuss and describe
‘enough problems’ here, we might as well let it die. Shouting or being more insistent or more persistent is not how to resolve this ‘debate’.
The debate is settled – the moon does not rotate on its own axis, from any reference frame…though it may appear to do so from some reference frames. The only thing keeping the debate going is the denial from a few stubborn “Spinners” who still just don’t get it.
You know DREMPTY,
The hardest thing to do in physics is to prove something equals zero.
You take a long winded crack at it, but it’s still no go.
The only thing keeping the debate going is the denial from a few stubborn, incorrect commenters who still just don’t get relativity shows the moon rotates inertially on its own axis like DREMT, Clint R, and Gordon. Tesla confirmed the moon rotates on its own axis with his ball M momentum analysis & almost learned relativity in the process.
Even ftop_t did a demonstration of the moon rotating once on its own axis per orbit with the slider correctly set for 0 rotations in the accelerated frame:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Boring Ball4 continues to lie about Tesla and ftop_t like the pathetic troll he is.
If DREMT thinks I’m not being truthful about Tesla, then why doesn’t DREMT prove it? DREMT knows he can’t because Tesla was right showing inertially the moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. I am glad you keep bringing it up, in a way, because it might encourage more people to read his articles on the moon. Keep on trolling.
Tesla’s editor argued that DREMT.
Tesla himself proved the moon inertially rotates on its own axis once per orbit with his ball M analysis and argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis only in the accelerated frame not inertial frame because his “fixt” ball M is welded to the spokes.
DREMT is so blissfully ignorant that it is truly funny.
Tesla’s “fixt” ball motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you think of it as a combination of the motion of the “moon on the right” plus rotation about its own center of mass. In other words, you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right” in order to see it that way. But Tesla, correctly, saw “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the left”.
Tesla’s “fixt” ball motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you are capable enough to follow Tesla’s inertial frame proof ball M includes axial rotation. Sadly, DREMT is not capable enough & resorts to unphysical word salad. Pity.
Just plain English, Ball4. Tesla’s “fixt” ball motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you think of it as a combination of the motion of the “moon on the right” plus rotation about its own center of mass. In other words, you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right” in order to see it that way. But Tesla, correctly, saw “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the left”.
DREMT admits not capable to understand Tesla’s proof DREMT is wrong. Just responds plain English, but sentences are nonsense. Try some real physics for a challenge DREMT.
Ball4, Tesla’s “fixt” ball motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you think of it as a combination of the motion of the “moon on the right” plus rotation about its own center of mass. In other words, you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right” in order to see it that way. But Tesla, correctly, saw “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the left”.
ball4…”Tesla himself proved the moon inertially rotates on its own axis once per orbit with his ball M analysis and argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis only in the accelerated frame not inertial frame because his “fixt” ball M is welded to the spokes.
DREMT is so blissfully ignorant that it is truly funny.”
***
And you are a blatant troll who distorts the words of scientists to create your own version of pseudo-science. You have proved yourself an idiot by claiming heat is not energy but a measure of energy transfer. There is something wrong with the way you view the world and you need to get it checked out.
Wrong Gordon, I claim heat is KE and energy transfers. Tesla’s momentum analysis of his inertially spinning ball M (unintelligible physics to Gordon) proves stuff Gordon writes about our moon not rotating on its own axis in the inertial frame is physically bogus.
Hmm. What if the Moon was 1/10th it’s distance from Earth.
So it’s day was closer to 24 hours, and Moon looks a lot bigger from Earth, but other than that, everything is the same.
There is only ONE privileged reference frame where the moon will appear NOT to rotate on its own axis. And it is a non-inertial reference frame – which always gets it wrong due to the whole point of discussing non-inertial reference frames.
rob…”There is only ONE privileged reference frame where the moon will appear NOT to rotate on its own axis. And it is a non-inertial reference frame which always gets it wrong due to the whole point of discussing non-inertial reference frames”.
***
Or…you are a raving lunatic who lacks the ability to look at the universe as it is. I have encountered you loonies before who insist on creating red-herring arguments based on imaginary universes.
I used to be one of them till, at an awareness seminar, the guy leading the seminar argued with me about what is real and what is not. At one point, he smacked the side off his fist against a concrete brick wall and asked me if it was real. I wavered, much like you are wavering now, getting into theoretical arguments about atomic structure and the spaces between them, that the wall was actually an aggregation of atoms with spaces between them and not really a wall.
He got so exasperated with my ability to look at real objects in a real world that he almost shouted, “If the damned wall is nor real, then walk through it”. I even had the temerity to argue that I might be able to do it if I could fit the atoms in my body through the atoms in the wall.
That’s where you are stuck now, firmly in your mind. As I drove home from the seminar that night a light went on. I saw myself being a horses butt, creating stupid arguments to get around the reality in which I existed.
I never looked back after that insight. I still regard a brick wall as an aggregation of atoms, which it is, but I have cut the bs about the reality it represents to me. I can’t walk through it using any methodology that currently exists. For all intents and purposes, for me, the wall is real.
You are completely ignoring real physics and arguing from a perspective of a thought experiment. I have laid it out crearly for you and you either ignore what I am saying or you fail to understand.
Once again, regard the Earth-Moon system as a perfect circle with the Earth at its centre. Draw a radial line from the Earth’s centre extending through the Moon. You know that the near side of the Moon, the first point where the line meets the Moon, must always face the Earth’s centre. That point must turn in a perfect circle throughout the orbit. The same applies to every point along that radial line within the Moon.
That settles the argument right there. If every point on the Moon MUST turn in concentric circles, with the near face fixed to point at the Earth, it is not possible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis.
That applies in every frame of reference BECAUSE the physical reality is that the Moon is not rotating about a local axis in one of them. If it appears to you that the Moon seems to be rotating about a local axis, look more closely. Don’t shut off your mind and make assumptions.
That’s all wrong Gordon, as proven by Tesla’s momentum analysis of inertially spinning & orbiting ball M rotating once on its own axis per orbit in the inertial frame. As ftop_t shows here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
That’s the way science is done in communist countries.
DREMPTY, are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party?
We do science differently in this country.
Rob (Des), there is only ONE privileged reference frame where the moon appears to rotate on its own axis, as far as I am concerned. That is a “translating” reference frame where the origin is centered on the center of mass of the moon and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards distant fixed stars. From other reference frames, you can see the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. But, you have to understand what “rotation about an external axis” looks like. Otherwise, to the uninitiated, it can still appear like the moon is rotating on its own axis.
Then there is the reference frame you are referring to, the accelerated frame attached to a vector orbiting with the moon. From this reference frame, the moon does not appear to be moving at all, the rest of the Universe appears to be moving around the moon. But nobody is ever discussing the moon’s motion from this reference frame, despite what people try to pretend.
If you are in ANY inertial reference frame, you will see the moon rotate on its own axis.
You will see the moon appearing, to the uninitiated, to rotate on its own axis. Those who understand what “rotation about an external axis” looks like will see that the moon is merely rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. You just have to understand rotation, but not many here do, sadly.
I bet you believe that the earth rotates on its own axis once every 24 hours.
I’m aware of sidereal time, and the concept that the Earth rotates on its own axis in 23 hours and 56 minutes, rotating 366.25 times in one orbit of the sun all “with respect to the fixed stars” supposedly. In reality what that means is you are treating Earth’s “orbital motion without axial rotation” like it was the “moon on the right” from the gif discussed earlier. If you treat Earth’s “orbital motion without axial rotation” like it was the “moon on the left”, then it rotates once on its own axis in 24 hours, and rotates 365.25 times in one orbit.
The gif:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Rob claims: “If you are in ANY inertial reference frame, you will see the moon rotate on its own axis.”
Viewed from Earth, Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
Viewed from Moon, Earth is rotating about its axis.
Rob is just another one that doesn’t understand orbital motion, and tries to use “reference frames” to confuse the issue to protect his false beliefs.
Clint R
Viewed from Earth, Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
Viewed from Moon, Earth is rotating about its axis.
I’m glad you raised that.
What is the period of the earth’s rotation as viewed from the moon?
Is it equal to what you would consider to be the actual period of the earth’s axial rotation?
I’m glad you raised it too, Rob. Because it shows how wrong you are.
And your questions are irrelevant — just more distraction.
Viewed from Earth, Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
Viewed from Moon, Earth is rotating about its axis.
DREMT
You must have blinders on or so seriously deluded with your contrarian ideals that you think the Moon image on the right is somehow supposed to be rotating on its own axis and the one on the left is not.
This is serious deluded thinking. It warps your ability to see clearly and correctly. The one on the left is rotating on its own axis (which is what our Moon is really doing outside the bubble mind of the contrarian belief system). You can see it by looking at the whitish images in the middle of the left Moon. If the Moon was not moving in a circle you would then see this one is rotating.
On the one on the right nothing is rotating on its axis. If it were not moving in an orbit you would clearly see the moon on the right has NO Rotation. When you choose to remain deluded there is nothing that can be done. If Tesla honestly believed the Moon is not rotating on its own axis then he was just wrong. He was a brilliant inventor but that does not translate that he is correct on all his views.
The “moon on the left” is rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle, and not about its own center of mass. That is simply a fact about rotation, which remains true regardless of reference frame. Focus on realizing that first…you have a long way to go before you can even try to understand the “moon on the right”.
Troll Norman never understands the science. His comments only include insults, false accusations, and links to sources he doesn’t understand.
This time, he forgot the links….
DREMT
Again you display a deluded thought process. Look again at your GIF. The Moon on the left is orbiting around the white center circle and rotating on its own axis. Evidence by observing the white areas on the “Moon” surface that cross its axis of rotation. The white areas are rotating around the axis. It is most clear and the white areas on the right moon are not at all rotating around the moon axis.
I am not sure how you can look at these and not see clearly. Your mind is fogged by belief. Can you consider you may be wrong?
Either you are just deluded or you do not understand at all what rotation means. Can’t be sure which is your issue. You can proclaim things all you want, it does not change reality.
I would suggest you take some quarters again and move one around the other. You find you have to rotate the orbiting quarter to make it keep its same face pointed at the center quarter. It is not hard to do.
Norman, the “moon on the left” is rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle, and not about its own center of mass. That is simply a fact about rotation, which remains true regardless of reference frame. Focus on realizing that first.
DREMT
Here is a video made with an object that moves in a circle without rotation. If you notice it is similar to what the Moon image is doing on the right of your link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7OwPwqmsTM
Norman, if you were to assume that the movement of the “moon on the right” consisted of only one motion, most “Spinners” would say that its movement represents “curvilinear translation” in a circle, with no axial rotation. I am well aware of that and need no education or YouTube videos to understand the “Spinner” perspective. A child could understand it.
What is more difficult to understand, is the “Non-Spinner” perspective, whereby the “moon on the right” consists of two motions. Are you ready to try to understand?
If so, start by looking at the “moon on the left”. Look up Madhavi Fig. 2(b) if you need a reference from a textbook to help. That motion is a rotation about an axis in the center of the white circle, and not about the center of mass of the moon. That is simply a fact about rotation, which remains true regardless of reference frame. Focus on realizing that first.
D.R.E.M.T.
I see you refused to deal with the specifics of my comment, instead returning to an argument by assertion.
My questions, answered properly, indicates that you ALWAYS get the wrong answer when judging the axial rotation rate of one body in a rotating pair from the perspective of the other.
Des, you are talking to the wrong person. You addressed your questions to Clint R.
Norman, you are fooled by a computer graphic, so what do you do? You find another computer graphic that fools you just the same!
You don’t even understand how illogical that is.
Something that is rotating can fool you. Viewed from the front, the blades of a simple fan may be rotating clockwise. If viewed from the rear, the blades are rotating counter-clockwise. An idiot may decide the fan is not really rotating then, and stick his head in it!
The model of pure orbital motion is a ball-on-a-string. That is the motion of Moon. It is also the motion of the left graphic.
You can’t change reality. Only an idiot would try.
TF must have thought he had something intelligent to say, but his comment sounds more like a disjointed concession speech..
It’s amazing that he is even able to comment at all, being trapped under that 5000# boulder….
tim…”Yet the people who wrote the textbooks clearly have studied even MORE math and MORE science than you”.
I question that. I have read excellent textbooks like Bjarne Stroustrup’s book on C++. Of course, he wrote the language. Before reading Stroustrup I had waded through book on C++ by authors who could not explain a type, called a class, because they obviously had no idea what it was. They talked around the subject.
When I read Stroustrup on the definition of a class, he stated that a class is a user-defined type. Suddenly, the lights went on. I knew what types were in C and C++, like int, char, union, float, struct, etc., but they are system defined types. Stroustrup wanted to introduce a type that the user could define based on the struct type.
I am sure all of the authors I read were competent programmers, they simply had no idea how to explain many of the techniques they employed.
In the textbooks referenced by skeptic and norman, they gave stupid examples of curvilinear translation. One of them was a bus with the wheels removed and replaced by two levers attached to axles so the levers could turn in parallel. What the heck does that have to do with curvilinear translation?
As I tried pointing out to skeptic, curvilinear translation describes the motion of an object from point A to B along a curve. Somehow the authors got it in their minds that the word parallel referring to rectilinear motion had to be applied to curvilinear motion in the same sense. It did not seem to occur to them that parallel for a curve is defined differently than parallel for a straight line. It has to be.
How can the example I gave with the bus possibly meet the requirements that all points on the bus are moving in lines parallel to the beginning motion. Obviously all points on the bus are moving in a semicircle in exactly the same way all points on the Moon move in the lunar orbit. Concentric circles or curves are parallel to each other.
From which book did you learn about the cause of the moon’s phases?
rob…”From which book did you learn about the cause of the moons phases?”
Worked it out for myself using engineering physics. Then Dremt confirmed it with Tesla’s excellent explanation.
I actually sat down with two coins, marked one, and tried to move it around the circumference of the stationary coin while keeping the mark pointing to the centre of the stationary coin. Could not be done while rotating the moving coin exactly once per orbit. That would require rolling the moving coin along the edge of the stationary coin and doing so immediately moves the mark away from pointing at the centre of the stationary coin.
I had to slide the moving coin around the stationary coin while adjusting it so the mark would point to the centre of the stationary coin. The adjustment is the same adjustment gravity makes to the linear momentum of the Moon.
If you look at example of rectilinear translation it is the same. If you take a coin and draw a line across its centre, in order to translate the coin along a horizontal surface, you have to slide it along the surface while keeping the line parallel to the surface. If you roll it, it is no longer rectilinear translation as per definition, although I would argue that point.
Translation means simply to move a body or point from A to B. If you roll a coin from A to B you are still translating, albeit with rotation.
Definitions can get in your way if you take them too literally. You have to be flexible.
Then I got into theory about curves I learned in engineering math to explain the definition of parallel as applied to motion of object along a curve.
So the nonsense about the moon’s phases being caused by the earth’s shadow came from your own brain?
How sad that you believe it is even remotely possible that:
(1) the moon could be in earth’s shadow for all but one day every month
(2) the earth’s shadow could possibly cause the shape of the gibbous moon
Rob,
Sad, but not surprising in the least.
Gordon, that’s a good point about the swing/chair/gondola on a Ferris wheel. In order for the passengers to not fall out, the swing MUST rotate on its bearings/axle as the Ferris wheel “orbits”. There are two motions involved–orbiting and rotating about an axis. The two motions allow the passengers to always be facing the same direction. Those, of course, are NOT the motions involved with Moon. Moon only has one motion–orbiting.
SGW cannot understand your attempt to explain. He’s tied to “kinematics”, which confuses him when trying to understand orbital motion. You use the term “curvilinear translation”, trying to explain. I have used the term “instantaneous translation”, but he still can’t understand. I’m not sure there is any help for him.
clint…” I have used the term instantaneous translation, but he still cant understand. Im not sure there is any help for him”.
I have used that term as well, perhaps using different words. Off course, motion along a curve has to be defined by instantaneous motion. The instantaneous motion along a curve is always linear motion along a tangent line to the curve at that point.
The motion of the Moon at any instant is linear velocity/momentum. It’s always trying to move in a straight line but gravity applies a force to gradually bend the Moon’s instantaneous linear motion into an orbital curve. No one could successfully argue that should gravity be turned off, the Moon would translate along a straight line. With gravity applied, it’s obviously still translating, but along a curve.
Without local rotation.
Gordon,
ClintR has already stated that he rejects kinematics. You do as well.
Gordon spews:
The instantaneous motion along a curve is always linear motion along a tangent line to the curve at that point.
That is simply false. In the following gif, the moon on the right does NOT conform to your above definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The gondola of a ferris wheel also violates your definition above.
I NEVER stated I reject kinematics, idiot SGW.
Kinematics is NOT applicable to orbital motion. Kinematics is fine where it applies.
Ha ha ha !
And you also NEVER rejected the long list of physics laws and principles?
No you just reject their applicability.
The Radiative Heat Transfer Law
Flux summing
v = romega
Kirchoffs Law
1LOT
Conservation of Angular Momentum
and on and on..
Instantaneous translation is another term ClintR has pulled out of his circus hat. He has yet to define it. He also has yet to calculate the velocity of the far and near side of the moon. He can’t. He does not know how.
Look up “instantaneous”, then look up “translation” (as related to motion). Then get an adult to explain it to you.
I always get a chuckle about your ongoing confusion over far/near side velocities. Like several other idiots, you can’t learn.
That’s why I seldom respond to your nonsense.
I don’t know what you clowns mean by translation, because it never matches anything you find in kinematic reference sources.
So, please define translation, moron.
Crickets…….
“I always get a chuckle about your ongoing confusion over far/near side velocities. ”
Good example of Clint-speak.
English translation:
‘Everyone always gets a chuckle about Clint’s ongoing confusion over far/near side velocities.’
Look for a special conference session on Dunning Kruger Effect devoted to Clint.
Madhavi cautions against confusing rotation with curvilinear translation. . . .its a huge pitfall of ignorance that failed engineers tumble into.
Gordon squeals:
congruency has nothing to do with translation. Have no idea where you dug up that stupid definition.
Congruency absolutely does have everything to do with translation. As every definition you will find basically says, every point on a translating rigid body has the same velocity. This means every point has the same motion. If a rigid body is translating along a curve, the path of every point will be on a congruent curve. For example, the moon on the right is translating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Pick a point at the 9:00 and 3:00 0’clock position. The path of those points will form congruent circles. That’s because all points on a translating object have the same motion.
For the moon on the left, the path for points on the far and near side form concentric circles, therefore the moon on the left is not translating.x
The objects you are describing have lines through the object that remain parallel to the orbital path. The is NOT the requirement for curvilinear translation. A line through the object must remain parallel to its original position. A line through the object has to remain pointing in the same direction.
EVERY reference source I have found agrees with my position. You have not found ONE reference source that agrees with your make-believe definition. You need to put up or shut up.
You were WRONG about the cause of the crescent moon. And you are totally wrong about curvilinear translation.
The moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, not on its own axis.
And this is their best argument.
Declaration.
The same ‘argument’ used by religions.
The moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, not on its own axis in the accelerated frame.
From any reference frame. You just do not understand rotation, and cannot learn.
No, you cannot destroy rotational energy or momentum with ref. frames as you do DREMT; there are two axes of rotation so the energy in both cannot be eliminated with your defn. as Tesla proved and ftop_t illustrates.
Both Tesla and ftop_t have specifically stated that there is only one axis of rotation. Tesla in the first moon rotation article, ftop_t in a recent discussion that you were a part of. Try not to be too dishonest, Ball4.
Both Tesla and ftop_t have specifically shown that there is only one axis of rotation observed wrt the accelerated frame DREMT. Funny how you always leave out that important detail. Please go read Tesla’s inertial proof you are wrong DREMT.
Wrong, Ball4. There is only one axis of rotation, regardless of reference frame. You just do not understand rotation, and cannot learn.
Yep Ball4 is manufacturing incorrect frames of reference to confuse himself with. We see it in the diagrams of rotating objects with frames of reference that exclude the true axis of the rotation. All Ball4 has to do to believe he isn’t being stupid is hang a curtain so he can’t see the rotation around the earth.
Instruments would still be able to measure the rotation just as Tesla calculated showing the moon rotates once on its own axis per orbit. Autopilots do that for pilots in the clouds. bill just needs to go learn from the momentum analysis performed by Tesla for his orbiting ball M.
You can measure it dull boy because an orbital rotation is a real rotation.
So is the moon measurable rotating once on its own axis per orbit.
come on Ball4 stop playing you like you are dumb. Unless of course you are dumb and there is nothing you can do about.
“You just do not understand rotation, and cannot learn.”
DREMT ‘understands’ that masses moving in non-concentric ELLIPTICAL orbits around a point are a ‘rotation’.
Unfortunately, it is universally understood that a rotation is movement of masses in concentric CIRCLES around a point.
If he insists on being a moron, oh well…
Nate, circles are ellipses. The only requirement for rotation are full 360degree movement and for the particles to move concentrically. You want to completely redefine mechanics because of some flexibility in the system. Nothing moves in a perfect circle. A circle is nothing more than a simplification of an ellipse. Its a piss poor argument Nate.
“Nate, circles are ellipses”
The reverse is not a true statement, and that is the one you are using.
Again, YOU CANNOT change the definitions of things just cuz you feel like it.
That is a dishonest debate tactic.
For example, there are various things I can put in my drill chuck and make rotate: drill bits, sanding disk, a water pump.
None of them can I make move on an elliptical path with just my drill and its ability to rotate things.
As ROTATION defined in the lecture notes
“The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.”
Not so for an elliptical orbit, in which the particles velocity, angular velocity, and distance from the axis, increases and decreases with time.
Nate says:
-circles are ellipses-
The reverse is not a true statement, and that is the one you are using.
Again, YOU CANNOT change the definitions of things just cuz you feel like it.
That is a dishonest debate tactic.
—————–
Of course they are circles Nate, its a beginning class!
We’re beyond 6th grade level..
so did you take any classes in kinematics Nate? What happened you started with circles, worked to ellipses, left school and slipped back to simple circles you have difficulty understanding now?
Ball4 says: “The moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter…”
Ball4, it looks like somebody from your own side of the argument disagrees with you on that…maybe you can argue it out with him.
I’m only the messenger DREMT, if anyone disagrees with what ftop_t demonstrates with the sunshine and Tesla proved with ball M momentum analysis, let them go argue with the source, Tesla and ftop_t.
Ftop_t has asked you twice to stop misrepresenting him. Tesla cannot, as he is dead. I’m sure he wouldn’t take too kindly to your misrepresentation either, though, were he still with us.
From the 16th to the 20th of March winter returns to Western Europe, even to Spain.
https://i.ibb.co/khvwjMB/hgt300.png
ren
Keep cool, ren!
Here is the lowest forecast in Spain for that period, with the region around Salamanca (especially Cáceres) being as usual the coldest at night, with acceptable -3C (the station is at 750 m altitude):
https://tinyurl.com/3ab58tjt
Here is Salamanca’s list for lowest March temperatures:
SP000008202 52-69 2005 3 1 -9.0
SP000008202 52-69 1993 3 1 -8.5
SP000008202 52-69 1949 3 4 -8.0
SP000008202 52-69 2005 3 2 -8.0
SP000008202 52-69 1971 3 7 -7.9
SP000008202 52-69 1971 3 6 -7.6
SP000008202 52-69 1971 3 5 -7.4
SP000008202 52-69 2004 3 2 -7.4
SP000008202 52-69 1953 3 15 -7.1
SP000008202 52-69 1970 3 2 -7.1
Nothing out of the norm these days!
*
The lowest March temperatures I could find for Spain since measurement begin in the GHCN daily data set were
SPE00156018 52-72 2010 3 10 -20.8
SPE00156495 53-72 2010 3 10 -20.2
SPE00156099 53-72 2010 3 10 -19.9
SPE00156198 53-72 2010 3 10 -19.9
SPE00156018 52-72 2010 3 9 -18.9
SPE00156162 52-72 2010 3 10 -18.8
SPE00156558 53-72 2010 3 10 -18.8
SPE00156027 53-72 2010 3 10 -18.7
SPE00156198 53-72 2010 3 9 -18.5
SPE00156270 53-72 2010 3 10 -18.4
but these stations (Boi, Saloria, Espot, El Port del Comte, Certascan, Sasseuva, Bonaigua) were all introduced in or after 2008, and are all located at way over 2000 m altitude.
J.-P. D.
DREMT
“You will see the moon appearing, to the uninitiated, to rotate on its own axis. ”
The uninitiated?
I had not realised that you had to be initiated into the “non-spinner” cult.
Is there an oath?
Which trouser leg do you roll up?
Perhaps I should have said, “to the ineducable”.
What color is the magic underwear?
What’s the secret handshake?
What’s the special silly walk?
"Perhaps I should have said, “to the ineducable”."
I definitely should.
"You will see the moon appearing, to the ineducable, to rotate on its own axis".
That’s better.
Gordon stated upthread:
Thats mainly when we see the different phases of the Moon, with the Earths shadow causing the crescent shapes.
Gordon was asked:
From which book did you learn about the cause of the moons phases?
Gordon’s answer:
Worked it out for myself using engineering physics. Then Dremt confirmed it with Teslas excellent explanation.
LMAO. You can’t make this stuff up!
What’s next from our non-spinner clown trio? Big Foot is real?
I do not agree with Gordon on the moon’s phases. Nor did Tesla.
Dr. Spencer, do you really want to stir the pot with some real analysis that threatens the status quo?
Joe Binden mentioned the spike in Asian Hate Crimes in his speech last night. Clearly to imply Trump supporters are the perpetrators. The FBI Hate Crimes Stats paint some very very interesting pictures, especially when put on a per-capita basis.
What you will find about these Asian Hate Crimes:
1) They happened in Deep Deep Blue States/Cities
2) There are very very few of them given a population of over 320 million diverse people
3) They are related to rioting and looting
4) They occurred during BLM/ANTIFA “peaceful” protests
Funny how Joe Biden didn’t mention that the organizations that put him in power are the ones that committed the hate crimes he mentioned.
Also, why the silence in the media about the Uyghur Genocide? That is where the real hate is.
The stratospheric polar vortex revived in late February and early March. This will extend winter in the northern hemisphere because there will now be a natural springtime weakening of the polar vortex, associated with an increase in UV radiation in the upper stratosphere. This will cause Arctic air to flow southward in April.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JFM_NH_2021.png
In two days, the stratospheric intrusion will reach Arizona and New Mexico.
The width of the troposphere will drop below 6800 m.
https://i.ibb.co/30QK5sj/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f048.png
NASA global temperature just fell to its lowest value since 2014….
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Monthly_Mean_Global_Surface_Temperature/graph.png
Gregory J
I’m happy it didn’t fall down to that of 2011, let alone to that of 1996!
J.-P. D.
Perhaps the 2016 El Nino was the peak level of lower tropospheric heat for a while – on the order of decades. I reckon ren thinks that.
The meridional jet stream during periods of very low geomagnetic activity (low solar wind activity) does not favor La Nia. This protects the Earth from rapid cooling as global water vapor declines slowly. However, a decrease in TSI over several decades will inevitably lead to a decrease in the heat content of the oceans. In fact, the Pacific Ocean during La Nia stores heat that it gives back during El Nio.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC005/IDYOC005.202103.gif
Rob Mitchell
Here is a comparison of the periods 1997-2003 vs. 2015-2021, made in such a way that the the El Nino phases of 1998 and 2016 are
– superposed, and
– plotted relative to their respective begin (in order to subtract, in the blue plot, the temperature difference between 1997 and 2015):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UT0P6Cdfc5KIaGdbTYB_rwWdKAoCCDwU/view
The difference between 1997-2003 and 2015-2021 is very small.
We are in a La Nina phase, but in a way weaker than what we experienced in 2010-2012, and the drop in 2017-2018 was not much smaller than the one right now.
Here you see the Ninos and Ninas in the satellite era:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
I would say: in one year, we know more.
On the one hand, a cooling would be welcome for me: it would stop the permanently increasing ice sheet and sea ice loss in the Northern Atlantic, which results in a loss of salinity and in an increase of atmospheric perturbations in Western Europe.
On the other hand, the slight warming we experience leads to mild winters, much appreciated!
J.-P. D.
Robertson
You wrote upthread
” Mayer obviously did not have a clue about that fact. Newton understood it but Mayer was so thick that he tried to calculate the motion of each lunar particle, using statistical analysis ”
*
Such pretentious and ignorant stuff, Robertson, is the reason why I write again that your technical competence is inversely proportional to your derogatory arrogance.
You pick up lots of little things in Wikipedia and in Contrarian blogs, like this irrelevant ‘using statistical analysis’ what has absolutely nothing to do with the concept I was discussing.
*
And now you become even brazen:
” If I’m wrong, prove I’m wrong. ”
This sentence is the typical emergency exit all times taken by those people I name the ‘Pseudoskeptics’, who love to write
‘Oh! I guess you are wrong; prove me wrong’.
1. To become wrong presupposes to have established a disputable hypothesis.
In that you utterly failed with your superficial, unscientific and discrediting statements. You have not written anything that could have made a contradiction meaningful.
2. Moreover, it is not MY job to prove you are wrong: it is YOUR job to prove that Mayer was.
In that you would never succeed, even if you were able to understand German as I do, because you never learned anything of what is needed to digest Mayer’s treatise – regardless the language it was written in.
*
” So, give us your interpretation of his work in which he proves the Moon rotates about a local axis. ”
Oho! Oho! Obergefreiter Robertson gives his order of the day…
Ha ha haah! That’s the very best. Why?
One year ago, I translated Lagrange’s ‘Théorie de la Libration de la Lune’ in English.
Your reaction was – as expected – the dumbest one could have imagined.
You wrote ‘The paper has nothing to do with Moon’s rotation. It deals with libration’.
And with that dumb statement, you proved that you did not pass over the paper’s title: the character sequence ‘rotation’ namely appears 18 (eighteen) times in the paper.
Somewhat later, after you finally got what the paper dealt with, you then
– went into Lagrange’s French text,
– tried to read and translate a few lines,
– did not understand anything about the mathematical concept of integrating differential equations of motion, and
– pushed up on this blog with the same nonsense as you did now after having ‘read’ some vaguely similar lines in Mayer’s work.
*
And you really believe that I now will say: ‘Zu Befehl, Obergefreiter!’ , and will soon move on to a translation of Mayer’s 130 pages, what would irremediably result in even more discrediting and denigrating from your side?
What the heck would be the sense of doing such an amount of work?
*
Why can’t people like you finally grasp that Mayer produced his so accurate lunar cartography JUST BECAUSE he was able to compute the inclination of the lunar axis of rotation, and hence the local lunar coordinates of any point on the Moon’s surface?
His computation of the duration of that rotation was then the last step in his explanation for the libration in longitude.
*
Maybe I’ll be at least willing to write a small summary, even if anticipate the incompetent reactions to it.
J.-P. D.
The moon is flat. If it rotated it would periodically flip like a coin and we’d see the backside of the moon from earth.
Oh dear – how low can this anti-science go. There is something terribly wrong when you can find someone who makes Gordon look like a genius.
Yes Rob, Bindidon, SGW, Norman, and several others do make Gordon look like a genius, by comparison. Just above, Bindidon counted the number of times the word “rotation” was used in his source:
“…the character sequence ‘rotation’ namely appears 18 (eighteen) times in the paper.”
Bindidon actually believes that means Moon has axial rotation. He can’t see anything but what he wants to see. It’s the same problem you have being fixed on mistakes Gordon makes, while ignoring the much larger mistakes you make.
But the most raucous example of anti-science occurred when Folkerts recently implied the 5000# boulder falling on him would not matter because it had lost all its “potential” energy!
That’s why this is so much fun.
One has to assume from your refusal to rebut that you agree with this guy that the moon is flat.
Well Rob, your imagination failed you once again.
What is wrong with stating definitively whether or not you agree with him?
Let me phrase that differently … If I were the one who claimed that the moon was flat, would you attack me for that belief, or would you agree with me?
I took Ken’s comment as a humorous spoof on you idiots that reject reality.
If you want to believe Moon rotates about its axis, or is “flat”, that’s your right. You can have all the false beliefs you want. Just don’t call your false beliefs “science”.
And of course what you take things to be is always what they actually are.
Your imagination fails you again, Rob.
What does imagination have to do with fact?
Use your imagination….
You appear to have run out of things to say. Apparently I have to imagine what you are thinking … lol
ClintR squeals:
Yes Rob, Bindidon, SGW, Norman, and several others do make Gordon look like a genius, by comparison.
Our resident genius, aka Gordon, declared:
Thats mainly when we see the different phases of the Moon, with the Earths shadow causing the crescent shapes.
Yes. The genius in action.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just remember, the people of “science” that are pushing this Climate Science CO2 driven Climate Change Nonsense:
1) Believe men can get pregnant
2) Believe there are multiple Genders
3) Believe Gender is a state of mind, not identified by an X or Y Chromosome
4) Use terms like Chest Feeding so as not to be offensive
5) Burned Dr Suess Books and would prefer children learn by reading the Lyrics to the Award Winning Cardi B song WAP
6) Ban Gone With the Wind and Huck Finn, and would prefer children listen to Rap Music and watch Samuel L Jackson Movies
7) Elect blue eyed very pale white people that claim to be Native American as a Senator and celebrated Harvard Prof
8) Decide if it is sexual harassment based upon political party affiliation
9) Send COVID patients back to nursing homes while a USN Hospital Ship sits empty waiting for patients
And they have a Hitleresque figure leading them. Did you see the speech? That was comical. My wife and I went into hysterics.
10) Put derogatory labels on anyone that disagrees with MSM dogma, such as Deniers, Racists, Homophobes, Sexists, etc. The effort is to eventually shutdown free speech and free thought.
Can you provide corroborating evidence showing that Foote, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callendar, Plass, Budyko, Charney, and countless other scientists post all think males can get pregnant? I’ll be happy to review any materials you can provide on the matter and concede your point if it can be shown that these materials are legitimate and decisively support your claim against those I listed above and others. Otherwise I have no choice but to dismiss your claim because it is rather absurd.
Can Men Get Pregnant?
Yes, it’s possible for men to become pregnant and give birth to children of their own.
https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/can-men-get-pregnant#TOC_TITLE_HDR_1
Here Are All the Different Genders You Can Be on Facebook
https://slate.com/technology/2014/02/facebook-custom-gender-options-here-are-all-56-custom-options.html
China is building concentration camps unhindered because of “cultural norms” and the US is arguing how many genders there are and debating hairstyle regulations and maturity flight suits for women soldiers. China is laughing.
The US has signaled such weakness to the rest of the world that China will become overly aggressive and trigger a Cold War. Democrats will react by implementing a gender-neutral draft and Women will suddenly understand just how insane it was to vote for such weakness in our leaders.
China, driving diesel powered tanks, will have no trouble at all as they rally BLM and ANTIFA to help round up all the Trump Supporters. The world then falls into another 1,000 year totalitarian dark age.
Yuri Bezmenov (Tomas Shuman) – Ideological Subversion
https://youtu.be/KLdDmeyMJls
Yuri Bezmenov: The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion
https://youtu.be/0fx1BYwCwCI
BTW, the French purged its military of Warriors post-WWI, just like the US is doing today. Progressives never learn, they just keep repeating failed policies of the past because they keep erasing history.
The Western World live in peace today because the UK refused to surrender. Today the woke left and its corrosive cries of racism is doing its best to remove one of the greatest defenders of freedom in world history. The US is having our soldiers read books that would make anyone hate America, and gives them no reason to defend her. Progressives cheer such insanity, and they litterly fear Trump supporters than the people that rioted, burned and looted countless cities over the past year.
What do progressives fear in Trump supporters? That they will protect the Bill of Rights.
CO2isLife
I think maybe some progressives are pushing the points you put up but I would agree with bdgwx. I do not accept your link that climate science and progressive social issues are related nor need be in the same grouping.
Norman says:
March 13, 2021 at 1:49 PM
CO2isLife
I think maybe some progressives are pushing the points you put up but I would agree with bdgwx. I do not accept your link that climate science and progressive social issues are related nor need be in the same grouping.
Norman, my point is that Climate Change is one of the pillars that holds those groups up. Using the excuse that “its was my job” isn’t good enough. Progressive Scientists remain silent and let the Progressives turn our Universities into Totalitarian Indocturnation Camps. Silence is Consent. When the Communists take over, we will all pay the price, and I don’t see the Progressives doing anything other than handing them the keys to the Kingdom.
Facts are most real scientists live in fear of losing their jobs to the Cancel Culture, and that is especially true in Climate Science. That is how they get an enforced consensus.
How to Explain Biden’s Gender Discrimination Orderin Terms Simple Enough for Kids to Understand
President Biden’s order aims to ensure that everyoneincluding student-athletesreceive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. Here’s how experts recommend sharing the details with your child.
https://www.parents.com/news/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-bidens-gender-discrimination-order/
The Results:
Transgender MMA Fighter Crushes Skull of Female Opponent
https://youtu.be/Rdisr7UY6Is
CO2isLife
Your position will end being just as distorting as the progressive left. That is why I want to keep the topics on science, evidence and facts. You can look at Roy’s temperature graph and see global warming. He is a skeptic but his graph still shows warming. He is not a skeptic of the science (GHE is real and keeps the Earth at a higher temperature, CO2 will increase the global temperature some). He is a skeptic of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).
It is not scientifically proven that an increase in global temperatures will lead to devastating weather patterns that cause great harm to humans or destroy established food producing regions.
I have seen terrible lies from the Right and Left. They both seem to think it is a good thing to intentionally lie and make up false rumors about people.
I am saddened by how gullible people have become. Some Qanon unnamed source on a blog comes up with a Conspiracy that Elites are eating babies and drinking their blood and millions of Americans believe this is true. Sad Sack City!
When I was in High School many years ago, when someone made and outrageous claim the response was a loud “Bull Shit”. Now any stupid idea is totally true with no evidence or support. That is why some of the bloggers on this site bring me down. They are ones in the skeptic side. They make up false claims about physics and heat transfer. I spend some time linking them to real textbook physics showing them clearly they are totally wrong, but they would rather believe the lies than reality or evidence based truth. Joseph Postma is one of the contrarian liars that manipulate gullible people to believe whatever nonsense he proposes. He goes on vicious attacks against any who dare challenge his false information. It goes on all the time.
I would like to see a return of some skeptical minds that still want evidence. People just declare things regardless of the correct nature of their declaration.
Anyone that thinks that the Communist Progressives haven’t thought all this through simply needs to listen to them. Here is Progressive Hero Bill Ayers.
https://youtu.be/VlN2t0oERHk
They also write research papers like “Weight of the Poor” explaining how to destroy America.
The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty
A mass strategy to recruit the poor onto welfare rolls
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty/
The only thing a Communist hates more than a Believer in God is a Capitalist.
CO2islife,
Can you read a calendar?
That youtube was from the Trump era.
Transgender athletes are ***********
Norman Says: I am saddened by how gullible people have become. Some Qanon unnamed source on a blog comes up with a Conspiracy that Elites are eating babies and drinking their blood and millions of Americans believe this is true. Sad Sack City!
Qanon? Who are they? Progressives have corrupted the Media, Education, Research, our Election System, Hollywood, Science, the FBI, CIA.
Comparing a few gullible nutjobs to the incredible power that the Progressives is way off target. BLM/ANTIFA burn down many cities and killed many people, Black on Black crime in Chicago kills thousands each year and it is ignored, but when a White Police Officer shoots a black criminal it justifies destroying a city.
Kamala Harris paid to get rioters out of prison for arson and looting, Progressives painted BLM with the Government’s support in front of the Trump Tower, Bloomberg paid $50 million to assist felons to vote in Florida, Facebook and Twitter Routenly censor/deplatform Conservatives and I can go on and on and on.
ANTIFA/BLM stage a False Flag and the Trump supporters fell into the trap, and Biden and others have taken full advantage of it. It was their Reichstag Moment. 12 years of Tea Party and Trump Rallies and not a single episode of rioting, looting or any criminal activity at all.
Comparing Qanon to Progressives is like comparing jay walking to gang rape and mass murder. I’ll repeat, Joe Biden, leader of the Free world condones qenocide of the Uygher Muslims because of “cultural norms.”
Nothing conservatives do even comes close to the horror Progressives are setting the world up to experience. Once again, China is already rounding people up and America is doing nothing.
Norman Says: You can look at Roys temperature graph and see global warming.
That is a strawman Norman. No one doubts that there is warming. Just look at the 4 Moscow temperature graphics. 3 show no warming, 1 shows warming. Build a city, lay down a road, increase H20 in the atmosphere, and many other things can cause warming. Simply look at an ice-core record. Climate change is the norm. It doesn’t take trillions of wasted dollars to discover that the climate changes. Never in the history of the earth has the climate not been changing, in fact, if the climate wasn’t changing it would be the first time in 6 billion years.
Norman Says: You can look at Roys temperature graph and see global warming.
Just look at the UHA Temperature charts, they are all different yet they are all exposed to identical CO2.
This entire science exists to manufacture fear about man-made climate change and the recent budget proves why. There is a huge fortune to be made fooling the public and corrupting science. There is no way Climate Science would get the funding and attention it gets if it weren’t to push a political agenda of the far left. That is a fact, and only the most gullible people would believe otherwise.
Norman Says: You can look at Roys temperature graph and see global warming.
Congress sets sights on climate change in Covid relief bill
The coronavirus relief bill passed by Congress … funnels billions of dollars into renewable energy.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/22/the-covid-relief-bill-also-fights-climate-change-heres-how.html
CO2isLife
I have to disagree with some of your points but I am glad you make them.
YOU: “Qanon? Who are they? Progressives have corrupted the Media, Education, Research, our Election System, Hollywood, Science, the FBI, CIA.”
How much corruption you see is real? The lying right media makes up lots of false information that right wing people believe without question. When I hear items from the right media I assume it is a lie since in researching their lies on Facebook for about a year they have zero credibility. So on this point I am not nearly as certain as you on the corruption level.
YOU: “BLM/ANTIFA burn down many cities and killed many people, Black on Black crime in Chicago kills thousands each year and it is ignored, but when a White Police Officer shoots a black criminal it justifies destroying a city.”
This point seems to be fed to you by a lying right wing media.
BLM deaths were around 19. Also the anger from the Black community over police killings is that the black victims are unarmed and not necessarily criminals. The blacks who kill blacks face punishment. It is not “accepted” killing. The anger is when an Officer kills an unarmed black person they face no punishment. If there were actions taken against the unlawful deaths then BLM would not need to exist.
YOU: “ANTIFA/BLM stage a False Flag and the Trump supporters fell into the trap, and Biden and others have taken full advantage of it. It was their Reichstag Moment. 12 years of Tea Party and Trump Rallies and not a single episode of rioting, looting or any criminal activity at all.”
This one is the false made up lies of Right Wing media sources. The Right is as bad as the left and as fanatic. They are willing to start a war as evidenced by the invasion of Congress and their violent attacks on the Police.
To me both sides are equally wrong, both lie, both manipulate gullible people to gain power. Neither side is good for a Nation. I like science, and evidence based reality. The reality of Political Right and Left is total distortion and continuous lies and false information. You believe the lies of the Right without question and the Progressives believe the lies of the Left. None are willing to accept the reality both sides are lying manipulators deceiving people for power and control. Neither side, if they won, would make this Nation a good place to live. You can study Central America History to see how it is to live in a far right system and you can look at China to see how a left society works. Neither is good for the average. I would rather have the middle zone where one can still examine ideas and claims without fanatic emotional reactions like you demonstrate.
Norman, I missed your high school BS. Glad to see you’re spewing your nonsense opinions again.
Your nonsense: “I would like to see a return of some skeptical minds that still want evidence.”
I’m only too happy to comply. Provide your evidence that NASA needs to know about the bogus concept that Moon is also rotating about its axis as it orbits Earth, in order to land on Moon’s surface.
ClintR
The Moon Rotation is not bogus except in a contrarian thought process. You are one of those gullible people who believe anything but never want evidence.
Since you asked I will provide your request. It will not alter your pattern of behavior nor help you realize your deluded state of mind.
https://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html#LO
Since you are not able to understand any of the links I post I will help clarify it for you.
“The moon’s relatively slow rotation rate, combined with the reasonably low lunar orbit inclinations, result in a small out-of-plane motion of the lunar landing site. The LOI maneuver is planned so that the resulting lunar orbit plane contains the planned landing site at the nominal landing time, as illustrated in figure 23. Position 1 represents the location of the landing site at the time of lunar orbit insertion. When the LM makes the landing, the landing site has rotated to position 2.”
Of course, climate science is just one of the many progressive issues. It is part of their utopian ideal. Their utopian agenda is all that matters. They are the masterminds. Always in search of the one master plan.
Norman, thanks for providing another link you don’t understand.
I asked for: “Provide your evidence that NASA needs to know about the bogus concept that Moon is also rotating about its axis as it orbits Earth, in order to land on Moon’s surface.”
What you provided was the information related to Moon’s orbit and the CSM.
You haven’t a clue.
ClintR
Maybe you need to learn to read. I actually quoted from the link.
Read it again maybe something might trigger in that empty head of yours. My prediction about you is most correct.
“Since you asked I will provide your request. It will not alter your pattern of behavior nor help you realize your deluded state of mind.”
Wrong Norman. You don’t understand your link, and you don’t understand the quote from the link. You can’t understand any science, as usual.
When they were trying to land on Moon, the CSM was orbiting much faster than the surface. Moon was only orbiting, so the surface had only that transitional speed. The CSM was traveling much faster. So they had to calculate the correct time to release the landing module. At that point, all calculations were based on the CSM relative to Moon, as it was in lunar orbit. Moon was NOT rotating on its axis. It was only orbiting Earth.
Got any more links you can’t understand?
CO2isLife said: Yes, it’s possible for men to become pregnant and give birth to children of their own.
Is this a weird joke I’m just not getting? None of your links have anything to do with climate. Like, not even close. And that’s probably an understatement since the talking point itself is beyond bizarre in the context of a climate blog.
RW said: Just look at the UHA Temperature charts, they are all different yet they are all exposed to identical CO2.
How many UAH temperatures charts do you see? Where are you seeing them?
I see. So uou guys cant make sound, fact based science arguments.
And R cant win elections and dont have a positive agenda, so lets distract by associating your opponents with a bunch of culture war exaggerations!
Its ‘look a squirrel’ taken to extremes.
Norman says:
”Position 1 represents the location of the landing site at the time of lunar orbit insertion. When the LM makes the landing, the landing site has rotated to position 2.”
You guys are still failing to grasp the non-spinner position.
The moon is rotating around the COG of the earth. The space ship is not but instead is on a trajectory in accordance with its rocket firings. Thus adjustment must be made by the space ship to locate the correct place on the rotating lunar surface.
You guys keep running around on this like blind rodents on a hamster wheel. https://media.tenor.com/images/a0901a7d0b7d8fe161e53057bbbb8f79/tenor.gif
It is bill keeps running around on this like a blind rodent on a hamster wheel because the analytical proof our moon rotates on its own axis by Tesla is easily found, studied, & learned from. But not for bill, DREMT, and some uneducated rodents.
Ball4 continues to troll about Tesla.
Ball4 is absolutely correct.
Tesla makes a series of physics-based arguments that are supportive of the standard astronomy Moon spinning model.
He repeatedly states that he will ‘show’ that it is all just ‘an illusion’.
But he never actually does show it. It is quite bizarre.
Once again, mathematical descriptions of motion are useful (some more than others), but they are not ‘reality’.
Therefore Tesla’s claim that one description is an ‘illusion’ and another description is ‘reality’ is not convincing.
“…because the analytical proof our moon rotates on its own axis by Tesla is easily found”
Then present it, Ball4. The only argument I can see Tesla having discussed which is in support of the moon rotating on its own axis would have the center of mass of the moon translating in an ellipse whilst the rest of the moon rotates about that center of mass. There is certainly nothing he discussed which would support the idea of the moon rotating about two axes, one external and one internal. If that was happening we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Nate says:
”Once again, mathematical descriptions of motion are useful (some more than others), but they are not reality.”
You are not talking science unless you are talking math Nate.
Both Tesla and Madhavi describe engineering principles that fall within a universe wide conceptual physical model.
Both move from the physical model to calculation, Tesla and the moon; and Madhavi all objects in rotation. In both those models there is zero room left for any angular momentum to be assigned to the moon rotating on its own axis and with zero angular momentum you have zero rotation.
If you want to scientifically dispute that offer up a different model and provide the numbers and calculations in support of it because all you are doing is assigning rotation to the moon on its own axis and ignoring the fact that what you are using is required to have an orbiting planet whether its spinning or not and regardless to the direction it might be spinning on its own axis.
You try to cloud over your obvious error by carving off and suggesting some kind of bizarre curvilinear translation with inadequate angular momentum to explain its motion.
Bill, Madhavi says:
“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.”
Do all particles of our Moon move in circles around the orbit barycenter?
NO!
The Moon moves on an elliptical orbit. And it has librations, indicating its different parts follow different paths.
So the Moon’s orbit is NOT a pure rotation, though the TEAM keeps falsely claiming it is.
Madhavi goes on to explain that a body’s motion that is neither a pure rotation or pure translation is a ‘General Plane Motion’.
Which is then described, as I already noted, as a combination of a translation plus a rotation around the center of Mass.
“In both those models there is zero room left for any angular momentum to be assigned to the moon rotating on its own axis and with zero angular momentum you have zero rotation.”
Sorry Bill, but that is exactly what Tesla explains. That once you remove the Orbital Angular momentum, there is angular momentum left over that can and should be assigned to the Moon rotating on its axis.
In Madhavi’s General Plane Motion, since the motion is described as a Combo of CM translation plus CM rotation, then OF COURSE there will be a part of the angular momentum that is due to axial (CM) rotation.
And as you can see, DREMT agrees
“The only argument I can see Tesla having discussed which is in support of the moon rotating on its own axis would have the center of mass of the moon translating in an ellipse whilst the rest of the moon rotates about that center of mass.”
So Im unsure why DREMT is still arguing.
Nate says:
1) ”Do all particles of our Moon move in circles around the orbit barycenter?
NO!
The Moon moves on an elliptical orbit.”
Doesn’t matter. Ellipses have sufficient properties of circles to behave in the same manner.
2) ”Which is then described, as I already noted, as a combination of a translation plus a rotation around the center of Mass.”
Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation. Ellipses are not on that list.
3) ”Sorry Bill, but that is exactly what Tesla explains. That once you remove the Orbital Angular momentum, there is angular momentum left over that can and should be assigned to the Moon rotating on its axis.”
Nope that’s the proposition that Tesla proves to be wrong. Like when you calculate the angular momentum of every particle on a merry-go-round deck. You can’t then go calculate each particles own rotation on its own axis and add the two together. That would be ridiculous. . . .in fact as ridiculous as your argument is.
4)”In Madhavis General Plane Motion, since the motion is described as a Combo of CM translation plus CM rotation, then OF COURSE there will be a part of the angular momentum that is due to axial (CM) rotation.”
More ridiculous arguments. It requires the same force to start a merry-go-round with globes on frictionless bearings as it does to start one with welded globes.
5)”The only argument I can see Tesla having discussed which is in support of the moon rotating on its own axis would have the center of mass of the moon translating in an ellipse whilst the rest of the moon rotates about that center of mass.”
You are repeating yourself. Say it enough times and you actually might start believing it. A curvilinear translations moving in circles or ellipses are rotations. They also have angular momentum calculated by mass and distance from axis.
“The only argument I can see Tesla having discussed which is in support of the moon rotating on its own axis would have the center of mass of the moon translating in an ellipse whilst the rest of the moon rotates about that center of mass”
That was me who wrote that, bill. Though I should have added, Tesla only briefly discussed that idea, and then went on to argue against it. My main point in mentioning it was, there was never any discussion of any argument in which the moon rotates about two axes, one external and one internal. Tesla would have rejected that idea also. As we saw in his first article, in which he wrote: “The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the Earth, the true and only one”.
“Doesnt matter. Ellipses have sufficient properties of circles to behave in the same manner.”
Sure Bill. Inconvenient facts ALWAYS don’t matter, when you are interested in honest debate.
“Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation. Ellipses are not on that list.”
An elliptical path is an OBVIOUS example of curvilinear translation!
Again, here you are trying to change definitions to suit your beliefs. Just stop with the BS!
‘4)In Madhavis General Plane Motion, since the motion is described as a Combo of CM translation plus CM rotation, then OF COURSE there will be a part of the angular momentum that is due to axial (CM) rotation.’
“More ridiculous arguments.”
Don’t quote Madhavi if you are then going to turn around and DENY what it says!
What a loser!
“It requires the same force to start a merry-go-round with globes on frictionless bearings as it does to start one with welded globes.”
Non sequitur, we are talking about Kinematic definitions.
‘The only argument I can see Tesla having discussed which is in support of the moon rotating on its own axis would have the center of mass of the moon translating in an ellipse whilst the rest of the moon rotates about that center of mass.’
“You are repeating yourself. Say it enough times and you actually might start believing it.”
I am quoting DREMT here. Take it up with him.
“A curvilinear translations moving in circles or ellipses are rotations.”
Nope. You don’t get to make up your own definitions in order to support erroneous beliefs!
See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-622387 for Engineering Lecture Notes
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
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.”
“They also have angular momentum calculated by mass and distance from axis.
Yes, that is called ORBITAL ANGULAR MOMENTUM. It is ONE contribution to the Moon’s angular momentum. The other is its SPIN ANGULAR MOMENTUM.
Look them up.
“NOT interested in honest debate.”
“It requires the same force to start a merry-go-round with globes on frictionless bearings as it does to start one with welded globes.”
No correct.
As Tesla showed, with welded globes the final angular momentum and final kinetic energy are both HIGHER than with globes on bearings.
If these quantities were higher with the same force applied over the same time that would be quite strange.
The spinner argument has a tiny grain of truth.
They state that gravity can exert no torque yet everything spins including galaxies.
In my conceptual model pure rotation is inherent in the system. It is manifested in a hierarchical fashion with gravity bonding units together and creating higher levels of angular velocity
into planet/moon systems, solar systems, and galaxies that can only be broken up by traumatic events.
And if broken up via traumatic events the angular momentum associated with the individual masses will be preserved because ultimately it will be converted into a rotation around the universe COG. It seems inescapable and inherent in all objects while at the same time via traumatic events additional spin can be imparted on objects.
So from this concept of inherent spin the spinners have a point, but the problem for them is that the inherent spin is going to look like no spin from their cherry picked frame of reference point without the lower order combinations of galaxies, solar systems, and planet/moon systems.
This seems consistent with Tesla’s viewpoint as it is clear that Tesla had an ability to simply pull these kinds of concepts out of thin air and actually make a lot of it work.
I think there are lots of reasons among all the arguments to agree with Madhavi’s approach to rotation. As along with the inherent hierarchical system of rotation there really are independent rotations caused by traumatic events. You have to be a pigheaded inculcated sycophant to argue by mentioning Newton once said the moon spins on its axis as proof of the spin not being induced by the orbit.
I have tried to point out the difference in these rotations where axes are tilted for reasons other than a differential gravitational pull from more than one object. . . .out of which arises the notion of no such thing as zero axial tilt but multiple reasons for axial tilt.
You have inherent gravitationally induced axial tilt and you have axial tilt imparted by traumatic events. The difference between the two is the difference between independent spin and dependent spin in the Madhavian sense. It seems abundantly clear that Tesla may well have been right.
But I am going to insist on the fact the non-spinners have the better argument. Tesla was used to being blown off, he didn’t care, he just persevered and is today a towering figure. Further, Madhavi and others who teach courses in kinematics are imparting good solid practical knowledge.
So there you go an effort for some degree of reconciliation. But I think maybe some people just want to argue for the sake of arguing.
Yes bill, it does seems abundantly clear that Tesla may well have been right and DREMT wrong due to Tesla’s ball M analysis. Good reconciliation of the observed facts.
I love how obsessed Ball4 is with me.
Bill,
I see that youve decided not to rebut any of the science issues, but instead pontificate on philosophical ‘issues’.
Probably a good choice.
Of course its a good choice Nate. Everything starts with philosophy. Its not philosophy in kinematics its gone beyond that. But astronomy hasn’t even started down that road yet.
“But astronomy hasnt even started down that road yet.”
Ok, so you can lead the way….
Or maybe they’ll just keep doing Astronomy, it seems to be working.
Not surprised Nate. The neolithic period probably lasted 8,000 years and they probably thought it all started with a Big Bang too.
Agreed. I would be more afraid of a global cooling than a global warming.
Europe lost half its population as a result of cooling during mini ice age. I too fear cooling more than warming.
Then you favor people having more than enough food to eat.
If people have more than enough food to eat, then it won’t encourage the governmental’s inherent desire to commit genocide.
And in warmer world, you can use less energy. And one has more life in general. Less deserts and less ice. Less extreme weather and perhaps strange to some, less extreme temperatures.
And generally it’s a progressive point of view.
Where is Swenson today? Do they not pay him to work on weekends?
The surface temperature is not rising but the data is being altered.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/USHCN1920-2020Maximumvs.Adjusted-2.gif
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/03/climate-forecasting/
And this is who is responsible.
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/03/hansen-wishes-he-wasnt-so-right-about-global-warming/
That’s right. The data is being adjusted. It has to be adjusted to correct known errors and biases. That’s a good thing. We want the data to be adjusted. Not adjusting the data would be unethical at best and fraudulent at worst if the unadjusted data were used and it was not disclosed.
Also, Hansen is not the one who adjusts the data. In fact, no one at GISS adjusts the data. It is the GHCN-M dataset which provides the adjusted QCF files in addition to the unadjusted QCU files that GISTEMP consumes.
It is also well known that GISS switched from the QCU files to the QCF files in the early 2000’s specifically to address the concerns that GISS was producing an inaccurate estimate of the global mean surface temperature due to their use of the unadjusted QCU files provided by GHCN-M and which have known errors and biases. Tony Heller is aware of all of this. So you tell us…does that blog post unethical or does it rise to fraud?
You can find information regarding GHCN-M including detailed descriptions of the quality control routines and pairwise homogenization algorithm here.
https://tinyurl.com/2r5xdd8u
bdgwx says:
”Thats right. The data is being adjusted. It has to be adjusted to correct known errors and biases. Thats a good thing.
You can find information regarding GHCN-M including detailed descriptions of the quality control routines and pairwise homogenization algorithm here.”
Mixing apples and oranges bdgwx. There is no real issue with the detailed descriptions of quality control routines. But those routines were not used for the selected weather station adjustments that consistently resulted in increasing warming trends. Today they openly show the formed in the form of multiple data lines that display very little variance in warming trends, and folks like you use them as an obfuscation tool to distract that none of those lines show the ‘material’ adjustments to data over time.
What goes on as supposed validated science is a lot of cherry picking of data to display that which the scientist wants to display.
Steve McIntyre has done a remarkable job of exposing for example ‘sacred trees’ in Siberia upon which a few cherry picked trees make the bulk of support for rapid warming trends.
Of greater concern is an actual history of a key player in every single surface temperature record exhibiting biased behavior and making efforts to avoid transparency, punish those that aren’t going along with the favored solution, etc. Of course talking here about Dr. Phil Jones of UAE. The guy that put together a world wide data base of temperature records used to various degrees in all the surface records. The guy that said he would rather destroy the raw data than give it to McIntyre who would find something wrong with it, then actually lost the data when the courts ordered him to hand it over. I have to say in all my audit experience I never saw a gun with anything near that much smoke coming out of it. I also have little doubt the only thing that saved his arse is it reflected on a public agency in a nation of relatively high integrity but an obsession with quietly suppressing scandal. But they are still feeling the effects of it.
What we have never ever seen in the surface record is a random sample of stations. Instead it been an endless quest for compliance with the ‘officially’ adorned model of the way things are supposed to be. Obedience to that is the sure path to promotion, grants, funding, dollars, publishing, and fame (or infamy if you aren’t really paying attention)
When the official and politically favored option is known it makes it incredibly easier to successfully write a grant request.
I have a long history of auditing long term investment portfolios. So in effect I was auditing investment managers. I have to say out front fraud is a very rare find. But investment managers typically get paid and promoted out of good results. So an audit has to get into the issue of bias. OK so you have investment theories. Every investor does. Compulsive gamblers all have theories. Theories are a dime a dozen. Validating or invalidating theories is very difficult but its extremely important to know the bias.
Take for example the warming trend. Just off the top of my head it started out very unevenly. It would warm quickly, retreat some and plateau. So somebody evented the ‘step theory’ to explain it. Then it didn’t step and a pause occurred and instantaneously there was a profusion of ‘pause theories’. Gradually they mostly winnowed out and we ended up with a pause theory that the data was wrong.
Each time we do this, like tree ring hockey sticks, the political pooh butts honor it, endorse it, publish it, promote it, and legislate on it.
Actually what I would most like to see is a collection of raw temperature records. Then start running a series of random samples of a few hundred of them and see how much warming remains and how much variance is produced in the series of samples.
I don’t think I have ever seen an investment manager that randomly picked his investments. The way its done now inspires no confidence in me at all. Thats because all the surface records have been rationalized with blessings of accuracy. And if I accepted that I wouldn’t be doing my job.
I’m not sure what you mean here. The GHCN-M dataset publishes the QCF (adjusted) file. The quality control and adjustments routines which are documented at that link are what were used to produce that file. The only adjustment the GISTEMP code makes to the GHCN-M time series after the fact is in step 2 for the urban adjustment. For an urban station to be considered for the spatial averaging processes it must first have its time series adjusted to match the composite of 3 rural stations. There is nothing in the GISTEMP code that is even remotely applying an artificial warming bias. Information regarding the GISTEMP algorithm and all of the source code necessary to replicate their dataset can be found here. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
Also consider that Berkeley Earth, Had.CRUT, Copernicus, and others employ independent techniques and subsets of available data that do not rely upon GHCN-M and they are consistent with GISS’ results.
So I’m going to tell you what I tell everyone. If you want to make a serious challenge to the body evidence in existence already then the best way to do that and to convince skeptics like me is to provide a dataset that publishes a global mean temperature with accompanying uncertainty analysis. Get it reviewed and replicated by experts as is the protocol with new lines of evidence in every other discipline of science. I will be more than happy to equally weight those results among all of the other lines of evidence. Your challenge is to get Tony Heller to provide such a dataset. Considering how often he “nuh-uhs” GISS he should already have his dataset prepared with superior techniques so it shouldn’t be a big deal to just get him to submit it for review.
bdgwx, you try to act like you know something. But, the reality is you’re a fraud.
You state things that you can’t back up:
“Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.”
1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?
I will just state it again I have no big bone to pick with adjustments after individual station adjustments. You are talking about record wide processing, I am talking about what happens before that. . . .input. We have seen a thousand times the individual station manipulation and we have seen a thousand times what happens between versions of the same data sets. For each version the stuff you are talking about is run after all the interesting and debatable stuff is buried.
bill,
Yes. All datasets which are actively maintained publish new versions with the goal of building upon and improving the previous version. Are you saying it this iterative approach you do not like?
In addition to my 9:01 PM response.
The problem has been greatly exacerbated by the perversions of the independence of the civil service. The civil service has a great foundation of independent scientists employed based upon skill and puts them into an environment that strictly enforces independence.
Academia has a great foundation of using transparency and published papers to advance itself.
But in recent decades those foundations have been perverted. Today we have non-independent academic scientists freed of the bonds of transparency sitting in the work space of independent civil service workers. . . .in effect accomplishing a dual coup over both independence and transparency.
The best known example of that was the relationship between UAE and the UK Met where the most significant common piece among surface temperature records was fashioned in a non-transparent manner by a vocally biased and activist researcher. NASA GISS suffered the same malady. And Berkeley Earth reutilized existing datasets and no surprisingly came up with the same results along with a vocal lack of independence and some work products that essentially made little or no effort to determine if there work was actually addressing the issue.
Anybody who has followed the audit work of Steve McIntyre will have observed the issues arise out proxies and data selection criteria.
All that said there likely has been warming in the 20th century. What with a longterm ice melting albedo and ocean LIA recovery followed by a solar grand maximum, the issue has boiled down to the components of roughly one tenth of degree warming per decade.
Adjustments have come not randomly but as predominately cool the more distant past and warm the recent in addition to knocking down past variation. There comes a point where if you don’t think the dice have been loaded you are potentially headed for deep doo doo if you chose to stay in the game.
That all said I have great respect for the integrity of scientists. They work very hard to earn their reputations. However, they all are amateurs in detecting their own biases.
Fact is both transparency in publishing data, methods, outcomes combined with independent civil service overview once served greatly to not just reduce fraudulent and self serving outputs but also worked equally competently at detecting and reducing bias. Auditors are not just trained to detect bias they are also trained to identify organizational structures that are susceptible to it. In the trade its called internal controls and at the end of the day its up to the independent auditors to pass judgement on the whole enchilada.
The data should not be altered. It opens all sorts of allegations of fraud, deceptions and fudge.
Even if the intentions were well founded, all the adjusting does is muddy up already murky waters that are characterized by inadequate coverage, inadequate equipment, and human error.
The only action that should be a allowed to vary from raw data is the use of error bars. If you think the readings are too high or too low then figure out by how much and state the confidence in the reading is not great and make the error bars larger.
Ken said: The data should not be altered.
You do realize that the net effect of adjustments in the instrumental temperature record actually REDUCES the global mean warming trend vs the unadjusted data. Does this change your position?
Ken said: It opens all sorts of allegations of fraud, deceptions and fudge.
It is the opposite. Not adjusting data to address known errors and biases would be unethical at best and fraudulent at worst.
Ken said: Even if the intentions were well founded, all the adjusting does is muddy up already murky waters that are characterized by inadequate coverage, inadequate equipment, and human error.
Not even close. Data is adjusted ubiquitously in all disciplines of sciences and measurements of all kinds. Data adjustments are common place in nearly every facet of your daily life. You wouldn’t be able to get on the internet without error and bias correction routines. You wouldn’t be able to drive or even own a car, acquire good medical care, benefit from electricity, or even acquire food. Society would collapse if you had your way. But to be honest I don’t you’re as rigid about your position regarding adjustments as you let on.
bdgwx says:
You do realize that the net effect of adjustments in the instrumental temperature record actually REDUCES the global mean warming trend vs the unadjusted data. Does this change your position?
=====================
No doubt you have an example. But it doesn’t detract from Ken’s viewpoint. However, you are so attune to allowing your political leanings influence what you are willing to accept you simply expect everybody to be just like you.
The question isn’t whether the adjustment support your point of view. Thats the problem in the first place.
Obviously adjustments to data are often appropriate, especially by the guy actually initially recording the data who actually knows, understands, and is 100% aware of what adjustments he has already made.
Some computer nerd sitting at a desk in Boulder, Colorado probably shouldn’t apply for the job of data manipulator for Goose Bay, Greenland.
—————————-
——————————
———————–
——————–
bdgwx says:
”Not even close. Data is adjusted ubiquitously in all disciplines of sciences and measurements of all kinds. Data adjustments are common place in nearly every facet of your daily life.”
You are like my sister-in-law, babbling away about adjustments you know nothing about. Documentation and audit trails are necessary. To have that you need transparency. If actually believed the BS you are shoveling heck give me the password for you bank account and I will fix the balances for you. . . .and of course since I am an expert you won’t need to check.
LOL! Ohhh! you say there is nothing wrong with your bank balances you say. . . .well I would think weather station managers would say the same thing. . . .if they were consulted.
Yes bdgwx thats what I don’t like.
I don’t like any process that lacks transparency.
Science is built on a foundation of replicable work. Work is not replicable without transparency.
Provide that transparency and then confidence can begin to grow.
The word ‘Iterative’ inspires zero transparency, zero confidence, and in fact just increases the consternation.
It means: ‘involving repetition’.
And no I don’t think they should repeat adjustments over and over again.
I am very much of a like mind with you.
With the data which are altered, the changes correlate with CO2 changes giving an R^2 of 0.99. A suggestion that correlation does not mean causation is misplaced in the sense that we know the data are changed by someone. It is that deliberate, optional change difference which correlates. That does not mean it is not a valid change but one remains to be convinced that the guiding light is not related to CO2 changes (or the general expectations of T change).
Someone would have to show that instruments just don’t matter much at all. Why bother with them. Why not apply this to hospitals? Again it does not mean that alterations cannot take place but these need to be backed up by physical observation and tests.
I will go further on iterative processes. These will likely automatically cause an enhanced increase with data which show any real underlying increase over time. This is likely the case here (ie accept that there is some real increase in T over the decades).
I have had such experience with extensive data base in an unrelated field. I used a version of what is known as James Stein estimators to modify data in accord with variance weightings. A description was given in a 1977 Scientific American article. This gives biased estimators. These are actually more accurate for predictive purposes but they were never meant to replace the actual data. If these data are replaced with the “new” averages and are included in further iterations it then has a further impact on the data-set and so on and actually creates further increases until it reaches some stasis. Add new data (ie monthly) run the iterations and more changes take place. I suspect something like this is happening in these data changes and may explain why decades old data keep changing. Surely, angels have not tapped them on the shoulder and resurrected the dead thermometers.
This is the original article in Sc Am 1977:
https://statweb.stanford.edu/~ckirby/brad/other/Article1977.pdf
Yes indeed the process of creating the problem is fundamentally political. It begins with widespread political endorsement of a concept that hasn’t actually met the true bar of replicable science. Once politically accepted it becomes the ‘settled science’ that is used to adjust everything else. The Ptolemy theory is a classic example of it.
Bringing it into the modern world Michael Crichton’s State of Fear paints the picture of how it proceeds. A lack of standards about which you can say in a science paper, ‘might’, ‘may’, ‘suggests’ as examples are then turned into fact in the next iteration and conveniently referenced back toward the original document.
I like to call it horse blinder science where references are used to create something that lacks reality and treat it as fact.
This is the sort of stuff that auditors are constantly under pressure to avoid. Audit trails, transparency are all things achievable. There are many good examples of it within our political systems. . . .but it hasn’t yet risen to the level of a dominate way of doing business. Instead environmentalism (and I think of my self as an environmentalist) is still mostly legislated and regulated via emotion rather than science. In saying that it is far more true at the state level than the federal level. . . .and the cure isn’t to raise it to the federal level but instead to correct it at the state level one state at a time.
Here is an interesting talk that is much broader than climate change but touches on it. https://youtu.be/yZYQpge1W5s?t=4005
This is a long interview but of particular interest is the pathology of ideological possession discussed for a couple of minutes and is the means by which ideology becomes a substitute for science. . . .obviously a foreign concept to the interviewer but is obviously very robust with the commenters in this forum.
Hmm…I’m not sure you’re using “iterative” in the same context here. When I used the word “iterative” above the context was of making incremental improvements to measurement technique, data processing routines, analysis routines, addition of new data points, modeling, etc. It is the core principal behind Newton’s statement “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants” in a nod to the fact scientific understanding is itself iterative in that progress is made by building upon previous understanding. bill hunter does not agree with this idea of iterative improvement. He does not agree that dataset maintainers should publish new versions to address errors or biases or to reduce the uncertainty envelop. I obviously disagree and does pretty every other person on the planet.
bdgwx says:
HmmIm not sure youre using iterative in the same context here. When I used the word iterative above the context was of making incremental improvements to measurement technique, data processing routines, analysis routines, addition of new data points, modeling, etc.
————————-
LOL! Yes perhaps you can make a silk purse using a sows ear even huh?
bdgwx says:
It is the core principal behind Newtons statement If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants in a nod to the fact scientific understanding is itself iterative in that progress is made by building upon previous understanding.
————————
Thats a discussion on theory not data nor empirical observations.
——————-
——————–
——————
—————
bdgwx says:
”bill hunter does not agree with this idea of iterative improvement. He does not agree that dataset maintainers should publish new versions to address errors or biases or to reduce the uncertainty envelop. I obviously disagree and does pretty every other person on the planet.”
Obvious bdgwx you can’t even comprehend my position. Never ever did I say no adjustments should be ever be made. All I said was every single adjustment should be transparently documented as to source data for making the change and clear description of the methods.
My beef is primarily with the lack of transparency and lack of independence of those adjusting the data. Add to that you cannot add to the accuracy of an observation a 100 years after the fact unless you find something like a math error in the documentation.
If a station manager records a low temperature at 2am at a weather station, you can’t make a time of day adjustment unless you ascertain he didn’t take any other readings during the night. For all you know he checked at 4am and it was one degree warmer. . . .yet some guy in Boulder Colorado says statistics say its colder at 4am than 2am so he makes a time of day adjustment.
then you have the case where the reading is recorded at 2am every day. You still don’t know if the station manager was being lazy or if he just didn’t consult his watch for all his readings.
Fine perhaps you can strongly suspect a time of day adjustment is needed, but thats not an observation-quality assumption and even worse the observer may actually be looking for opportunities to make the night colder to get the record to comport with the best science available – climate models.
Truth is with after the fact adjustments there is too many assumptions being made. Either toss the data or go with it as is. Even station moves are a weird adjustment. One would think among all the station moves in global history there would be an equal number of warming moves to cooling moves so why bother with something you are clueless about unless you have an objective?
And of course you will retreat into these homogenization routines that really do amount to nothing and characterize that as the only adjustments being made and that they seem alright to you, which I can almost certainly acknowledge since the transparency of them is very high.
B Hunter, your comment regarding time-of-day adjustments misses the fact that the older data sets are based on instruments which measure the low and high temperatures between the time the instrument is read and re-set.
Thus, reading the thermometer at 7AM might capture an early morning low twice, as the instrument would show the same low temperature the next time it’s read. But, shifting to a late day reading time would capture that low temperature only for one day, not two. The same situation applies in reverse, when switching from late day to morning reading time. The availability of hourly temperature measurements is a new approach, the result of switching from mercury-in-glass to electronic instruments.
There are other reasons to adjust the data, which I won’t get into.
LMAO! So how do you determine you have more double low reading as opposed to double high readings? Hmmm, do you assume the station manager is up and at his desk then? Or do you use some kind of climate model that tells you the station is reading too cold? I know they used the latter to adjust the ARGO system output, probably still do.
I mean after all observations should be adjusted using the best science available to feel the most confidence its correct right? After all it isn’t anybody’s fault if some dumshit then chooses to try to the use the adjusted output as validation of the model they used to adjust the record right?. . . .one cannot control everybody in the world after all.
B. Hunter wrote:
Well, if one looks at the daily data, knowing that the readings are taken in the early morning, then seeing the same low temperature values recorded on successive days, one could conclude that these data were double counted. If other stations in the region which took their data in the evening reported different low temperature values on those days, that would support adjusting the daily readings accordingly.
Hey, I don’t know how the adjustments are performed, but I did look at one batch of data for one location beginning around 1848 thru about 1985. The data was on microfiche and I spent about 2 weeks entering it on an IBM PC-XT, then going back and repeating the process to verify my database. It represented some 30,000 data points. The microfiche had photocopies of the actual monthly data sheets from successive observers in the field, so I was looking at “real” data…
so how did you identify double readings and what did you substitute?
B Hunter, Of course, with only one data set, there was no way I could make any such adjustments. The data was from several co-operative observers over a long period, which is another issue. There were missed data as well, especially before the Weather Service was formed (1880?), taking over the location from the Army and instituting (inter)national standards for data recording.
But, my point was to illustrate that the data must be adjusted for several known problems. Using the raw data is likely to provide an incorrect result for trends, etc.
bill said: Either toss the data or go with it as is.
Both options are unethical at best and fraudulent at worst.
I don’t think you as rigid on this stance as you let on though.
E. Swanson says:
”But, my point was to illustrate that the data must be adjusted for several known problems. Using the raw data is likely to provide an incorrect result for trends, etc.”
==========================
Wow Swanson you missed your true calling. You could have made millions as an auditor with your extra perception abilities judging that an adjustment would likely be needed in raw data you have never actually seen. I am impressed and will hold due respect for everything you say in the future.
B Hunter, Thank you for your kind support. Oh, BTW, I forgot to mention that about 2 decades later, I had acquired the meta data for the US cooperative network, which listed the station locations with changes, as well as time of day of reading and the name of the volunteer observers. I frequently used that data to debunk Craig Idso’s weekly postings of cherry picked station data, which usually had major dislocations over time. One of my favorites was the Gainesville, AL Lock & Dam, which was re-located from a site about half the way across the state…
bill,
The GHCN station meta repository can be found here.
https://tinyurl.com/3dd27df4
And it doesn’t take “extra perception abilities” to adjust for altitude changes, TOB changes, and instrument changes. Some of the techniques for doing are so mind numbingly obvious that high schoolers with no expert knowledge in the climate sciences could figure it out. Even the pairwise homogenization algorithm is rather obvious.
BTW… you can download the source code GHCN uses here. You can run the code on your own machine and watch it make the adjustments. You can review until you’re satisfied just like the hundreds of people before you who have no serious objections to the methodology.
https://tinyurl.com/yhm7436f
And you can find the GISS source code here. You can run the code on your own machine and watch it calculate the global mean surface temperature. You can review until you’re satisfied just like the hundreds of people before you who have no serious objections to the methodology.
https://tinyurl.com/8fxnks9m
Now…if you can convince Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy to be as transparent as NOAA and NASA maybe we could figure out exactly why their warming trend is so much different than everyone else. Sound fair?
bdgwx says:
bill,
The GHCN station meta repository can be found here.
==========================================
LOL! I have the fewest issues with changes to individual stations in the current period. Station managers are still alive and most still working and incite can be obtained via interviews to ground truth results. Most adjustments though have been to much older data, like pre-1960.
Further the biggest changes haven’t been due to station adjustments but instead to the sample population. The same approach of adjustments have been made to the ARGO buoy system. As opposed to actually obtaining a buoy and testing it, its assumed to be defective. Certainly some are. It just got so bad they felt the need to mix back in warmer inferior technology. Why, because the results comported better with other models. I am just interested in how all that was determined as to which ones and how many are.
Anthony Watts did some really good work on that. He exposed a heterogenous sample population in work that requires a randomly selected, representative, and homogenous population. One can handwave it away and perform selected computations claiming its not an issue. Steve McIntyre’s work showed biased data selectiona and wanted to go into work on station selection criteria but was stone walled on the premise he would find something wrong with it.
It doesn’t matter if those fears arise out disingenuous or just knowledge that the population is of inherent poor quality. Litigation support is all about bias without being so disingenuous you outrage the judge. After all its the job of the judge to decide who is more credible primarily by looking for red on their faces.
In the post on UHI Roy submitted a few weeks ago, we can see that UHI really hasn’t been tested. Attempts to do so honest or not have a big issue of identifying what trends in UHI might consist of.
Additionally as an auditor I understand the importance of motivation and a tendency to agree with authority, especially when the authority is responsible for king making. Bias carefully tracks those subconscious biases. Roy and John simply have extremely low bias indicators. However the global warming juggernaut of huge amounts of money being thrown around by institutions and the funders of institutions creates a huge natural bias. Its the same thing in corporate America where executives frequently are mostly compensated out of results of operations. Most don’t knowingly do anything perverse, but they are inclined to higher levels of risk and high iffy interpretation of results. Auditors have to look from the bottom up, take nothing for granted and keeping motivation clearly in mind cuts the workload tremendously.
I already explained my distain for how the system has been changed over the past century in regards to independence and transparency.
We like to impugn people’s motivations but many years of experience tells me you can’t do that, people are the same all over. Its the process that counts. Government has always been terrible about transparency and academia terrible about independence. Transparency in government has improved a lot over the years but it can be very time consuming to drill down through it. Further there remains a problem with excessive confidentiality agreements, both legislated and contracted. I suspect some of my confidentiality agreements are still in force as I am not aware of a statute of limitations on them. I have some great stories I could tell but nothing like Daniel Ellsberg. My stories might be embarrassing to some but nothing more.
Now with the independent civil service often getting bypassed in labs built on agreements with quasi-governmental academic institutions where the workers owe primary loyalty to their institutions, unless academic standards of archiving everything isn’t enforced consistently there is no way to gain confidence. But do their politically-appointed overseers want everything archived? Certainly not!
Only by questioning authority can you get it. Shining a light in dark corners etc. You though for some odd reason want to continually espouse how great the process is. Why? What do you see arising that’s positive out of that?
bill,
Yeah…it’s unfortunate that stations moved, changed observational procedures, changed instrumentation, and relied upon the human element. But that’s the cards we were dealt. If you don’t like the way GHCN handles it then present another solution, compute the global mean surface temperature, do a comprehensive uncertainty analysis, and present your findings to the world.
That’s great that Anthony Watts has concerns. Here’s what he needs to do. Fix the problems he believes are there, compute a global mean surface temperature, quantify just how much the fixes changed the result, and publish the findings so that the whole world can review them. The point here is that if his fixes only change the result by 0.001C/decade then it is hardly a serious problem. If he doesn’t actually do the leg-work here like what the other scientists are doing then his arguments are nothing more than “nuh-uhs” which aren’t very convincing to us skeptics.
bdgwx says:
bill,
Yeahits unfortunate that stations moved, changed observational procedures, changed instrumentation, and relied upon the human element. But thats the cards we were dealt. If you dont like the way GHCN handles it then present another solution, compute the global mean surface temperature, do a comprehensive uncertainty analysis, and present your findings to the world.
=============================
don’t need to. There are lots of temperature records, raw, adjusted, different versions. I even still use Had-crut2 a temperature record unfortunately discontinued by Phil Jones to add his personal spin to the record.
Literally tons of them that essentially widen the statistical margin of error immensely. Once they are all a couple of standards of deviation above what is eventually proven to be dangerous warming then we will have something to be concerned about.
bdgwx says:
Thats great that Anthony Watts has concerns. Heres what he needs to do. Fix the problems he believes are there, compute a global mean surface temperature, quantify just how much the fixes changed the result, and publish the findings so that the whole world can review them.
==========================
Shoot I would do it if somebody paid me. Sure Anthony would too. But his criticism was about station quality and I think they at least were at one time working on that. Problem with correcting instruments. . . .its really iffy business figuring out how wrong they were. Pretty much need to start over and in 80 or so years you might have a more reliable record to work with. I would say start now but it looks to me satellites is where we should sink our money. Its just plain a better approach.
bdgwx says:
”If he doesnt actually do the leg-work here like what the other scientists are doing then his arguments are nothing more than nuh-uhs which arent very convincing to us skeptics.”
”Us skeptics”!!!! You are a barrel of laughs bdgwx. You must be the biggest cheerleader on the board. . . .constantly criticizing my take and never criticizing anything warm. LOL!
When you say that you sound exactly like some big pooh butt bureaucrat telling the little people; ”I am from the government and I am here to help you!” Perhaps the scariest words in the English language.
I’m skeptical of ALL temperature datasets. I don’t know which one is most true. That necessarily forces me to equally weight each one. And I do question high outliers just as much as low outliers. UAH is a lower outlier. RSS is high outlier. The skeptical thing to do in cases like these is to use the consensus approach of equally weighting the two especially when there is no obvious reason to prefer one over the other. BTW…neither are fully transparent like NOAA and NASA. It irks me just as much that RSS is blackboxed just as much as I am with UAH.
bill said: Obvious bdgwx you cant even comprehend my position.
Here was line of discussion I was responding to.
bdgwx said on March 13, 8:42 PM: All datasets which are actively maintained publish new versions with the goal of building upon and improving the previous version. Are you saying it this iterative approach you do not like?
bill hunter said on March 13, 9:01 PM: Yes bdgwx thats what I dont like.
Now if I have misrepresented your position then please set the record straight now. The last thing I want to do is to put words in your mouth or anyone else.
What do I not like about it?
First, in climate we have a non-transparent iterative process even if some parts of it are transparent. . . .politically to give some cover for transparency.
There are literally thousands of major government processes the quality of which varies greatly. Do I have one solution that could be applied to fix everything? Nope! Its far more complex than that.
Second, science has an important role in policy. The problem is it doesn’t confine itself to that role.
Third, a decided lack of standards in government. Publicly traded ownership interests in private enterprise live under a huge number of standards not applicable to government work.
Fourth, recourse. Widely allowed vs private enterprise, very narrowly allowed against government. The U.S. Civil Service was the best thing that ever happened to the government to bad no state lives up to its standards.
There are probably more but I am not going to try to think of them right now. All I can say is I live it everyday still, I am not some couch potato solely reading the daily rags or getting my info online.
So it’s not the iterative process and publishing of new version that is undesirable to you. It is the belief that it is not transparent enough. Right?
NOAA and NASA provide all materials required to replicate their work. What more do you think they should do?
UAH does not provide enough materials to replicate their work. What more do you think they should do?
What about BEST, Cowtan & Way, Had.CRUT, Copernicus, JMA, RSS, RATPAC, Nick Stokes, and the many other players participating in measuring the global mean temperature? What more do you think they should do?
bdgwx says:
bill said: Obvious bdgwx you cant even comprehend my position.
Here was line of discussion I was responding to.
bdgwx said on March 13, 8:42 PM: All datasets which are actively maintained publish new versions with the goal of building upon and improving the previous version. Are you saying it this iterative approach you do not like?
bill hunter said on March 13, 9:01 PM: Yes bdgwx thats what I dont like.
Now if I have misrepresented your position then please set the record straight now. The last thing I want to do is to put words in your mouth or anyone else.
================================
sure I can set it straight. All the people you mentioned are working with manufactured data. Phil Jones refused to cough up the raw data. The UK backed him claiming confidentiality agreements prevented it.
Without the raw data there is zero transparency. Zero transparency absolutely blocks actually redoing the record.
to have science you need to expose everything to the public not just get somebody to grid the manufactured data again. Of course they did that and that became the political reason for a new inconsistent version.
There is a simple solution here file all the raw data with the Library of Congress. Nullify all the confidentiality agreements. Then if somebody wants to do it they can. They don’t first need to be ‘made men’.
bill said: Yes bdgwx thats what I dont like.
Seriously? You don’t like improving things?
bill said: I dont like any process that lacks transparency.
Agreed. That’s why I’m more skeptical of UAH than I am of datasets like GISTEMP which are free and open source and which provide all data and materials so that they can be reviewed and replicated. I wish UAH would adopt this policy.
bill said: Science is built on a foundation of replicable work. Work is not replicable without transparency.
Yep. That’s why it is so easy to replicate the GISTEMP record. It is so easy, in fact, that you can download the today and have it running in a matter of minutes. No one is allowed to replicate UAH’s dataset unfortunately.
bill said: The word Iterative inspires zero transparency, zero confidence, and in fact just increases the consternation.
That doesn’t make any sense. New versions of datasets are published all of the time without affecting transparency in any way. Actually, if anything this iterative approach to improvement increases transparency as errors are identified, corrected, and published for review and replication.
bill said: And no I dont think they should repeat adjustments over and over again.
What possible justification can you invoke that would convince me that routines for correcting errors and biases in one version should not at least be repeated (or better yet improved) in a later version?
bdgwx you are so full of BS.
The really funny part of all this is there is about zero chance the temperature records are going to validate CO2 climate change in the lifetime anybody alive today. I have gone through the application of dozens generations of computer technology. I work currently in an area of natural sciences and computer modeling where validating generations are typically a matter of a few years. Despite many generations uncertainty is very high and probably only in the last decade or a bit more have their reliability become validated enough to place a good deal of reliance on them. Far from perfect and still subject to high levels of failure they are slowly improving. The reliability of the climate models will only be determined by failure.
I recognize that opinion as being the same as Dr. Lindzen who has arrived at pretty much the same conclusion out of his own experience.
Thus all this temperature record stuff, important in its own right (not homogenized and gridded though) for finite weather prediction, is really irrelevant to the climate debate other than to try to influence people to stop paying attention to their own senses and in essence establish a false narrative.
We haven’t even yet determined how much more warming will continue to be beneficial and we are already working to stop it.
Why is that? Well they learned their lessons well from the MIC and you my friend are just the mark.
tonyM says:
”Surely, angels have not tapped them on the shoulder and resurrected the dead thermometers.”
rumor has it they have a seance room in Boulder, Colorado where they can call up dead station managers and quiz them about why so many of them recorded a temperature that appeared a few tenths too high on June 1, 1875.
ClintR
Bringing the NASA moon landing data here. I guess you could not understand the graphic in the article I linked to which clearly showed the Moon’s axis of rotation and how it affects landing spots.
Again I will prove you wrong. Again you will reject the actual evidence. Perhaps DREMT will not be as dense. I am sure Gordon Robertson will agree with you to the End, he is deep into contrarian faith and will not reject his false religion.
Here: “If a delay or wait period in orbit is allowed, the effect on the landing sites is a westward precession of the sites relative to the lunar orbit. This precession takes place at a rate of 13.2O for each day delay in orbit and is due to the rotation of the moon on its polar axis. There is no effect on the
length of the exploration period on the lunar surface due to this delay. There-fore, a landing at any point on the lunar surface is possible by selecting the proper in-orbit wait prior to initiating the landing maneuver.”
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/nasa_tn_d_2795.pdf
ClintR
Note, the NASA engineers are NOT confused thinking this is the lunar orbital path around the Earth. They are quite clear in stating the “rotation of the moon on its polar axis”
Again, if you can’t understand the words, look them up in a dictionary. You can lie on this blog to your heart’s content.
I have clearly demonstrated with not one, but two links that you are wrong. The reality is facts, evidence and proof have zero ability to alter your or Gordon Robertson’s contrarian beliefs. Is it possible DREMT is not as fanatic as the two of you are? We will see, time will tell.
Norman, you are confused by the wording. The “rotation of the moon on its polar axis” is referring to its orbital motion. That’s the only motion Moon has. The facts don’t lie.
You don’t understand orbital motion, basic physics, or libration. You find sources that you believe support your false believes, so you can never learn reality. Even in this source, you should be able to understand it is NOT the detailed procedures for landing on Moon. Their assumptions would never work, in reality: “It is assumed that the lunar equator and the earth-moon plane are coincident (they actually differ by approximately 6.70) and the moon is in a circular orbit about the earth at its mean distance.”
ClintR
Wrong! They are clearly talking about rotation of the moon on its polar axis. They know the difference between orbital motion and rotational motion. You seem to be the one lacking on this. Making up your own definitions or attributing your ignorance on them is not a valid point. You are wrong but too arrogant to accept this reality.
Norman
Over one year ago I presented on this blog a similar document which was soon discredited and misinterpreted.
This one now goes a bit more in the detail.
But as their usual discrediting reaction is due to the fact that they don’t read documents, but merely scan them for presence of what they deny or absence of what they expect, I’m truly in doubt about them finally agreeing.
A typical example was the hunter guy, whose reaction to Wepster’s contemporary analysis of Mayer’s calculation of the lunar axis
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
(see section 9.5.1) was to pretend that there was nothing in it stating that the axis would be interior to the Moon!
I didn’t even reply to such brazen nonsense.
A few toy examples, Tesla and a few Serbian scientists (Savic, Vujicic, Tomic etc) are the so-called Non-spinners’s last refuge; it is a bit like Astérix, Obélix and the Gallic village resisting the Roman invader, but alas without the comic aspects so many enjoy since decades.
Let’s see what the permanent denialists come up with this time.
Thank you for discovering the document.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
Mayer seems a brilliant mind. They had already accepted the Moon’s axial rotation. He was trying to find the exact point the Moon rotates around.
You were right. No amount of data, reason will change the mind of the contrarian.
ClintR is just a troll so his posts really do not matter. His goal is to try and trigger a reaction from posters, his intent is different. Gordon Robertson is a fanatic contrarian and will only believe crackpot contrarians on any subject. He will reject anything but that what comes from the fanatic crackpots. I thought DREMT was the more intelligent of the bunch but he seems as deluded as the others. He does not seem quite as trollish as ClintR. Harder to determine what is DREMT goal. He does not seem to intentionally annoy posters to get a reaction as ClintR does but he seems to have an inability to accept evidence that shows he is clearly wrong.
Norman, the fact that you always have to attack people indicates you have no science, and are rejecting reality. That makes you frustrated and angry.
Have you considered basket-weaving as a hobby?
Norman
Sometimes I think all these so-called Non-spinners perfectly know that the Moon rotates about an interior axis.
They seem to be having fun messing up this blog here, endlessly laughing at our reactions.
*
Now, concerning Mayer, you wrote
” He was trying to find the exact point the Moon rotates around. ”
I have to correct you a little bit.
He was not only trying, Norman. He did.
He determined
– a good value for the inclination of the lunar rotation axis wrt the Ecliptic
and
– an incredibly accurate value for the Moon’s rotation period.
That is visible in the German document
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
in sections 13 (page 154 therein) and 14 (page 168).
– Mayer’s value for the period: 27 d 7 h 43 m 11 s, i.e.
27.321655 days
– Current value:
27.321661 days
I have read his entire treatise, know how primitive his measurement tools were (a self-made micrometer with 1 arcmin resolution, a metronome with 1 second resolution) and for me, this accuracy is simply beyond the imaginable.
But not less admirable – and certainly the origin of his success) was his knowledge in plane and spherical trigonometry, which allowed him to transform, in an amazing series of steps, micrometer values into selenocentric coordinates (section 8 till 12).
Though I know it’s completely useless, I’ll probably post an abstract of what he did. That will take a lot of time.
J.-P. D.
I forgot to add the 49”’ Mayer indicated at the end of the rotation value!
That gives… 27.321665 d.
Bindidon says:
”A typical example was the hunter guy, whose reaction to Wepsters contemporary analysis of Mayers calculation of the lunar axis
was to pretend that there was nothing in it stating that the axis would be interior to the Moon!”
I could care less what Mayer says. The only thing I am interested in is a proof that the moon spins on its own internal axis. So you might feel like Mayer is giving you a good hummer, but if thats all it takes to get you off. . . .the more power to you.
Tesla did a lot more than just claim the moon was not rotating on its own axis. He showed that there was no independent angular momentum beyond the orbital angular momentum in the moon.
It really isn’t a difficult concept when you read Tesla’s argument. Tesla speculated beyond that to the moon not spinning if it left earth’s orbit which would make it unique compared to the particles on a merry-go-round deck or a ball on a string should the bonds be broken.
Since orbital angular momentum is a function of angular speed and the radius of an orbit. A moon released from orbit would be simply rotating around in an orbit with a radius orders of magnitude greater at an angular velocity probably orders of magnitude slower. But one would have to run the calculations to verify it. However, what is abundantly clear from your past arguments you imagine objects moving around space with zero angular momentum and that is certainly an error.
So you spinners lost the argument with your first assumption. If you want to start with a given point of view (like space) to advance your argument keep in mind that all you are doing is losing touch with reality by virtue of the scales you have arbitrarily chosen.
So in my lifetime I have debated experts in many fields most often I have to learn from them first but the truth is life is complex and many factors are needed for cognition, an area I have developed a certain amount of expertise (a must do for auditors and analysts). I came into this debate with an open mind and it took a while to actually figure out where it appears people are coming from. Tesla was a towering intellect in topics where most people, including experts, simply default to overly simple models. So you can feel welcome to advance the flat earther viewpoint on things, if nobody did that this forum would not be as entertaining as it is.
B Hunter, the “non-spinners” around this blog obviously have no understanding of the physics of rotating bodies. A gyro is a good example and when in a free space environment (or in a 3-axis gimbal device on Earth), once it is spun up to some speed, it’s axis will continue to point in the same direction relative to the stars. Using three gyros mounted along respective orthogonal axes could be used to define an inertial reference frame. All three axes of an inertial reference frame point toward the respective points in space and provide a fundamental basis for measuring rotational motions of other bodies. The use of inertial reference is fundamental to space travel and rocket science, such as the inertial guidance systems for ballistic missiles.
Using an inertial reference frame to measure the Moon’s rotational motion clearly shows that the Moon is, in fact, rotating. The “non-spinner” trolls are only interested in perpetuating their delusional physics, a process which they also repeat with their denial of thermal radiation heat transfer. Next, I expect they will drift into claiming that Trump won the election.
Yes, Swanson, the moon is rotating. Just not on its own axis (about its own center of mass).
DREMT is correct.
B Hunter wrote:
Based on what, one wonders. Sorry, I haven’t bothered to waste my time reading all the posts this month, since they appear to be repeats of all those other misguided posts from the past year of so. Is there some breathtaking new analysis which I missed?
The proof would be possible using direct measurements. For example, I think that placing an inertial guidance on one side of the Moon and another on the opposite side would result in both instruments providing the same rate of rotation. How would that fit into your claim(s) that the Moon isn’t rotating?
That is what you would expect from an object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass.
E. Swanson says:
”The proof would be possible using direct measurements. For example, I think that placing an inertial guidance on one side of the Moon and another on the opposite side would result in both instruments providing the same rate of rotation. How would that fit into your claim(s) that the Moon isnt rotating?”
Again you go off the tracks Swanson. The moon is rotating. . . .on an external axis. Earth to Swanny, Earth to Swanny. . . .pay attention!
Norman
I forgot to mention that, whenever these folks have nothing to say anymore, they nonetheless manage to escape with the usual
‘Norman, Bindidon and the others can’t think by their own, they always need an appeal to authority’.
So what!
J.-P. D.
“Norman, Bindidon and the others can’t think by their own, they always need an appeal to authority.”
Correct Binidion. But, don’t feel inferior. People can be talented in other areas than rational thinking. There is poetry, basket-weaving, singing, cake-decorating, and dancing, just to name a few.
“Rational thinking”, especially “spacial awareness”, are talents not everyone has. For example, take Moon’s “libration”. Your ilk still does NOT understand libration. You believe it is somehow related to axial rotation. You keep trying to change/interpret Newton’s words because you can’t understand libration. You won’t even do a basic experiment to learn.
You can’t think on your own.
Sorry Norman but this just shows that you still do not understand the “Non-Spinner” argument. The basic mistake of the “Spinners” is to confuse the change in orientation the moon makes whilst it is orbiting, for axial rotation. This is all that is happening here, and in any such document.
DREMT
I am sad you are so into your deluded thought that you have lost your ability to reason. The engineers clearly are saying the Moon is rotating on its own axis at a rate of 13.2 degrees a day. They must take the lunar axial rotation into consideration with landing sites as the Moon’s surface is moving (rotating) in a westerly direction. There is no convincing closed minded people who hold a position regardless of actual evidence.
There really is not actual argument. The Moon orbits and independently rotates on its axis. The reality is it does this.
I guess you are as stuck in your false belief as the “Flat Earth Society”. They are also irrational and deluded and no amount of evidence can ever convince them of their errors in thought.
NASA engineers are NOT confusing anything. They know exactly what they are talking about and calculating. You are not being rational at this point. It does not seem you ever will be. Enjoy your fake reality. I hope it makes you feel good.
Norman, the basic mistake of the “Spinners” is to confuse the change in orientation the moon makes whilst it is orbiting, for axial rotation. This is all that is happening here, and in any such document.
Look at the “moon on the left”, in this gif:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
It is rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle, and not about its own center of mass. It is “orbiting”, but it is not “rotating on its own axis”. Looking at the markings on the moon, you can see that it faces through e.g. N, W, S, E, and back to N as it completes each revolution about the white circle. Its orientation is changing, but it is not rotating on its own axis.
DREMT
The Moon graphic on the Left is clearly rotating on its own axis. If you took your deluded perception off you could look at the center of this rotating Moon image and see the white area rotating around the center Moon axis (ignore the orbital motion and focus on the Moon axis, the white area rotates around the axis).
In the Right Moon image the white area remains motionless around the Moon axis. It does not change orientation with respect to the Moon axis.
Your mind is not able to see the obvious. The Moon on Left is rotating on its own axis, the one on the Right is not!
Lori, you are looking at a computer graphic. A computer graphic can make a duck talk. You need to study orbital motion, and quit talking like a duck.
Lori/Norman, think of the horse on the merry-go-round. That moves as per the “moon on the left”. You agree the horse on the merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis, it is just rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. Well, it is exactly the same principle with the “moon on the left”, it only lacks the physical connection between the object and the center of the orbit. No physical connection is necessary, however. The motion of the “moon on the left” is still classified as a pure rotation about an axis that is external to the moon, with no rotation about the moon’s own center of mass.
There is only one axis of rotation in the “moon on the left” gif. It is located in the center of the large white circle.
…with no rotation about the moon’s own center of mass in the accelerated frame, same as the fixed wooden horse, they both rotate once on their own axes per orbit in the inertial frame.
The wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
Tesla proved you are wrong about that DREMT with the ball M momentum analysis.
“Spinners” describe the motion of the wooden horse as a translation of the center of mass of the wooden horse in a circle, with rotation of the horse about that center of mass. There is no option for the wooden horse to be rotating about both an external and an internal axis. No “Spinner” should think that it is rotating about two axes. You don’t even understand your own position, Ball4, let alone the “Non-Spinner” position.
Again, Tesla proved you are wrong about that DREMT with the ball M momentum analysis Tesla demonstrated there is an external rotational axis and an internal rotational axis inertially. Just like ftop_t shows you inertially for a day/night cycle and an orbit:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Again, Ball4, “Spinners” describe the motion of the wooden horse as a translation of the center of mass of the wooden horse in a circle, with rotation of the horse about that center of mass. There is no option for the wooden horse to be rotating about both an external and an internal axis. No “Spinner” should think that it is rotating about two axes. You don’t even understand your own position, Ball4, let alone the “Non-Spinner” position.
However Tesla proved wooden horse (his ball M) is inertially rotating about two axes and DREMT has never attacked Tesla’s proof because DREMT knows it is accurate.
Absolutely wrong, Ball4. “Spinners” describe the motion of the "fixt" ball M as a translation of the center of mass of the ball in a circle, with rotation of the ball about that center of mass. There is no option for the ball to be rotating about both an external and an internal axis. No “Spinner” should think that it is rotating about two axes. You don’t even understand your own position, Ball4, let alone the “Non-Spinner” position.
Norman can’t understand the science. He can’t accept reality. So anyone that does not share his invalid opinions gets attacked. It’s the same MO used by Bindidon and SGW.
Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. If it did, we would see such rotation from Earth. But, the same side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit. Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string.
Moon does NOT rotate on its axis more or less than once per orbit. If it did, we would see such rotation from Earth. But, the same side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit. Moon is NOT rotating about its own axis more or less than once per orbit.
It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string or the string would wrap the ball. As demonstrated by ftop_t here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Ball4 has linked to ftop_t’s Desmos work, which shows an object rotating about an external axis without rotating on its own internal axis. Only the external axis rotation slider is moving in order to make that happen. You can experiment with moving the external axis rotation slider and the internal axis rotation slider and notice the difference when both are moving.
ClintR
Norman can clearly understand the real science and accepts reality quite well.
It is NOT and invalid opinion at all. I provided you two links that show NASA uses the Moon’s axial rotation in Lunar landings. Both in landing and returning to the Lunar module.
You asked, it gave and you rejected the science than you babble about how I do not understand science.
I did not expect you to change your trolling ways when given what you asked for. I thought DREMT might be willing to consider he is wrong. Not sure that will happen. I know your will not consider your view is incorrect so why do you pretend like you are interested? What is your point?
Ball4 has linked to ftop_t’s Desmos work, which shows an object rotating about an external axis without rotating on its own internal axis in the accelerated frame. Only the external axis rotation slider is moving in order to make that happen with the accelerated frame slider set to 0 rotations in that frame.
You are so confused it is comical. Everything is observed from the inertial frame. The view of the system that ftop_t provides is the inertial frame. Looking at the screen, at the object that is orbiting, you are viewing its movement from the inertial frame. Now, stop the external axis rotation slider from moving. The object stops orbiting. Start the internal axis rotation slider moving. The object is now stationary, whilst rotating on its own axis. That is the reality, regardless of reference frame. Now start the external axis rotation slider moving, so that both sliders are moving at the same time. The object is now rotating about both an internal and an external axis. That is the reality, regardless of reference frame. You will notice that the object presents all of its sides to the center of the orbit, whilst it moves. Now stop the internal axis rotation slider moving, so that only the external axis rotation slider is moving. The object is now rotating about only the external axis. That is the reality, regardless of reference frame. You will notice that the object always presents the same side to the center of the orbit, whilst it moves.
Now stop the internal axis rotation accelerated frame slider moving at 0, so that only the external axis rotation slider is moving. The object is now rotating about only the external axis and not about the internal axis in the accelerated frame. That is the reality, including reference frames. You will notice that the object always presents the same side to the center of the orbit, whilst it moves, rotating once on its own axis per orbit like our moon and ball on string in the inertial frame of cartesian coordinates.
DREMT is so confused it is comical. Not everything is observed from the inertial frame, as the internal axis slider is set up for the accelerated frame to observe 0 rotations on it to begin with just like Tesla did with his ball M welded to the rotating spokes.
DREMT simply doesn’t understand the internal axis slider is for the accelerated frame; the external axis slider for the inertial frame. This is why frames matter.
There is only one axis of rotation, external to the object, when the Desmos link first loads up. Regardless of reference frames.
Astute readers observe the two axes when the link loads DREMT, you can’t fool everyone. Tesla’s ball M momentum analysis is right, the moon shown rotates once on its own axis per orbit initially as Tesla proved.
Again, there is only one axis of rotation, external to the object, when the Desmos link first loads up. Regardless of reference frames.
Obviously you are not an astute reader/commenter DREMT. Your lyin’ eyes are evident to many.
Once again, there is only one axis of rotation, external to the object, when the Desmos link first loads up. Regardless of reference frames.
However Tesla proved wooden horse (his ball M) is inertially rotating about two axes and DREMT has never attacked Tesla’s proof because DREMT knows it is accurate.
Tesla never proved his "fixt" ball M was rotating about two axes, liar. “Spinners” describe the motion of the "fixt" ball M as a translation of the center of mass of the ball in a circle, with rotation of the ball about that center of mass. There is no option for the ball to be rotating about both an external and an internal axis. No “Spinner” should think that it is rotating about two axes. You don’t even understand your own position, Ball4, let alone the “Non-Spinner” position.
Yet DREMT cannot dispute Tesla’s ball M proof. That says it all.
Because I don’t agree there is any such "proof" to dispute!
No wonder DREMT is so lost in physics. DREMT admits isn’t even aware of Tesla’s momentum analysis work.
I know what you are referring to, but that is most certainly not a “proof” that the moon rotates on its own axis.
Nopw we are getting somewhere. What specifically is wrong with Tesla’s proof you are wrong DREMT?
As I said, I know what you are referring to, but that is most certainly not a “proof” that the moon rotates on its own axis. How about you explain why you think it is?
What you are “proving” Norman. is that you still don’t understand any of this, and therefore can’t learn.
The “13°/day” rotation rate refers to the lunar orbit. It does NOT refer to any axial rotation rate, because Moon does NOT rotate about its axis. If Moon rotated about its axis 13°:/day, we would see that rotation from Earth. Or, in the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string, the string would be wrapping around the ball, if the ball were rotating about its axis.
…more or less than once per orbit.
Ball4 continues to troll the thread.
Correcting the endless repeated physics errors is a tireless task.
True…thankfully I am up to the task.
No, Tesla proved DREMT is wrong since the moon’s actual rotation is once per orbit on its own axis in the inertial frame, like his ball M on the wheel assembly.
Tesla’s “fixt” ball M can only be considered to be rotating on its own axis if you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right” from the gif I linked to above. Tesla, like the rest of the “Non-Spinners”, defined “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the left”.
Tesla’s editor, like the rest of the “Non-Spinners”, defined “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the left”. Tesla’s own ball M momentum analysis showed the moon on left is rotating on its own axis once per orbit inertially.
You are not listening. The “moon on the left” can only be considered to be rotating on its own axis if you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right” from the gif I linked to above. Tesla, like the rest of the “Non-Spinners”, defined “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the left”.
Lol, Tesla made no such definition or show a link to the Tesla quote. Tesla proved the moon on the left is rotating about its own axis once per orbit inertially with his ball M momentum analysis.
You are not listening. The “moon on the left” can only be considered to be rotating on its own axis if you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right” from the gif I linked to above.
Listen to honest Abe telling you: “How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
‘Historic’ snowstorm to pummel Wyoming, Colorado
AccuWeather forecasters say that Cheyenne, Wyoming, will be in the storm’s bull’s-eye and could potentially pick up the biggest snowstorm in the city’s recorded history. The city was already about a third of the way to the record Saturday evening, with the heaviest snowfall yet to come.
I feel really stupid as I don’t understand (or care) if the moon is rotating on its axis.
I feel I should understand how it relates to the global climate but cannot see the implications.
Can we not move that discussion to a more appropriate forum and concentrate on trying to work out what really does cause the changes in the Earths climate?
Mark, the “Spinners” reject reality, preferring astrology. It’s the same pattern with the climate discussion. The Warmers opt for “belief” over science.
That’s the importance of the Moon discussion. It’s easy to understand, without many layers of physics and thermodynamics involved. The ball-on-a-string is an easy analogy, that most people can understand. Yet, the “Spinners” try to claim the ball is rotating about its axis!
Mark Wapples
I understand what you mean.
The discussion you refer to, though clearly centered around the Moon, nonetheless has more to do with fair contradiction of science vs. discrediting it and denigrating those who made it.
How the latter looks like you see in many comments.
Btw: Why not complain about posts that are only political? What do THESE have to do here?
J.-P. D.
The moon does rotate about its axis. This is easily considered if you stood on the pole star and looked down you would see the moon rotate around its axis once per orbit.
The argument is not framed correctly.
I would suggest the correct way to state the problem is that the moon has no rotational energy. It lost its rotational energy due to tidal friction and is now tidally locked to the earth.
One day too the earth will have lost its rotational energy, a process that I fear will be accelerated by increasing tidal friction with tidal power generators.
Ken
You are nearly correct.
The Moon still has some remaining rotational energy, enough to spin with a speed of 4.62 m/sec at its equator.
*
” One day too the earth will have lost its rotational energy… ”
Indeed; but this process is shown by Pluto and Charon, but will, for Earth, take so much time that long time before, the Sun will have expanded up to reach us: Earth’s rotation slowdown is about 2 ms/century.
” … increasing tidal friction with tidal power generators. ”
Wow! Do you really think them reaching the friction level of the oceans scrubbing over 360 Mkm^2 crust?
J.-P. D.
No I don’t think tidal generators will be as significant a contributor to tidal friction as oceans. They will however add to the natural slowing … so far about 3 hours per day since the dawn of time. Tidal power is therefore not ‘renewable’ energy; there is no way to restore rotational energy to the earth.
“This is easily considered if you stood on the pole star and looked down you would see the moon rotate around its axis once per orbit.”
You would see the moon rotating around the Earth/moon barycenter, and not about its own center of mass.
…because you are in the accelerated frame. Account for that observation position and find in the inertial frame the moon rotates once on its own axis as proven by Tesla’s ball M analysis.
No, I am not in the accelerated frame. This is standing on the pole star, looking down at the Earth/moon system from above. Pay attention to context before you continue to troll the thread.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis in the accelerated frame as proven by his ball M analysis.
DREMT
Can you consider it is possible that Tesla was wrong and the NASA engineers who find landing locations based upon the Moon’s axial rotation rate are correct?
Can you do the two Quarters and move one around the other and keep the orbiting one facing the central one. Try to keep the same face pointed to the center without rotating the orbiting quarter. It is not a hard test to perform. You will see you have to rotated the orbiting quarter to keep it facing the central quarter. There is no debate when you actually do it. You will find Tesla was wrong, the NASA engineers are right (and they better be for the lunar module to correctly meet up with the command module that is orbiting).
Maybe you did not see the links I found for ClintR (a waste of time for this poster, give in to his requests and it means nothing, it almost makes him dumber).
https://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html#LO
and
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/nasa_tn_d_2795.pdf
Both point out that the Moon’s axial rotation must be considered in lunar missions. Read them and see what they claim, this is real world information that must be right to be successful.
Pay attention to context before you continue to troll the thread, Ken is correctly on the pole star, you are in the accelerated frame with your observation DREMT.
“You will find Tesla was wrong..”
Tesla was right Norman. You haven’t yet read Tesla’s ball M momentum analysis which proves Tesla knew the moon rotated on its own axis once per orbit inertially.
Tesla observes the moon rotation from the accelerated frame as Tesla writes ball M is not rotating wrt to the rotating spokes because it is welded to the accelerated frame spokes.
Norman, you are just repeating the same mistakes that we have discussed many times before. The quarters are not a valid analogy for orbital motion. Try a ball on a string. The ball rotates about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, and it moves along its orbital path keeping the same face always oriented towards the center of revolution.
The NASA engineers would be able to find the landing locations correctly either way, Norman. Nobody is arguing that the moon moves any differently than how it is observed to move. What needs to be considered is that the moon changes its orientation whilst it moves. That the “Spinners” confuse this change in orientation for axial rotation, whilst the “Non-Spinners” do not, ultimately doesn’t change anything about the need to account for the change in orientation.
Norman needs to understand the ball-on-a-string debunks his false beliefs. So does lunar libration, but that’s harder for him to understand.
Yes, what needs to be considered is that the moon changes its orientation whilst it moves, rotating once on its own axis per orbit inertially. Just like an orbiting ball on string since the string doesn’t wrap.
DREMT
I think you are not understanding the lunar missions. The Command module orbits the Moon while the lunar module is on the surface. The orbital motion or change in orientation would NOT change the relation between command module in orbit and lunar module. They both will move with the Moon in orbit. However the real axial rotation of the Moon will affect the relative positions of these two objects. The moon’s surface rotating moves the lunar lander away from the command module orbit so they must correct for the lunar rotation to make sure they will meet when it is time for the lunar module to return.
It is explained in this NASA link. The lunar module is moving with the Moon’s rotation. The command module must adjust its orbit for this rotation. It has NOTHING at all to do with the Moon’s orbit. Both objects move the same with the orbital path.
https://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html#LO
It seems you are ignoring this link or not looking at it. They show Moon axial rotation in the graphic with explanation.
“During the lunar surface stay, the landing site continues to rotate out-of-plane of the CSM to position 3. An orbital plane change maneuver was carried out by the CSM using the SPS, prior the the LM ascent from the lunar surface. This puts the CSM in a new orbit plane which will pass over the landing site at the nominal lunar launch time.”
This has NOTHING to do with orbital motion which will not change the relative positions of Command Module and Lunar Module. They change the orbit of the command module so it will align with the lunar module when it takes off.
The ball on the string only explains orbital motion. It does not work beyond that to explain the motions of body. It is a limited analogy and should be understood in this context. It has no explanatory power to describe rotational motion so it fails beyond orbital mechanics. You accept the Earth rotates and is in orbit around the Sun. The ball on string analogy can explain the Earth’s orbit around the Sun but fails at describing the Earth’s obvious rotation.
Norman, we are talking past each other. We do not each define “orbital motion without axial rotation” in the same way so there is only ever going to be confusion until that is resolved.
Norman stumbles onto some reality: “The ball on the string only explains orbital motion.”
More exactly, a ball-on-a-string models pure orbital motion, i.e., orbiting without axial rotation.
It’s the same motion as Moon.
Now Norman gets to argue with himself.
DREMT
So we don’t talk past each other.
Here: Axial rotation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
This is what I mean by axial rotation of the Moon (the little graphic, the Moon completes one rotation in around 27 days). It spins on its axis. This is what the NASA engineers also state clearly without doubt and also use it for lunar missions.
Orbital Rotation: here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
The Moon also has this motion around the Earth. It travels around the Earth in a generally circular path and it spins once on its axis as it makes a complete orbit around the Earth.
We are still going to be talking past each other, Norman. You define "orbital motion without axial rotation" as being movement like the "moon on the right". I define "orbital motion without axial rotation" as being movement like the "moon on the left".
That is the problem.
Norman, you can’t learn. You link to something but that does not mean you understand it.
The ball-on-a-string is the model for pure orbital motion. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis. It doesn’t matter if you find some “frame of reference” to believe the ball is rotating. It doesn’t matter. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis. If it were, the string would wrap about it. You deny reality
Denying reality is what makes you an idiot.
DREMT
Not sure why you choose to define it such. As I stated earlier, if you just look at the center of the Moon on the left (ignore the orbital motion and focus on the axis of the left Moon) you will see the white bands rotating around the center axis of the Moon. This is axial rotation by definition. On the Right moon the white areas do not rotate at all about the moon axis. They remain as they are.
Maybe if they had the word spin across each Moon you would then see what I am saying.
Anyway NASA engineers most certainly believe as the rest of the science world does, the Moon slowly rotates on its axis as it orbits the Earth. NASA engineers used this knowledge to successfully land on the Moon’s surface and return the lunar module to the command module to the trip back to Earth. The orbital motion comes into play with the trip from Earth to Moon and back, the change in orbital position is important then. None of this matters to the command module and lunar module on the moon.
I can see it your way Norman…unbelievably easily. You cannot see it my way, and you don’t even try.
A probably accurate representation of Tesla’s thinking is all orbiting objects in the universe have an angular momentum that is inherent in the objects that can only be removed or augmented by external forces.
Thus the very foundational belief of the spinners is that of an object that does not exist, one running a beeline through space with zero rotation and zero angular momentum. It is an unsupported assumption that discrete astronomical objects inherently lack orbital angular momentum.
So the spinners start out deceived by the vantage point of outer space they have chosen and their inability to visualize that rotation still exists. Deceived by their senses and compelled by their egos, and devout to their Gods they come into forums like this to preach their anti-scientific viewpoints.
Thus Tesla theorized that the moon would depart in the same way it might arrive from outerspace (e.g. not spinning on its own axis for the malinformed). . . .except that in the case of the moon it may not have arrived from outerspace but instead was broken off from earth in an collision event that imparted a spin on the moon that the energy of was gradually was absorbed by the radius of the orbit via gravitational friction.
Or at least that is my opinion and it does seem consistent with Tesla’s typical outside of the boxbroad-based thinking. Tesla was clearly highly resistant to the pathological ideological possession so often seen in sheep and followers. A quality that enabled him to invent and lead.
bill, read Tesla’s ball M momentum analysis closely, you seem capable. The work proves ball M rotates once on its own axis per orbit inertially similar to our moon.
Then Tesla explains that cannot be because ball M is welded to the spinning spokes so ball M cannot spin wrt the spokes. If you can understand that, Tesla proved his ball M rotates in the inertial frame once on its own axis but doesn’t rotate wrt to the spinning (accelerated frame) wheel spokes. This is accurate.
So when Tesla writes our moon does not spin he means wrt the accelerated frame attached to it which is accurate. Tesla just doesn’t ever make that clear except in his wheel assembly analysis.
Tesla wrote a short section on one of the main reasons why people think the moon rotates on its own axis, then went on to debunk that.
First DREMT claims there isn’t any such proof now DREMT claims there is such proof in a “short section”. DREMT is just twisting in the wind again.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-635843
Ball4 says:
”First DREMT claims there isnt any such proof now DREMT claims there is such proof in a short section.”
Well this no doubt explains all your problems with science. Writing a short section on why people believe the moon rotates on its own axis is not proof that does. Clearly stating that’s your approach merely highlights how much of a non-analytical minion you are. Dr. Madhavi has the correct take on how to identify the correct axis as there isn’t any curvilinear translation without angular momentum. So the spinner argument essentially relies upon the absurd notion of non-linear linear translation and angular momentum around an internal axis. DREMT has been correct since day one that for there to be angular momentum on an internal axis the moon would be required to show all sides of it to the earth.
“Reason why people think the moon rotated on its own axis” does not equal “proof the moon rotates on its own axis”…and he went on to debunk it.
Writing a short section on why people believe the moon rotates on its own axis is actually an elegant proof that it does so, bill. It is so basic anyone as experienced as bill can verify that is the case. It shows for there to be angular momentum on an internal axis resulting in more or less than one rotation on that axis per orbit, then ball M, and our moon, would be required to show all sides of itself to the earth inhabitants.
DREMT, Tesla then went on to show the ball M (being welded to the spokes) did not rotate wrt to those rotating spokes, an accelerated frame.
All wrong, Ball4.
Ball4 says:
Writing a short section on why people believe the moon rotates on its own axis is actually an elegant proof that it does so, bill.
=============================
There is no proof the moon rotates on its own internal axis. There just happens to be some very intelligent and gifted people who believe it does but quite simply have not given the idea enough thought to come up with the correct answer.
There is a limit of the knowledge of everybody being an expert is no reason to believe anything they say without understanding the conundrum completely.
Thats why engineers must pass Dr. Madhavi’s class. If you don’t pay attention there and somebody asks you to build a model of the moon with motors driving its motions you will complete botch up the job.
You would have installed an axial drive motor to rotate the moon on its own axis. This will be a complete waste of money and even worse now you have created the need for an even larger motor to drive the orbital motion because the weight of the axial motor will require more energy to drive the orbital motion. Talking about a total snafu!
It is so basic anyone as experienced as bill can verify that is the case. It shows for there to be angular momentum on an internal axis resulting in more or less than one rotation on that axis per orbit, then ball M, and our moon, would be required to show all sides of itself to the earth inhabitants.
DREMT, Tesla then went on to show the ball M (being welded to the spokes) did not rotate wrt to those rotating spokes, an accelerated frame.
“Thats why engineers must pass Dr. Madhavis class.”
You guys keep quoting Madhavi, but Madhavi makes absolutely clear that an object moving like the Moon in an elliptical orbit, is not undergoing a Pure Rotation as repeatedly claimed by the TEAM.
It is doing a General Plane Motion, and as such it can ONLY be described as a combination of Translation (curvilinear) plus Rotation around its CM.
And that is exactly how Newton, astronomers, and aerospace engineers have described it.
Anyone who claims Madhavi is supporting the non-spinner POV is either confused or straight up lying (DREMT).
There is no proof the moon rotates on its own internal axis to bill because bill hasnt studied it. That answers why bill is so wrong on the subject.
bill really should go study Tesla’s conservation of momentum analytical proof our moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit.
Nate says:
”It is doing a General Plane Motion, and as such it can ONLY be described as a combination of Translation (curvilinear) plus Rotation around its CM.
And that is exactly how Newton, astronomers, and aerospace engineers have described it.
Anyone who claims Madhavi is supporting the non-spinner POV is either confused or straight up lying (DREMT).”
You are just confused Nate. Nobody cares about descriptions. The only thing that matters is the energy.
Tesla shows why you are confused.
I think its OK to describe the moons’ motion as a curvilinear translation as Madhavi’s description of such a motion in the case of the moon is a special subset of a curvilinear translation that meets all the criteria of a rotation.
A curvilinear translation must have angular momentum or it would just a linear translation.
When the curvilinear translation makes a complete ellipse it has all the needed angular momentum to carry the moon around the earth like the particles of a merry-go-round.
You would need additional angular momentum to rotate the moon on its axis to hold it in a steady position from the vantage point of space.
That additional angular momentum of perceived rotation from space is eventually subsumed through gravitational friction and is manifested by an increase in orbit (are we explaining why the universe is expanding? Should be a Nobel Prize waiting for the guy that calculates that).
Any prehistoric angular momentum that existed around the moon’s internal axis was absorbed by the earth moon orbit system via an increase in the radius of the lunar orbit thus increasing the orbital angular momentum.
Tesla imagined this from the vantage point of some poorly thought out and incorrectly assumed stable viewpoint of a constellation but instead from a dynamic vantage point of the COG of the universe where he fully perceived what was going on both theoretically and mathematically in the earth/moon system.
Where Tesla proves your take wrong is the angular momentum of this special case of curvilinear translation (rotation) that is known as an orbit necessarily contains all the angular momentum in that rotation around the earth’s COG. Given the masses and orbital radius that angular momentum is set in stone.
There is nothing left for an independent rotation around the moon’s internal axis and if there were such a rotation the moon would show all its sides to the earth.
This is an engineering problem. You guys would install a big motor on the moons axis to spin it. It would add to the mass of the system and it would require an energy source to spin it up.
It would be inefficient as the motor would add mass to the system/merry-go-round necessitating a larger motor to start the orbital motion.
The way you guys want to build it would get you fired. . . .thus the importance of actually understanding Madhavi and why she teaches such a course to engineering students should be eye opening. But you guys are so much rote memorizing followers you lack the skills necessary to be an engineer/inventor. Obviously not so for Tesla.
Tesla goes through the actual mathematics on the issue. The only reason why intelligent astronomers get it wrong is there is no practical implications of this in the current state of the science in astronomy.
But if mankind moves up from creating creatures to creating worlds there will be an engineering course on this to prevent you morons from trying to build worlds wrong.
All this is clear in Tesla’s work and Madhavi’s course but you folks continue to insist both of them support the idea of the moon rotating on its internal axis even though Tesla is explicit on the topic and understands Madhavi’s engineering course correctly and Madhavi is also explicit but restricts her talk to current engineering type problems.
Nate says:
”You guys keep quoting Madhavi, but Madhavi makes absolutely clear that an object moving like the Moon in an elliptical orbit, is not undergoing a Pure Rotation as repeatedly claimed by the TEAM.
It is doing a General Plane Motion, and as such it can ONLY be described as a combination of Translation (curvilinear) plus Rotation around its CM.”
OK if you choose to create that as argument you missed the key issue in that argument. You need to describe then what Madhavi was talking about external axes with examples of such. Madhavi has her engineering calculation correct and can prove it. . . .you can’t even describe it much less compute it.
B Hunter wrote:
You apparently completely fail to comprehend the concept of rotational inertia. Once the Moon has acquired some rotation, probably as the result of it’s collusion with the Earth some billions of years ago, that rotational inertia would tend to keep the Moon rotating. However, the tidal effects of the Earth on the Moon resulted in a reduction in the Moon’s rotation rate to the point that said rotation rate is a constant once an orbit.
The point is, there’s no need for some external torque (your Motor?) to keep the Moon spinning, angular momentum is all that’s required.
and you suggested that
When I had a job working on satellite attitude control systems decades ago, we took graduate level engineering university courses about dynamics. If we tried to use the “non-spinner” point of view, we would likely have been fired indeed.
To criticize the "Non-Spinner" position you first have to be able to understand it, Swanson. Your comments reveal you still do not.
E. Swanson says:
”Once the Moon has acquired some rotation, probably as the result of it’s collusion with the Earth some billions of years ago, that rotational inertia would tend to keep the Moon rotating. However, the tidal effects of the Earth on the Moon resulted in a reduction in the Moon’s rotation rate to the point that said rotation rate is a constant once an orbit.”
that argument doesn’t fly because all objects that are orbiting in the universe do not always have rotations in the same direction as orbital direction, thus some objects would have to stop rotating completely before it was forced by gravitational friction to begin rotating in the correct direction.
It appears Nate is stuck on trying to explain why Madhavi considers objects to be rotating on external axes. The one key argument if there were one that would provide the first challenge to the non-spinner argument by eliminating Madhavi. But it does appear though that Nate is just now being a Madhavi troll like he is a Roy troll and goodness gracious who knows who else he trolls.
B Hunter wrote:
Who said anything about the direction of rotation being fixed by orbital direction? Besides, just how do you know about the rotations of “all objects … in the universe“? And, there’s no way to know whether said rotations will end in tidally locking or that the rotational rates have reached some final fixed state.
I shall try to find Nate’s comments about Madhavi’s stuff in all the fluff below. Maybe you would be so kind as to point me toward Madhavi’s work? I have yet to catch a reference that I could peruse.
Madhavi has it correct E. Swanson, the ref. is here, DREMT, bill et. al. do not understand her Fig. 2:
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Fig. 2(b) shows an object (a rectangle) that is rotating about point O, and not about its own center of mass. Regardless of reference frame.
See.
We all see that you are a troll, Ball4.
E. Swanson says: ”You apparently completely fail to comprehend the concept of rotational inertia. Once the Moon has acquired some rotation, probably as the result of its collusion with the Earth some billions of years ago, that rotational inertia would tend to keep the Moon rotating.”
Strawman! If you had clue one of what I have been saying you would note that I have said if the string breaks the ball will keep spinning from that inertia.
However, in this world of ubiquitous gravity the string can never break. And that is where Tesla was coming from. Gravity is akin to the most rigid of systems, completely unavoidable and it doesn’t matter where in the universe you go to try to hide from it.
Ball4, Thanks for the link to Madhavi’s class notes which appear to be missing some equations.
B Hunter, I agree that the Moon’s motion appears as “curvilinear translation plus rotation” as in, the orbital motion of the center of gravity plus the rotation of the Moon about an axis thru the CG. I also agree that this motion can appear like Madhavi’s single rotation about an external point, at least instantaneously, especially when pictured as the 2D motion in a plane with the Moon moving in a circular orbit.
Some (DRsEMT, etc) have claimed that the same may be said for the Moon’s co-orbit with the Earth, that is, the Moon always faces the barycenter between the two. If so, I would like to see some supporting reference(s), but, for sake of argument, does this mean that the Moon does not rotate around an internal axis? For the moment, consider that for the above point of view to be correct, the Moon’s motion must be a rotation fixed at the barycenter about an axis which is perpendicular to the Moon’s orbit plane, which is thus a vector fixed in space. But, the Moon’s orbit exhibits nodal precession over a period of 18.6 years, thus the rotational axis so defined must change, pointing toward a different place in the celestial sphere for the simple 2D model to apply.
Unfortunately for the “non-spinners”, this does not happen, as it’s well known that the Moon’s rotational axis precesses around a small cone of 1.54 degrees while the Moon’s orbital plane changes by plus or minus 5.14 degrees relative to the ecliptic. Thus, the 3D point of view falsifies the “non-spinners” 2D point of view, as the Moon’s rotational inertial precludes the change in axis orientation which their simple 2D model requires.
The Moon rotates once an orbit.
Swanson carefully constructs, and successfully knocks down, another straw man. This time, apparently the “Non-Spinners” have a 2D point of view! At least he appears to “get” that a rotation can be a single motion around an external point…so he should understand that a ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, regardless of reference frame. That could be considered enough progress for one day.
DRsEMT, The ball-on-a-string isn’t a “free body”, it’s connected to the string. Duh!
Please explain how the Moon can present the same identical face (not illumination libations) to the barycenter thru out the 18.6 year precession cycle. To do that, you will need to provide a mathematical, 6 degree of freedom, model calculation. I expect that you will need to include a rotating Moon to accomplish said task. I can practically guarantee that you can’t do it.
The moon moves as it does, nobody is arguing otherwise.
E. Swanson says:
B Hunter, I agree that the Moons motion appears as curvilinear translation plus rotation as in, the orbital motion of the center of gravity plus the rotation of the Moon about an axis thru the CG. I also agree that this motion can appear like Madhavis single rotation about an external point, at least instantaneously, especially when pictured as the 2D motion in a plane with the Moon moving in a circular orbit.
===============================
Swanson first thanks for the reasoned response. I think indeed it appears to rotate around the earth’s COG, in fact I think that was the one thing that was preserved when the Ptolemy theory was thrown on the trash heap. Pretty well established in science that does don’t you think?
From the KISS principle you then have to consider Tesla’s argument. One can you have an object rotating around another without angular velocity and momentum? Answer seems to be no.
But for some odd reason you want to attribute an angular velocity and much of the momentum to it rotating on its own axis depriving the orbit of its due amount.
And all for what? To ensure long dead famous scientists have never ever been known to utter ignorance? Since thats the only realistic argument thats been advanced I would say its an affliction of hero worship, can do no wrong that you carry with you like a little bag. Obviously reasoned thought isn’t part of the formula. When confronted you just look in your little bag and pull out a quotation. Doesn’t matter if its logical or illogical. All that matters is who says it.
I have also examined carefully Tesla’s suggestion that the moon would respond differently than a ball on a string that was released should it leave earth’s orbit, which it won’t unless disturbed.
I get where he is coming from of the ubiquity of gravity in the universe and that all objects carry an angular momentum of an impressive amount but that momentum is a tendency to orbit other stuff where ever it is. It not just spinning looking for a place to orbit, though many objects through long ago traumas are spinning independent of that gravitational derived angular momentum.
I think the point is well stated when it is stated that gravity does not directly apply torque to anything thus the orbit does not require an addition of torque to that which is inherent in the system. So it seems perfectly reasonable and in compliance with Dr. Madhavi’s external axis rotation and cautions about confusing it with curvilinear translation. If you do that anywhere in engineering you risk the failure of your project.
——————–
——————–
——————–
——————–
E. Swanson says:
Some (DRsEMT, etc) have claimed that the same may be said for the Moons co-orbit with the Earth, that is, the Moon always faces the barycenter between the two. If so, I would like to see some supporting reference(s), but, for sake of argument, does this mean that the Moon does not rotate around an internal axis? For the moment, consider that for the above point of view to be correct, the Moons motion must be a rotation fixed at the barycenter about an axis which is perpendicular to the Moons orbit plane, which is thus a vector fixed in space.
———————–
One should be careful with using barycenter. Its a mythical statistically derived concept of the mean COG of a system. But itself its not real.
———————–
———————–
———————–
———————–
E. Swanson says:
But, the Moons orbit exhibits nodal precession over a period of 18.6 years, thus the rotational axis so defined must change, pointing toward a different place in the celestial sphere for the simple 2D model to apply.
Unfortunately for the non-spinners, this does not happen, as its well known that the Moons rotational axis precesses around a small cone of 1.54 degrees while the Moons orbital plane changes by plus or minus 5.14 degrees relative to the ecliptic. Thus, the 3D point of view falsifies the non-spinners 2D point of view, as the Moons rotational inertial precludes the change in axis orientation which their simple 2D model requires.
———————
Nope its just your imagined problem because you haven’t given it enough thought.
I have pointed out that for earth’s 366 sidereal rotations. 1 causes the seasons and 365 cause the days. They don’t intermingle on that they are completely unique rotations.
I think there is a reasonable explanation for the nodal precession. The tilt of 1.54 degrees is related to the massive gravitational influence of both the earth and the sun which are not always in line with the moon on the ecliptic because of the moon’s tilted orbit. If the three bodies were always directly in line I don’t think there would be any tilt. The moon’s axial precession is the same period as it nodal precession. But the earth with an spin on its own COG has an axial precession much different from its nodal precession. Earths nodal precession is 365 days and is related to the an equatorial bulge shifting the suns pull on the earth. Therefore I think the axial precession argument regarding the moon is a non-starter.
Somebody could certainly provide proof that isn’t true but I think absent that it serves to hold off your argument.
In terms of energy, Earth is spinning and going in direction of it’s orbit of the Sun. Moon is going in a direction of orbit around Earth and the the Sun and has no spin energy.
Though more correct to say both Moon and Earth going around the sun’s barycenter, and both Moon and Earth are going around the Earth {and Moon} barycenter, and the Earth is spinning and Moon is not.
Both Earth and Moon has axis {where it’s facing or pointing at} relative to the Sun’s orbital plane {in which Earth’s orbital path is regarded a zero {zero inclination} and perpendicular to it, Moon is about 1.5 degrees and Earth is spinning around about 23.5 degrees and the Moon travels in it’s orbit about 5 degrees around Earth and the Sun’s {or Solar system} orbital plane. The Earth spin wobbles over time, The Moon is not spinning nor has it a wobble of it’s non existent spin.
Moon is going in a direction of orbit around Earth and the Sun and has both orbital energy and rotational energy on moon’s own axis as observed from the inertial frame as shown here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Please do keep linking to that comment, as it proves you wrong.
It proves ftop_t got the demo. right, the orbiting object rotates once on its own axis per orbit of the center inertially with a day/night cycle in the sun.
It proves you wrong, as discussed up-thread.
Correct, gbaikie.
Oh, it is thought by many that Earth’s spin would wooble more if not for the Moon orbiting it. And Mars spin, apparently, woobles a lot.
Ken said: I would suggest the correct way to state the problem is that the moon has no rotational energy.
The Moon’s angular momentum in the reference frame fixed to the distant stars (inertial) is 2.36e29 kg.m^2/s. This is calculated from its 2.66e-6 rad/s angular velocity, 7.35e22 kg of mass, and 1738 km radius.
In any inertial reference the Moon definitely has rotational energy.
What you won’t be able to understand, bdgwx, is that in making the calculation as you are to conclude that the moon has rotational energy about its own axis, you are automatically defining “orbital motion without axial rotation” to be as per the “moon on the right” in the gif I linked to further up-thread.
You bring up a good point, DREMT. The correct model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is a ball-on-a-string. What is “Spinner’s” model? They don’t have one that would not violate the laws of physics.
bdgwx is correctly using what is observed in ftop_t demo., the object has two rotational energies and a day/night cycle in the sun:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
The “Spinners” model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is the “moon on the right” in this gif. In other words, it is not a rotation:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
DREMT,
No. The 2.36e29 kg.m^2/s figure is for the Moon on the left in that GIF. The Moon on the right has an angular velocity of 0 rad/s in the inertial frame which makes the angular momentum 0 kg.m^2/s. Remember the inertial reference frame using polar coordinates is radius r=0 fixed to the center of mass and angle a=0 fixed to a specific feature against the distant stars or CMB.
You have misunderstood, as always, bdgwx. Yes, you believe your calculation is for the “moon on the left”. I am not disputing that you think that. However, you believe that the “moon on the right” is “orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis”. Correct?
That’s correct, but irrelevant. Even if you disagree on that point the angular momentum for the Moon in the inertial reference frame with radius r=0 through the center of mass and angle a=0 fixed to distant point is still 2.36e29 kg.m^2/s.
bdgwx, you do NOT understand angular momentum.
It’s very relevant, bdgwx. The only way you can conclude that the moon has rotational energy about its own axis is if you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right”.
But, movement like the “moon on the right”, if you consider it to be one single motion like the “Spinners” do, is not a rotation about an external axis. It is not “orbital motion”.
I define rotational energy the same way everyone else does. It is E=0.5*I*w^2 where I is the moment of inertia and w is the angular velocity in an inertial reference frame. I=8.87e34 kg.m^2 and w=2.66e-6 rad/s. Therefore E = 3.14e23 joules in the inertial reference frame.
FWIW the Moon’s rotational energy in the reference frame with angle a=0 pointed towards the Earth is zero. But that is a non-inertial reference frame since the angle a=0 is itself rotating wrt to the distant stars or CMB.
Again, bdgwx, the only way you can conclude that the moon has rotational energy about its own axis is if you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right”.
But, movement like the “moon on the right”, if you consider it to be one single motion like the “Spinners” do, is not a rotation about an external axis. It is not “orbital motion”.
Again, listen to honest Abe telling DREMT: “How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ken is correct, bdgwx is incorrect.
Yes Clint R, Ken 10:38am is correct: “The moon does rotate about its axis.” in the inertial frame.
He is not correct about that…
Go then argue with Clint R writing: “Ken is correct.”
I’m fairly sure Clint R did not mean Ken was correct about that particular part of his comment. You may notice that Ken wrote some other things.
Ball4 is sooooooo desperate.
If I am incorrect then I’d like to know what I did wrong. Here is my work.
I’m using the inertial reference frame with r=0 through the center of mass of the Moon and angle a=0 fixed. The angle a=0 is always fixed to the same star constellation.
I measure the angular velocity by seeing how long it takes for the star constellation to return to the same point in the sky as observed on the Moon’s surface. Using the coordinate system defined above the angle a=0 pointed towards this star constellation points along the Moon’s surface will move along the same radius line with the angle changing. The rate of change of this angle is w=2.66e-6 rad/s because it takes 27.3 days for the Moon’s orientation to realign to this star constellation.
I then compute the Moon’s moment of inertia as I = 2/5*M*R^2 = 0.4 * 7.35e22 kg * (1.737e6 m)^2 = 8.87e34 kg.m^2.
I then compute the angular momentum as L = Iw = 8.87e34 kg.m^2 * 2.66e-6 /s = 2.35 kg.m^2/s.
If anyone sees a mistake please let me know.
The mistake is that this automatically assumes that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement as per the “moon on the right” in the gif I linked to earlier.
But, movement like the “moon on the right”, if you consider it to be one single motion like the “Spinners” do, is not a rotation about an external axis. It is not “orbital motion”.
L = Iω = I*(0) = 0
…in the accelerated frame as bdgwx explained.
But, movement like the “moon on the right”, if you consider it to be one single motion like the “Spinners” do, is not a rotation about an external axis. It is not “orbital motion”.
Yet moon on right is orbiting! Another gaffe by DREMT.
“Orbital motion” is defined as a rotation about an external axis. The movement of the “moon on the right”, if you consider it to consist of one single motion, is not a rotation about an external axis.
A dog’s tail can be called a leg but that does not make a tail a leg. Please refer to Tesla’s proof that you are wrong DREMT.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
…. in the accelerated frame.
No, Ball4. Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. Period.
the problem bdgwx is if you compute that angular momentum you will fool yourself into believing you still have energy to account for the orbital angular momentum.
It wouldn’t seem like a big mistake up until the time you actually have to engineer a device then you get fired for f’ing up the project.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis in the accelerated frame because his ball M is welded to the spinning spokes. Sorry you missed that DREMT but there it is.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. Period.
well Ball4 at least he wasn’t stupid enough to install the extra weight for a motor to spin it on its own axis. Thats not just the wrong answer it makes the project more expensive, and less efficient.
Its highly advisable to really pay attention to Dr. Madhavi and get it right or you will be looking for a different line of work.
Someone earlier in this thread correctly pointed out that the moon has a velocity that would cause it to travel in a straight line if not for the influence of the earth’s gravity. The moon is best thought of as a spaceship; the pointy end always facing forward.
The moon has no rotational energy.
The moon is however falling towards the earth giving it an orbital velocity. And, as viewed from the pole star, it is rotating about its axis. This is not because it has any rotational energy. If it had rotational energy we would see the backside of the moon in cycles even if there were but enough rotational energy imposing a low rotational velocity of 4.62 meters per second.
You are still mistaking the change in orientation the moon makes whilst it orbits for axial rotation.
DREMT, you may have accidentally misinterpreted Ken. He appears to be properly debunking Bindidon’s nonsense about the (bogus) 4.62 m/s rotation rate.
I am responding only to this sentence: “And, as viewed from the pole star, it is rotating about its axis.”
The non-spinners argue among themselves, ha. Fun to watch. Ken is correct: “The moon does rotate about its axis.”
We strive to get it right. Idiots strive to confuse the issues. Idiots have the easier job.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ken
Do you have a scientific proof that the Moon has no rotational energy?
Feel free to post a link right here.
J.-P. D.
The proof is simple, JD. To have rotational energy, Moon must be rotating about its axis. But Moon does not have angular speed about its axis.
Therefore, Moon has no rotational energy.
QED
Clint R
I didn’t ask you for your prepubescent ideas based on vague guessing and Contrarian literature.
I asked Ken for a link to an article.
Is that so difficult for you to understand?
J.-P. D.
I understand you don’t have any physics background, JD.
And, you reject reality. That makes you an idiot.
https://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Galileo.html
https://opentextbc.ca/openstaxcollegephysics/chapter/newtons-universal-law-of-gravitation/
“The moon is however falling towards the earth giving it an orbital velocity. And, as viewed from the pole star, it is rotating about its axis. ”
It would be like Geostationary satellite which always facing with same side Earth. And since GEO rotates every 24 hour and staying in same spot over Earth, then the stars around the north star, would go around the north star as they do as one views them from Earth’s north pole. Ie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st73OGc9y6Y
And since GEO has faster orbit, the Moon’s north pole would be like that but take about month rather than 24 hours.
GEO is like string attached to earth surface at the equator or space elevator going to GEO would travelling the same speed as GEO orbit {and traveling much slower than orbital speed in low earth orbit}, Or space elevator to hang from space must be long enough to reach GEO {or further- and further, allows one to lift the weight of space elevator. But one can leave the elevator at GEO and not need to add orbital velocity to stay in GEO}.
Ken said: The moon has no rotational energy.
I didn’t include the rotational energy in my comment above. Its rotational energy is 6.28e23 joules in an inertial reference frame. Same as above…this is calculated from its 2.66e-6 rad/s angular velocity, 7.35e22 kg of mass, and 1738 km radius. If someone wants to double check my figure that would be great.
Doh…I forgot to multiple by 1/2…make that 3.14e23 joules. I have got to be more careful.
Just multiplying numbers is NOT physics, bdgwx.
You don’t understand any of this.
What you won’t be able to understand, bdgwx, is that in making the calculation as you are to conclude that the moon has rotational energy about its own axis, you are automatically defining “orbital motion without axial rotation” to be as per the “moon on the right” in the gif I linked to further up-thread.
I’m using the inertial reference frame with radius r=0 through the center of mass of the Moon and angle a=0 fixed to a distant point.
…and you are missing the point I am making.
Your point is that the 3.14e23 joules of rotational energy I stated above is for the hypothetical Moon on the right in that GIF. Your point is patently false because the rotational energy for that hypothetical Moon is actually E = 0.5 * (0.4 * 7.35e22 * 1.737e6^2) * (0^2) = 0 joules. The 3.14e23 joules figure is for the Moon on the left. Again…I’m using the inertial reference frame here.
No, that is not my point. Are you genuinely confused about what my point is, or just lying? Who can tell.
“Again…I’m using the inertial reference frame here.”
And again, that makes you wrong.
DREMT,
Are you asking me if I define “orbit motional without axial rotation” as being like the Moon on the right? Other than the caveat that I’m not the one making the definition, but only accept it the answer is yes.
What I’m saying is that it doesn’t matter how I define that phrase because I explicitly state that E = 3.14e23 joules for the inertial frame and E = 0 joules for the non-inertial frame that tracks the Earth.
I will say that in lieu of not specifying your reference frame explicitly it is typically assumed to be inertial. That is why I thought your point is that E = 3.14e23 joules was for the Moon on the right because you define “axial rotation” wrt to the non-inertial frame. Right?
For about the seventh time, my point is:
The only way you can conclude that the moon has rotational energy about its own axis is if you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right”.
But, movement like the “moon on the right”, if you consider it to be one single motion like the “Spinners” do, is not a rotation about an external axis. It is not “orbital motion”.
bdgwx doesn’t understand physics. He doesn’t even understand the basics. He grabs formulas off the Internet, starts plugging in numbers, and believes he’s due a Nobel Prize!
Reality says different.
You cannot create energy by choosing a “frame of reference”. Moon only has one motion. That kinetic energy is represented by its instantaneous linear motion. So when bdgwx tries to calculate MORE energy by believing Moon has axial rotation, he’s creating energy from nowhere!
What an idiot!
You cannot create energy by choosing a “frame of reference” nor can you destroy it that way as do the non-spinners.
The "Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as movement like the "moon on the right" in the gif I linked to further up-thread. The "Non-Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as movement like the "moon on the left". The two motions are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the two groups transcends reference frames.
DREMT said: The only way you can conclude that the moon has rotational energy about its own axis is if you define orbital motion without axial rotation as movement like the moon on the right.
Ok, but that’s not how I concluded that the moon has rotational energy. I made the conclusion by performing a calculation in an inertial frame. And I made it clear without any room for an alternate interpretation that this was what I was doing. That’s all.
What I’m saying is that “axial rotation” can be defined in any frame you want. You are free to choose a non-inertial frame like what I did when I computed E = 0 joules by select the frame that is fixed toward the Earth. Or you can choose an inertial frame and compute E = 3.14e23 joules.
You define it using the non-inertial frame.
I, NASA, and everyone else defines it using the inertial frame.
Just understand that established tradition in the astronomical context is that “rotation” is assumed to be in the inertial frame unless otherwise specified. In other words, when I, NASA and everyone else says “the Moon rotates” or this-and-that astronomical body “rotates” it is always implied that this in reference to the inertial or sidereal frame…always. And it is an established fact that the Moon’s angular velocity, angular momentum, rotational energy in that frame is 2.66e-6 rad/s, 2.35e29 kg.m^2/s, and 3.14e23 joules respectively in that frame.
My friendly advice here is instead of saying “the Moon does not rotate” you should instead say “the Moon does not rotate in the non-inertial frame that points towards the Earth”. You won’t get any push back from me regarding that later statement.
bdgwx, the "Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as movement like the "moon on the right" in the gif I linked to further up-thread. The "Non-Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as movement like the "moon on the left". The two motions are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the two groups transcends reference frames.
Do you understand?
bdgwx, we’re going to have to classify you with Norman, Bindidon, and SGW. Your nonsensical babbling bafflegab is at their low level.
You have no clue about the physics involved, so you attempt to spew your nonsense intertwined with numerous references to “NASA and everyone else”.
Here’s some friendly advice: Face reality, and quit being an idiot.
DREMT said: The two motions are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the two groups transcends reference frames.
Right, but we all agree that the real motion is on the left…the same face of the Moon always points toward Earth.
You call that “orbital motion without axial rotation”. You make this claim by using the non-inertial frame pointed towards the Earth and compute w = 0 rad/s.
I, NASA, and everyone else calls that “orbital motion with axial rotation”. We make this claim by using the inertial frame pointed towards a specific feature against the distant stars or CMB and compute w = 2.66e-6 rad/s.
That means the disagreement is purely semantic and is rooted by the choice of reference frame.
Note that I’m not saying your definition is wrong. It’s not. There is nothing inherently wrong with using non-inertial frames. And besides it is just a definition. Definitions are neither right nor wrong…they’re just definitions. Just understand that in the context of astronomical bodies you choice of definition is non-standard.
“You make this claim by using the non-inertial frame…”
bdgwx, please stop putting words in my mouth. No I do not claim that the “moon on the left” is “orbital motion without axial rotation” because of anything to do with reference frames! The motion of the “moon on the left” is “orbital motion without axial rotation”!
That is what “pure orbital motion” looks like. It is the same motion as the ball on a string. The “moon on the left” is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass. Orbital motion is defined as being a rotation about an external axis.
The “moon on the right”, on the other hand, if you consider its motion to be one single movement, as do the “Spinners”, is not a rotation about an external axis.
The onerous is on you to rigorously define what “orbital motion with or without axial rotation” means. I propose any replies to this be down below since this is just a repeat of what already posted below.
“Orbital motion without axial rotation” means how an object moves that is “orbiting”, but not “rotating on its own axis”. Obviously. Each side of this argument visualizes it differently. The difference transcends reference frames.
I’ll take a conceptual swipe at it. The frame of reference is the entire universe.
1. Everything rotates around the COG of the universe.
2. It does so as one of the following, and individual celestial object or a group of celestial objects.
3. One could describe it if one could come up with a hierarchical list of groups of objects.
4. As a strawman you might have galaxies, solar systems, planet/moon systems.
5. On object captured by one of these groups and becomes a orbiter of the group gives up its own angular momentum to the group.
6. Due to the size of the universe this makes for a infinite variation on orbit periods and angular velocity of individual objects and groups.
7. Thus Tesla could imagine the moon leaving the planet earth’s orbit without a spin as it breaks its bond with its current group, however the moon would still almost certainly become an object orbiting a solar system less certainly orbiting a galaxy, and infinitely remote chance it would be only rotating around the COG the universe. In this model thus angular momentum is conserved but the ability of being able to measure its rotation might require an instrument of perfect precision.
This concept is fundamentally different that a ball and string as when the string breaks the ball will conserve its angular momentum but none would be allocated to rotating around something else as there is no second order string. Thus it would continue to rotate at the same rate it was rotating at the end of the string even though under the Madhavi engineering while attached to the string it is part of a larger system. But the ball on its string got its rotation when somebody started swinging the ball around on the end of the string so even for the ball on the string its not rotating on its own axis until released by the string. Therefore its a classic Madhavi rotation around an external axis until that rotational bond is broken. For celestial objects in the universe there is no release ever.
B Hunter wrote:
I think you are about to “get it”. The Moon is not connected to the Earth by a “string”, i.e., a solid connection. The Moon’s rotation is not linked to the rotation of the Earth, which rotates at a much faster rate. Whatever ancient processes may have occurred to start things, the Moon, as a “free body”, still rotates once an orbit.
"I think you are about to “get it”"
Everybody "gets" the "Spinner" perspective, Swanson. A child could understand it. What’s harder to understand, is the "Non-Spinner" perspective. Why don’t you try? Just open your mind. You’ll get there.
E. Swanson says:
”I think you are about to get it. The Moon is not connected to the Earth by a string, i.e., a solid connection. The Moons rotation is not linked to the rotation of the Earth, which rotates at a much faster rate. Whatever ancient processes may have occurred to start things, the Moon, as a free body, still rotates once an orbit.”
You are trying to elevate minor concepts to a level of control. The rigidity of Madhavi’s engineered parts are designed by engineers to just be strong enough to get the job done reliably.
The reliability of gravity to hold the moon in orbit isn’t going to be subject to the problems of engineered design, corrosion, fatigue, etc. It is in effect even more rigid and more permanent and more able to get the job done for eons and eons and has already proven that.
So as DREMT so aptly points out. ”Why dont you try? Just open your mind. Youll get there.”
Moon has ZERO rotational energy about its axis. It’s only kinetic energy is calculated from its linear speed and mass. Moon has ZERO angular velocity.
Which reference frame did you use to calculate angular velocity as 0 rad/s? Use polar coordinates and specific the location of the radius r=0 and the direction angle a=0 is pointed towards.
bdgwx, I don’t attempt to explain physics to idiots.
If you reject reality, you can’t learn.
bdg…”Which reference frame did you use to calculate angular velocity as 0 rad/s?”
You have not thought about this question a lot. The reference frame has nothing to do with the angular velocity around a local axis. It’s rotating or it’s not. If it’s not rotating about a local axis, it is not rotating in any reference frame.
You are allowing your conditioning to overrule your awareness of reality. You learned about reference frames somewhere and you have placed an inordinate importance on them.
We are dealing here with a physical reality, is the Moon rotating about a local axis or not? Reference frames are mental constructs imposed on a physical reality by humans. They do not exist in reality.
If the Moon has the same face facing the Earth throughout it’s orbit, it means it is not rotating about a local axis. That is true in any reference frame. The illusion of it rotating from another reference frame is not true rotation about a local axis, just an illusion due to a lack of awareness.
Denver is paralyzed by snowstorm.
Seriously?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I5RQyDbJ0NyVnDNDiND4hlPzTnbAJOJq/view
Hmmmh.
J.-P. D.
Witamy w Denver, CO!
https://www.earthcam.com/usa/colorado/denver/?cam=denver
ren
You are really incredible.
We had severe winters in Germany in 1956, 1963, 1979, 1986, some lasted until the end of March, and until the beginning of May there was ice everywhere where there was no sunshine.
No one would have ever complained about what your Earthcam shows right now, let alone would anybody have complained in Poland, where the winters very certainly were even a lot more severe in these years.
Colorado is not Florida, just like in Spain Salamanca on the Mesa isn’t like Marbella near the sea.
J.-P. D.
binny…”ren …You are really incredible”.
You are reading way too much into ren’s posts. He is trying to be informative and you are picking an argument with him.
Bindidon
Your comment are pathetic.
https://www.earthcam.com/usa/colorado/denver/?cam=denver
Sorry.
Your comments are pathetic.
ren, you have to understand Bindidon. His ship is sinking. He’s made a fool of himself here, and he has to place to go.
Isn’t this entire argument basically over semantics? It boils down to how you define rotation. A wheel turning around its axis is a clear case of rotation. Now think about a drill ship in the Gulf of Mexico. While the ship is at rest with a drilling mechanism extending from the drilling deck down to the sea floor, the ship can adjust its heading by pointing its bow into the winds and seas. This is done to keep the drill ship from drifting off the well site location, preventing damage to the drill pipe and well head on the sea floor below. The ship is indeed “rotating” while sitting still. Wind changes direction, and the ship captain will point the bow into the wind while the vessel speed is zero. The captain is “rotating” the ship to align with the wind shift.
After the drilling operation is over and the drill pipe is pulled up and loaded onto the ship’s lower deck, the ship can leave the site and head for another location. While the vessel is moving it can make a heading change to set it on course. Now, do you still call that a rotation? It is a matter of how you apply the word.
Let’s say if you are driving your car and make a right or left turn. In a certain sense you can say the car rotated 90 degrees to the right or left while making the turn. But is that the proper use of the word? I have no objection to using the word that way, but it is not how I would use it. If you are on an icy road driving straight, then all of sudden you lose traction and pull a “180,” causing the rear of the car to be in front while the vehicle is still going in the same direction. I would most certainly call that a 180 degree rotation. But if you have good road conditions and make a U-turn, you changed your course or heading by 180 degrees, but I would not call that a rotation. I call that a turn.
I suppose you can say that while the moon is revolving around the earth, it is making a perpetual left turn around the earth. It is all a matter of how you apply the word “rotation.” So, if you want to apply the word for a turning object, the moon is indeed “rotating.” To each his own.
Rob Mitchell
What is discussed here is whether or not the Moon orbits Earth AND additionally rotates about an interior axis.
J.-P. D.
"Isn’t this entire argument basically over semantics?"
No.
Rob Mitchell said: Isnt this entire argument basically over semantics? It boils down to how you define rotation.
I think so…yes.
In the context of astronomical bodies NASA and every other scientist accepts the established definition using an inertial reference frame. The “non-spinners” here use a non-inertial reference frame for their definition.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with the “non-spinner” definition. We use non-inertial reference frames in geoscience all of the time. Specifically we use the frame that is fixed to the surface of Earth because it makes many calculations easier. In fact, most global circulation models use this non-inertial frame.
The problem with the “non-spinner” definition is that in the context of astronomical bodies it is non-standard and goes against established history. That makes discussions on this topic rather confusing since everyone else is complying with the standard without fully understanding that the “non-spinners” are using a different definition. So yes…this is a purely semantic problem.
I will say that there is one advantage to using an inertial reference frame. That is Newton’s laws of motion apply as-is. In non-inertial frames you have to make adjustments usually by the invocation of fictitious forces.
Wrong, bdgwx. You have to remember that the axial rotation has to be separate from the orbital motion…and it is the orbital motion that the two groups define differently. Once again:
The "Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as movement like the "moon on the right" in the gif I linked to further up-thread. The "Non-Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as movement like the "moon on the left". The two motions are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the two groups transcends reference frames.
Do you understand?
I agree that those two motions are different regardless of reference frame. The crux of the matter isn’t that those motions are different . The crux of the matter is in how we label them.
spinner labels:
left – “orbital motion with axial rotation”
right – “orbital motion without axial rotation”
non-spinner labels:
left – “orbital motion without axial rotation”
right – “orbital motion with axial rotation”
The labels differ in how “axial rotation” itself is defined.
spinner
left – 2.66e-6 rad/s in the inertial frame
right – 0 rad/s in the inertial frame
non-spinner
left – 0 rad/s in the non-inertial frame fixed towards Earth
right – 2.66e-6 rad/s in the non-inertial frame fixed toward Earth
This is definitely a reference frame issue.
bdgwx, the difference is not in how “axial rotation” is defined…the difference is in how “orbital motion” is defined…and it transcends reference frames.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-635986
Stop trying to make it a “reference frame issue” when it is not one.
Nothing transcends a reference frame. All motions are relative to a reference frame. You have to pick one. It is not optional.
And if I’m not adequately representing your definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation” then now is the time for you to rigorously define it. Specify your reference frame and describe the motion that meets your definition. You must state explicitly where you are putting the radius r=0 point and where you are orienting the angle a=0 radial. This definition must be rigorous enough to compute the magnitude of this motion and to test to see if other astronomical bodies meet the definition or not using mathematical calculations.
The difference between the “Spinner” and the “Non-Spinner” positions transcends reference frames, as I have explained, bdgwx.
“Orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left” in the gif I linked to up-thread. It is a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the body itself. If you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the right”, and consider it to be one single movement, as do the “Spinners”, then that movement is not a rotation about an external axis.
bdgwx says:
”Nothing transcends a reference frame.”
Reference please!
b,
The speed of light in vacuum is the same for any inertial reference frame.
You wrote –
“Nothing transcends a reference frame. All motions are relative to a reference frame. You have to pick one. It is not optional.”
Your blanket assertion seems to negate the basis of scientific relativity.
Care to recast it?
Swenson said: Care to recast it?
No. I do not want to recast my statement. All motions occur in a reference frame. That includes the motion of light. To measure motion you must define a coordinate system or a reference frame.
Swenson said: The speed of light in vacuum is the same for any inertial reference frame.
Yep. Well said.
DREMT,
I can’t read your mind. Be specific. Where are you putting your radius r=0 point? How are you orienting your angle a=0 radial line? How do I calculate mathematically “orbital motion with or without axial rotation”? Can you provide an example calculation?
bdgwx, since you enjoy perverting reality, pervert and corrupt the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. Where are you putting your radius r=0 point? How are you orienting your angle a=0 radial line? How do I calculate mathematically “orbital motion with or without axial rotation”? Can you provide an example calculation?
bdgwx, you are seriously confused. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is either as per “the moon on the left” or as per “the moon on the right” in the below gif. It has nothing to do with reference frames, as you will understand when you look at the gif. The “Spinners” see it as per the “moon on the right”, the “Non-Spinners” as per the “moon on the left”.
“Orbital motion with axial rotation” cannot be described in just one gif, as there are multiple possible rates of axial rotation, and two different directions for it to occur in.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
ClintR,
The formula for angular velocity is…
w = dA/dT
For example if dA = 2pi rads and dT = 1 s then w = 2pi/1 = 6.28 rad/s.
To measure “rotational angular velocity” I put the radius r=0 point through the center of mass of the object and the angle a=0 radial line oriented towards a distant point. I measure the time it takes for the same point on the surface of the object to start and return to the a=0 radial line. I use the angular velocity formula above to get rad/s. I’ll use the symbol Wr for this value.
To measure the “orbital angular velocity” of the object I put the radius r=0 point through axis going through the position the object circles at the same distance and the angle a=0 radial line oriented towards a distant point. I measure the time it takes for the center of mass of the object to start and return to the a=0 radial line. I use the angular velocity formula above to get rad/s. I’ll use the symbol Wo for this value.
“orbital motion with axial rotation” is the case where abs(Wo) > 0 rad/s and abs(Wr) > 0 rad/s.
“orbital motion without axial rotation” is the case where abs(Wo) > 0 rad/s and abs(Wr) = 0 rad/s.
Note that my selection of Wo and Wr matches the established definitions accepted by participants in the context of astronomical bodies.
Think about what you are calculating when you calculate the orbital angular momentum, bdgwx. Are you calculating the angular momentum for “orbital motion without axial rotation” like the “moon on the right”? Or are you calculating the angular momentum for “orbital motion without axial rotation” like the “moon on the left”?
And that’s why you’re wrong, bdgwx.
If you put both your indicators on the ball, you would believe it is rotating about its axis. You would confuse axial rotation with orbiting, just as you do with Moon.
See, if your beliefs don’t match reality, you need to change your beliefs.
PS No amount of laborious keyboard-pounding will change reality. You should have learned that by now, if you were able to learn.
DREMT,
You say “there are multiple possible rates of axial rotation”. How many possible rates are there? How do we calculate them?
Miss the point if you wish, bdgwx.
DREMT said: Think about what you are calculating when you calculate the orbital angular momentum, bdgwx. Are you calculating the angular momentum for “orbital motion without axial rotation” like the “moon on the right”? Or are you calculating the angular momentum for “orbital motion without axial rotation” like the “moon on the left”?
I don’t know how to calculate “orbital motion with or without axial rotation” because you haven’t told me how to do it yet. But I’m pretty sure the answer is no since you define that phrase differently than me, NASA, and everyone else. I presented our definition above.
Answer the question, bdgwx. In your 8:41 AM comment, you discussed calculating orbital angular momentum. Once again, think about what you are calculating when you calculate the orbital angular momentum. Are you calculating the angular momentum for “orbital motion without axial rotation” like the “moon on the right”? Or are you calculating the angular momentum for “orbital motion without axial rotation” like the “moon on the left”?
Sorry, replace “angular momentum” with “angular velocity”. I just noticed in your comment you were discussing velocity and not momentum.
No worries on velocity vs momentum. One is easily converted to the other if the mass and shape of the body is known so it doesn’t really matter.
I am trying to answer the question as best I can. I said I’m pretty sure the answer is NO. This is partly because I don’t know how to calculate “orbital motion without axial rotation” using your definition because you haven’t told me how to do it yet and partly because we’ve already established that you use a different definition for this phrase than I do.
What I can tell you is that MY definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as I defined above which is Wo > 0 rad/s and Wr = 0 rad/s. And I gave the definitions for Wo and Wr above as well and the procedure and formula for calculating those values.
And this brings up another point. Your question implies that there is a single value for angular velocity for the phrase “orbital motional without axial rotation”. But MY definition requires two values for angular velocity. One is called “orbital angular velocity” and the other is “rotational angular velocity”. The former is calculated on the inertial frame that is fixed to body being orbited while the later is calculated on the inertial frame of the body in question.
Instead of teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs, how about you answer the question I am asking you. To give you a hint, it is not a “yes” or “no” question. It is a “left moon” or “right moon” question. Please respond with either “left moon” or “right moon”. Thank you.
Your question is…
DREMT said…Are you calculating the angular momentum for “orbital motion without axial rotation” like the “moon on the right”? Or are you calculating the angular momentum for “orbital motion without axial rotation” like the “moon on the left”?
I’m not calculating a single angular momentum/velocity for either the Moon on the left nor the Moon on the right.
I’m calculating two angular momentum/velocity values for both the Moon on the left and the Moon on the right.
MY definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation” requires two motions to be calculated independently of each other. Again…my definition is rigorously defined above.
So…I guess the best answer to your questions is…NEITHER.
BTW…I still don’t how to calculate the single angular momentum/velocity for YOUR definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation” because as of yet you still haven’t told me how to do it.
You are not getting this at all. First off, I am not talking about rotational angular velocity. Forget about that for the time being. I am just talking about orbital angular velocity. When you calculate the orbital angular velocity for anything, are you calculating it for motion like the “moon on the left”, or the “moon on the right”? These are simply representations of “pure orbital motion”. Orbital angular velocity applies to the part of the object’s motion that is “just orbiting”. The actual object you are studying might be rotating on its own axis at any particular rate, but like I said, forget about that for the time being. You are only thinking about the object’s orbital motion. Left, or right?
Your answer cannot be “neither”. It has to be one or the other.
DREMT said: When you calculate the orbital angular velocity for anything, are you calculating it for motion like the “moon on the left”, or the “moon on the right”?
Using my definition of “orbital angular velocity” both the Moon on the left and right have orbital angular velocity that can be calculated. They both happen to have the same value in this particular case as well.
So using MY definition the answer is…BOTH.
So you think the “moon on the right” has orbital angular velocity, but no rotational angular velocity. I will try to speed this up as you are not getting it, and as a result this is taking forever.
Angular velocity is a measure of how fast an object rotates. The “moon on the right”, if you consider it to be orbiting and not rotating on its own axis, as do the “Spinners”, is not rotating about an external axis. The motion it exhibits, if taken to be comprised of only one single movement, is not a rotation about an external axis. In fact, the “Spinners” would define it as curvilinear translation, in a circle.
Hence “angular velocity” does not apply. “Angular velocity” applies to a rotation, not a translation.
DREMT said: So you think the “moon on the right” has orbital angular velocity, but no rotational angular velocity.
That is correct per the definition of “orbital angular velocity” accepted by me, NASA, and everyone else in the context of astronomical bodies.
DREMT said: Angular velocity is a measure of how fast an object rotates.
Let’s be precise. Angular velocity is defined precisely as…
w = dA/dT
…where dA is the change in angle and dT is the change in time.
DREMT said: The “moon on the right”, if you consider it to be orbiting and not rotating on its own axis, as do the “Spinners”, is not rotating about an external axis. The motion it exhibits, if taken to be comprised of only one single movement, is not a rotation about an external axis.
I think we both define “own axis” to be the axis that goes through a body’s own center of mass.
Can you be precise about where you define a “external axis” to be?
DREMT said: In fact, the “Spinners” would define it as curvilinear translation, in a circle.
Agreed.
DREMT said: Hence “angular velocity” does not apply. “Angular velocity” applies to a rotation, not a translation.
Again…angular velocity is w = dA/dT. It applies anytime you use a reference frame to track the motion of an entity in which that entity returns to the same point from which it started after a period of time has elapsed. Consider the 2D Moon on the right in the gif. Select the reference frame with radius r=0 in the center of the black circle and angle a=0 radial line always point up. Track the motion of the center-most point within the Moon. As the Moon moves around the circle that center-most point will have continuously changing A values as T changes. The angular velocity for this motion is w = d(An – Ai)/d(Tn – Ti) where subscript ‘i’ represents the initial position and ‘n’ represents the next position. This works out to w = (2pi – 0)/(27.3*24*3600 – 0) = 2.66e-6 rad/s for both the Moon on the left and right. The selection of this reference frame is inertial and is what is being referred to when I, NASA, and everyone else says “orbital angular velocity”. Not only does it apply to the Moon on the right, but it applies to the Moon on the left as well and we can calculate it for both. It turns out that it is the same for both.
The external axis of rotation for the “moon on the left” is located in the center of the large white circle. The “moon on the left” is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. That is just a fact about rotation, that remains true regardless of reference frame.
The only way you can describe the “moon on the left” as “rotating on its own axis” is if you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” to be movement like the “moon on the right”. If you do so, and treat that movement as though it were comprised of only one single motion, you are describing the motion of a body that is “orbiting and not rotating on its own axis” as translating in a circle, as you have just agreed…but, that removes any connection the object has to the body it is orbiting.
By the way, from the “Non-Spinner” position, both the “moon on the left” and the “moon on the right” have the same orbital angular velocity. So you can stop attacking that straw man.
DREMT said: The external axis of rotation for the “moon on the left” is located in the center of the large white circle.
Gotcha. We are on the same page.
DREMT said: The “moon on the left” is rotating about an external axis
Agreed The reference frame is radius r=0 set at the center of Earth (or the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system anyway) and angle a=0 radial line is pointed at a specific feature against the distant stars or CMB. The angular velocity of the Moon is calculated as w = (2pi – 0)/(27.3*24*3600 – 0) = 2.66e-6 rad/s. Therefore the Moon is rotating in this frame.
DREMT said: and not about its own center of mass.
This is where our definitions force us to part ways. My definition of “rotate about its own center of mass” is defined as w > 0 rad/s in the inertial frame where radius r=0 is through the center of mass of the Moon and angle a=0 radial line is pointed towards a specific feature against the distant stars or CMB. The angular velocity of points on the Moon is calculated as w = (2pi – 0)/(27.3*24*3600 – 0) = 2.66e-6 rad/s. Therefore the Moon is rotating in this frame too.
DREMT said: you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” to be movement like the “moon on the right”.
That is correct. That is how I, NASA, and everyone else defines that phrase.
DREMT said: If you do so, and treat that movement as though it were comprised of only one single motion, you are describing the motion of a body that is “orbiting and not rotating on its own axis” as translating in a circle, as you have just agreed…but, that removes any connection the object has to the body it is orbiting.
The connection need not be removed. The Moon is obviously still gravitationally bound with the Earth. In fact, it is the gravitational interaction that caused the Moon to tidal lock with the Earth such that the Moon’s “orbital angular velocity” exactly matches its “rotational angular velocity”.
DREMT said: By the way, from the “Non-Spinner” position, both the “moon on the left” and the “moon on the right” have the same orbital angular velocity. So you can stop attacking that straw man.
Right. I don’t recall attacking that argument…yet. It all hinges on how YOU define “orbital angular velocity” and how YOU calculate it. Only YOU can provide that information. Once you provide it I’ll double check the calculation for both the Moon on the left and right and we’ll see if they have the same value.
The "moon on the left" is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. In other words, there is only one axis of rotation for "the moon on the left". This is just a fact about rotation, which remains true regardless of reference frame. I’m sorry bdgwx, but until that’s agreed, this discussion is going no further.
The only way you can describe the “moon on the left” as “rotating on its own axis” is if you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” to be movement like the “moon on the right”. If you do so, and treat that movement as though it were comprised of only one single motion, you are describing the motion of a body that is “orbiting and not rotating on its own axis” as translating in a circle, as you have just agreed…but, that removes any connection the object has to the body it is orbiting.
DREMT said: In other words, there is only one axis of rotation for “the moon on the left”. This is just a fact about rotation, which remains true regardless of reference frame.
That’s not true at all. I can put the radius r=0 axis through multiple points in the Earth-Moon, Saturn-Hyperion, or other solar system planet-moon systems. We can do our analysis with the r=0 axis through the planet or with the axis through the moon. There is quite literally more than one axis of rotation.
Take Saturn-Hyperion for example. It’s “orbital angular velocity”, which uses the inertial frame through Saturn’s COM, is 3.46e-6 rad/s (21 day period). It’s “rotational angular velocity”, which uses the inertial frame through its own COM, is 5.59e-6 rad/s (13 day period). And because 3.46e-6 does not equal 5.59e-6 observers on Saturn would see all faces of Hyperion. As such Hyperion is not tidally locked with Saturn…yet.
DREMT said: I’m sorry bdgwx, but until that’s agreed, this discussion is going no further.
It sounds like we’ve honed in on the disagreement. Don’t hold your breath waiting here though. I’m not going to agree that there can only be one axis of rotation because…ya know…there are at least two in which circular motions occur.
There is only one axis of rotation for the “moon on the left”. There are two axes of rotation for the “moon on the right”. Again, just a fact about rotation. I don’t expect you to understand, or agree, and I have no intention of discussing it with you for much longer.
rob mitchell…”I suppose you can say that while the moon is revolving around the earth, it is making a perpetual left turn around the earth.”
That is correct, the Moon in translating in a perpetual left turn, like a car on a highway. However, we are not concerned with whether the Moon is orbiting the Earth or not, we are concerned with whether it is rotating around an interior axis. Since it is translating with the same face toward the Earth it cannot possibly rotate about a local axis.
Dremt has claimed the Moon is orbiting the Earth as an external axis, which is fair enough. Orbit, revolve, rotate. It’s hard to distinguish either although I prefer to think of rotation as a body that is connected to an external axis via a rigid connection.
The mechanics of the lunar motion is that the Moon is always moving in an instantaneous, linear direction along a tangent line to the orbit while gravity is moving it into the orbital curve. The orbital motion is translation and it can be claimed the overall motion over an orbit is a rotation about an external axis.
Actually, I had better amend that or Dremt will be after me. The Moon and Earth are rotating around a barycentre, even though the barycentre is located within the Earth.
Not too clear on that, however. The Moon’s gravitational pull stretches the solid surface on one side of the Earth and lifts the water in the oceans. Not so sure the Moon can actually move the Earth off its path. One would think it would wobble, if that was the case.
Dremt???
Gordon moans:
The mechanics of the lunar motion is that the Moon is always moving in an instantaneous, linear direction along a tangent line to the orbit.
The motion you describe is NOT translation. Translating objects NEVER change their orientation. A line in a translating body NEVER changes its direction. What you are describing is rotation.
I have provided multiple reference sources that include lecture notes for advanced dynamics classes from prestigious universities, and they ALL disagree with your dumb idea of translation. You have yet to show me ONE reference source that agrees with you.
You were totally wrong about the moon phase issue, and you are totally wrong about the definition of translation.
Here is a simple video that even you can understand. Go to 0:23 and observe the description of translation. Notice the translating box always maintains its orientation by remaining upright. Then go to 1:23 where it talks about linear translation and curvilinear translation. For curvilinear translation, the box follows the curve but does not rotate at all. It does not change its orientation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CBBVGRpQLw
skeptic…”Then go to 1:23 where it talks about linear translation and curvilinear translation. For curvilinear translation, the box follows the curve but does not rotate at all. It does not change its orientation”.
The video is obviously wrong. You have far too much faith in what you read and lack the ability to think this through for yourself.
https://www.britannica.com/science/motion-mechanics
“Motion, in physics, change with time of the position or orientation of a body. Motion along a line or a curve is called translation. Motion that changes the orientation of a body is called rotation. In both cases all points in the body have the same velocity (directed speed) and the same acceleration (time rate of change of velocity). The most general kind of motion combines both translation and rotation”.
Note…”..motion along a line or curve is called translation”. That’s all there is to translation, none of the added hooey from your sources. It’s obvious that a body translating parallel to an axis must have every point on the body moving parallel at the same velocity.
If a rigid body moves along a curve under its own power, like the Moon, and it keeps the same face pointing to the instantaneous radial centre of the curve, it is translating and not rotating. The body is not changing its orientation around a local axis. If you view it from another perspective, it appears to be rotating about a local axis yet it is doing nothing more than following a curved path.
It’s equally obvious, that a translating body on a curve that is not rotating about a local axis has every point moving along concentric/parallel lines. They are also moving at the same velocity since the velocity of a rigid body on a curve is the radial velocity of its COG.
You just don’t get it that the speed of the outer and inner faces differ due to the constant velocity of the COG. You think they are independent entities like the particles you might find in Saturn’s rings.
From Gordon’s Britannica reference source:
Motion that changes the orientation of a body is called rotation.
Just like Gordon is totally confused about moon phases, Gordon is totally confused about the moon not changing its orientation. Gordon attempts to prove his point using a non-scientific reference source, Britannica, cherry picks a sentence, and then lies about the moon’s orientation not changing. Motion along a line can be translation, so Britannica got that wrong, but they were correct about rotation being a motion that changes the orientation of a body. Does Britannica say the moon translates? No.
The Britannica article was written by editors of unknown qualifications. Britannica is an encyclopedia. It is not a physics textbook. All the reference sources I posted regarding translation were either written by professors teaching mechanics or approved by them.
Now will Gordon agree with the following Britannica article regarding the moon’s rotation and moon phases? No.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Moon/Motions-of-the-Moon
Britannica agrees that the moon undergoes synchronous rotation.
That was really lame, Gordon. Find me a physics textbook, physics lecture notes, a kinematics textbook, or kinematic lecture notes that agrees with your stupid definition of translation.
From a University of Washington mechanical engineering course in kinematics and dynamics:
http://courses.washington.edu/engr100/me230/week6.pdf
Notice the example it gives regarding translation on page 6. It says:
Passengers on this amusement ride are subjected to curvilinear translation since the vehicle moves in a circular path but always remains upright
On page 14, the correct definition of translation is given:
Translation: Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion. When all points move along straight lines, the motion is called rectilinear translation. When the paths of motion are curved lines, the motion is called curvilinear translation.
Above the definition it shows a picture of a rigid body undergoing curvilinear translation. As the body moves along the curve, it remains upright, not changing its orientation, and the line segment in the body remains parallel to its original direction.
On page 16 it shows a mechanism undergoing 3 types of motion. The connecting rod undergoing curvilinear translation always remains parallel to its original direction.
Draw a line segment through the equator of the moon. Does that line segment remain parallel to its original direction? No. Therefore the moon is not translating.
SkepticGoneWild says:
”Just like Gordon is totally confused about moon phases, Gordon is totally confused about the moon not changing its orientation. Gordon attempts to prove his point using a non-scientific reference source, Britannica, cherry picks a sentence, and then lies about the moons orientation not changing.”
the moon is not changing its mean orientation in relationship to its rotational axis SGW. To do so it would have to have a spin on its center of mass axis.
I make it a point not to pick on those mentally challenged.
“I suppose you can say that while the moon is revolving around the earth, it is making a perpetual left turn around the earth.”
The frame of reference is wrong. Its not making any turn at all. You’re looking at the orbit from the orbital plane when you should be looking at the problem from a point perpendicular to the orbital plane.
Consider a vertical circle, like a ferris wheel. The moon has momentum and it is pulled down by earth gravity along the arc of the ferris wheel toward the center of the wheel. If it didn’t have momentum it would fall directly toward the earth. Since it does have momentum and there is no resistance to the movement of the moon through vacuum, the moon is doomed to perpetually fall around the earth. In the terms of up and down the moon doesn’t rotate; the man on the moon faces down all the time. Its rotating only as a result of the orbit of the moon at a rate of once per orbit. No rotational energy can be involved; its not making any turn at all.
ken…”The frame of reference is wrong. Its not making any turn at all. Youre looking at the orbit from the orbital plane when you should be looking at the problem from a point perpendicular to the orbital plane”.
If you look at the motion from above, and there was no gravity acting, the Moon would carry on in a straight line. Gravity is definitely turning the Moon away from that straight line momentum and bending its path into an orbit.
As you claimed, if the Moon lacked sufficient momentum, it would spiral down into the Earth. If it had too much momentum, it would break free and and fly off on a parabolic or hyperbolic curve. The fact that it has just the right momentum to offset the acceleration placed on it by Earth’s gravity produces a resultant elliptical orbit.
That is translation, pure and simple.
For persons open to the idea of lunar rotation about an interior axis:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10509-013-1556-5.pdf
This is an article dealing with spin-orbit coupling and the analogy between electromagnetism at the atomic level and gravitomagnetism at the celestial level.
Head author is Arbab I. Arbab. Arbab is professor at the University of Khartoum, Sudan.
He is experimental physicist, but one of his domains of interest outside his professional activity is the comparison of the ‘world-in-the-small’ with the ‘world-in-the-large’.
*
The article deduces spin and radius of satellite bodies out of the properties of their orbit around a central mass, e.g. the planets orbiting the Sun, and the bodies orbiting these planets. An extrapolation to exoplanets showed similar results.
On page 61, you see some numbers resulting from the authors’ theoretical considerations.
It is clear that for the authors (as well as for all authors working on spin-orbit coupling), every orbiting body must spin in order to keep stability.
J.-P. D.
Another day, another link JD can’t understand!
Binny,
You might like to re read the article. The authors speculate, and freely admit “The origin of spin of planets has not been known exactly.”, amongst other things.
As to stability, I see it only here – “Hence, planets during their evolution exchange L and S until they reach a final stability . . . “, which is somewhat different from your assertion of clarity.
The authors make a rather extravagant claim –
“Or equivalently, we relate the spin to the orbital angular momentum for the first time in history.”
Similar to Gavin Schmidt’s assertion about about CO2 being the Esrth’s temperature control knob?
Try some real science. If you must appeal to authority, use a real authority!
Swenson aka Amazed aka Flynn
As usual, seeking for little things disturbing you in an article, and a bit of arrogant prose: that is enough for you.
And you think you’ll impress me with that poor, superficial blah blah?
One of my former university professors explained me:
” Who is unable to contradict will soon start to discredit. ”
Try to contradict with as much real science as Arbab proposed, Swenson.
Until then, you’re just no more than inconsiderate and disrespectful.
Try harder, Swenson!
J.-P. D.
JD, we enjoy your failed attempts to support your nonsense by linking to sources you don’t understand.
This is just one more classic example. The “rotation” they are talking about is actually the orbital motion. You don’t know enough about Kepler’s Laws to be able to understand.
That’s why this is so much fun.
A major snowstorm in South Dakota.
Here, ren is correct:
https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/rapid-city/57701/weather-forecast/330685
J.-P. D.
DENVER WEATHER RADAR
https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/denver/80203/weather-radar/347810
What!! Surely not!!
Well, at least the alarmists have cunningly managed to avoid addressing supposed CO2 warming!
Well done, chaps!
You mean … the same way you have cunningly avoided addressing my response to this BS post of yours?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-632927
R,
Maybe you could quote me, and then justify any disagreement you might have. You have presumably linked to this piece of fatuous nonsense –
“On top of this cyclic radial variation is superimposed a general motion AWAY from the earth of about 4 cm/yr (compared to your ridiculous figure of 40 km per year).
How could you get the direction wrong AND be out by a factor of ONE MILLION?”
I didn’t say that the Moon was receding at all. You made it up. I didn’t get any “direction” wrong. You made that up, too!
Others can decide whether to believe your made-up rubbish, or Sir Isaac Newton (and my good self).
The Moon falls towards the Earth at around 1.27 mm (or 1/20th of an inch) per second. As I said.
Is your inability to comprehend English due to cultist fanaticism, or some other reason?
No, it ACCELERATES towards the earth at a rate of 1.27 mm per SQUARE second.
Other than what I have already mentioned, and the fact that the orbit is elliptical, there is NO radial component to velocity.
Anyone who confuses velocity and acceleration has NO understanding of basic physics.
R,
Square seconds? Really? Maybe you could actually quote what I said, and then complain about it.
In one second, the Moon falls towards Earth about 1.27 mm. If you don’t like it – tough.
As I didn’t mention velocity or acceleration, why do you mention them? Creating straw men in an attempt to not look as stupid as you do?
You have my permission to look as foolish as you like.
Carry on,
If you say the moon “falls”, AND you give a measurement in velocity units, then you are referring to radial VELOCITY.
There is NO other valid interpretation for the word “fall”, certainly not one involving acceleration. And there is NO net radial velocity directed inwards.
No, the moon does NOT fall towards the earth. It ACCELERATES towards the earth.
Clearly you need no one’s permission to look foolish.
R,
You can’t bring yourself to quote me, can you? I’ll quote NASA for you – “An object that is moving only because of the action of gravity is said to be free falling and its motion is described by Newton’s second law of motion.”
You want to complain about NASA’s phraseology, complain to NASA. I would.
Now, NASA expresses the distance an object falls in one second in terms of length. Who have thought? Obviously this is all beyond you.
Maybe you might accept Richard Feynman, who wrote ” . . .and if something which is 4000 miles from the center of the earth falls 16 feet in a second, something 240,000 miles, or 60 times as far away, should fall only 1/3600 of 16 feet, which also is roughly 1/20 of an in.”
Play with semantics. Wriggle and jiggle all you like. You might even care to look up the definition of velocity, if you wish, as others possibly will. Alarmists love ad-hoc redefinitions – cooling is heating, mathematicians are scientists and so on. If you want to redefine falling, go your hardest. The Moon is falling, though. Continuously. Each second, it falls another 1.27 millimeters or so.
You can quote me on that.
Tell me – using your definition of “fall”, is this distance that the object “falls” in one second equal to twice the distance it falls in half a second?
It is 10 times the distance it “falls” in 0.1s?
Is it one million times the distance it “falls” in 1 microsecond?
What is special about 1 second? Do you even understand the concept of instantaneous velocity?
R,
If you can’t be courteous enough to quote me, why should I bother with your asinine gotchas?
Because I am not as discourteous and oafish as you, I suppose.
It appears that I will have to quote myself – “In one second, the Moon falls towards Earth about 1.27 mm.”
What part of what I said do you not understand? Do you suffer from some form of mental defect, or are you just attempting (not very successfully) to be be an alarmist troll?
If you can’t find the answers to your gotchas, try learning some basic physics. Or basic English expression and comprehension, if you have the capability. The choice is yours.
No – you said “at a rate of about 1.27 mm/sec”.
You have changed your original claim.
In one microsecond, the moon moves away from its previous tangent by 1.4 fm.
That is a rate of 1.4 nm/s.
In one millisecond, the moon moves away from its previous tangent by 1.4 nm.
That is a rate of 1.4 micrometres/s.
In one second, the moon moves away from its previous tangent by 1.3 mm.
That is a rate of 1.3 mm/s.
In one minute, the moon moves away from its previous tangent by 4.9 m.
That is a rate of 8.2 cm/s.
In one hour, the moon moves away from its previous tangent by 17.6 km.
That is a rate of 4.9 m/s.
In one day, the moon moves away from its previous tangent by 10,100 km.
That is a rate of 120 m/s.
“So many different rates!! Which is the correct one? I know – I’ll choose one at random and assert with bluster that my rate is the only correct rate. … Now – time to get back to debating that Catholic and asserting with bluster that my religion is the only true religion.”
R,
Good array of strawmen. Look up the definition of rate.
Now look at what I said.
Now convince anyone apart from a fanatical climate cultist that you are not a stupid troll.
The Moon is falling towards Earth at a rate of about 1.27 mm/sec. You seem to be particularly obtuse.
Here is one definition rate –
“a measure, quantity, or frequency, typically one measured against another quantity or measure.”
A measure of distance against time. 1.27 mm per second. I understand how difficult this must be for you. I understand.
Carry on.
A measure of distance against time. 1.4 nanometres per second. I understand how difficult this must be for you. I understand.
swenson…”If you cant be courteous enough to quote me, why should I bother with your asinine gotchas?”
That’s all Rob is good for, watching for mistakes in what people say. Doesn’t attempt any science, just gotchas.
Gordon
So you don’t think that mistakes which indicate an utter misunderstanding of science should be pointed out to people who claim to understand science?
I mean – seriously – how poor must your understanding of celestial mechanics be to believe that the moon’s phases can possibly be caused by the the earth’s shadow. Once you make that claim then you have lost all credibility.
OK, Des.
Gordon’s explanation for moon phases being caused by the earth’s shadow:
Worked it out for myself using engineering physics.
Is this how you worked out your idea of curvilinear translation.??????
Gordon made a mistake with the moon’s phases. However, when Rob (Des) later asked him about that mistake, he obviously responded thinking Rob (Des) had asked him about something different. You can tell from his response to Rob (Des) that he was no longer talking about the phases of the moon. That is where your “worked it out for myself using engineering physics” comes from. The later response.
“You can tell from his response that he is no longer talking about the phases of the moon”
Yes – that’s what people do when they want to avoid their mistakes – change the subject.
He knew exactly what I was talking about. And he still refuses to admit that his explanation was idiotic.
I was just correcting SGW.
R,
I suppose you would not believe any of Sir Isaac Newton’s scientific discoveries because he believed in alchemy? Or because he was a radical religious heretic? According to Newton, the world will end in 2060!
However, his various Laws still remain useful, as does his work on optics and other things.
Cary on trying to avoid acknowledging you are a slightly dimwitted troll, by changing the subject when you are caught out in your stupidity.
Do you agree with the IPCC that it is not possible to forecast future climate states? No?
Why is that?
Ho, ho, ho!
No Swenson, YOU just changed the subject to avoid the fact you were wrong.
Let’s remind you where we were at:
.
.
.
ME:
In one microsecond, the moon moves away from its previous tangent by 1.4 fm.
That is a rate of 1.4 nm/s.
In one millisecond, the moon moves away from its previous tangent by 1.4 nm.
That is a rate of 1.4 micrometres/s.
In one second, the moon moves away from its previous tangent by 1.3 mm.
That is a rate of 1.3 mm/s.
In one minute, the moon moves away from its previous tangent by 4.9 m.
That is a rate of 8.2 cm/s.
In one hour, the moon moves away from its previous tangent by 17.6 km.
That is a rate of 4.9 m/s.
In one day, the moon moves away from its previous tangent by 10,100 km.
That is a rate of 120 m/s.
“So many different rates!! Which is the correct one? I know – I’ll choose one at random and assert with bluster that my rate is the only correct rate. … Now – time to get back to debating that Catholic and asserting with bluster that my religion is the only true religion.”
.
.
.
YOU: … Here is one definition rate –
“a measure, quantity, or frequency, typically one measured against another quantity or measure.”
A measure of distance against time. 1.27 mm per second. I understand how difficult this must be for you. I understand.
.
.
.
MR: A measure of distance against time. 1.4 nanometres per second. I understand how difficult this must be for you. I understand.
.
.
.
Whose assertion beats whose? Or is it possible that BOTH statements are wrong?
R,
If you believe the Moon falls towards the Earth at a rate of 1.4 nanometers per second, good for you!
Another triumph of faith over fact.
Keep the gotchas and diversions going. Maybe you will even convince people that climate is other than the average of weather!
Ho, ho, ho!
If you believe the Moon falls towards the Earth at a rate of 1.3 millimetres per second, good for you!
Another triumph of faith over fact.
The preceding diversionary attempt merely serves to reinforce what I posted earlier –
“Well, at least the alarmists have cunningly managed to avoid addressing supposed CO2 warming!
Well done, chaps!”
Very cold temperatures in the northeastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/8PNPLbw/Screenshot-2.png
Stratospheric intrusion in the Northeast. Tropopause altitude drops to about 6,000 m.
https://i.ibb.co/BGQHCyS/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f024.png
With such a low troposphere during the winter at mid to high latitudes, temperatures must be highly variable.
ren…what does it mean when clouds are aligned in long, thin rows like furrows in a plowed field?
Grodon, these are waves that form in the lower stratosphere when the winter stratospheric vortex weakens. These waves contain heavy air with lots of ozone (the molecular weight of ozone is 16×3=48, when O2=32 and N2=28), which sinks downward and pushes air masses below.
https://i.ibb.co/6HMYG0P/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f000.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
In areas where stratospheric intrusion occurs, the height of convection (tropopause) decreases.
ren…”these are waves that form in the lower stratosphere when the winter stratospheric vortex weakens.”
They definitely appear to be the product of some kind of wave action.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/opinion/columnists/18452197.chris-lloyd-crazy-cloud-formation-seen-skies-darlington/
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17611574.local-elections-2019-candidates-west-oxfordshire/
As I pointed out to Entropic, there is an illusion in these photos of parallel lines converging toward infinity. With my view of the clouds, the rows did not converge and they originated over a mountain range flowing from north to south.
Gordon, interestingly enough this does not necessarily increase the temperature at the pole, as you can see below.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2021.png
Like this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altocumulus_undulatus_cloud#.
From NOAA
” 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. “
binny…”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.
Oddly enough I was out walking when I noticed the cloud formation and I was breathing harder than usual. Normally I don’t breath hard during a walk. May have been my imagination due to having been housebound for a few days and my fitness level suffering. Hope it wasn’t due to ozone.
It did feel cold on the walk with a brisk wind blowing. By the time I returned, about 30 minutes later, the cloud formation had disappeared.
Like this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altocumulus_undulatus_cloud#.
Or this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackerel_sky
Neither…more like this, going north-south, beginning over a mountain range. In my view, the lines were perfectly straight. I have seen it twice now in recent times but don’t recall ever seeing it before in my life.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/opinion/columnists/18452197.chris-lloyd-crazy-cloud-formation-seen-skies-darlington/
here’s another. Note that there is an illusion here of parallel lines appearing to converge the further one is from the source. In my case, there is no convergence.
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17611574.local-elections-2019-candidates-west-oxfordshire/
bdg…”I, NASA, and everyone else calls that “orbital motion with axial rotation”. We make this claim by using the inertial frame pointed towards a specific feature against the distant stars or CMB and compute w = 2.66e-6 rad/s”.
It’s irrelevant what you, NASA, and everyone else calls it, rotation about a local axis requires an angular velocity about that axis. With the requirement that the same face of the Moon always point toward the Earth, there can be no angular velocity about a local axis.
What you are calling angular velocity about a local axis is an illusion, it is, in fact, a product of translation which gives the illusion that the Moon is rotating on a local axis.
I don’t know why you have so much trouble seeing that with a jetliner. If you had a taxi-way around the Equator, and the airliner taxied around the Equator it would have the same changes in orientation wrt the stars but it would not be rotating about a local axis. If it took off and flew at 35,000 feet. at constant velocity, it would be doing exactly the same thing, translating in an orbital path without rotation about its COG.
This has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with the fact that you, certain people at NASA, and most other people simply don’t understand basic physics. You are all incapable of analyzing the problem based on the actual physical parameter. You are indulging in thought experiments with insufficient data or understanding of the physical problem.
GR said: Its irrelevant what you, NASA, and everyone else calls it, rotation about a local axis requires an angular velocity about that axis.
The Moon’s angular velocity using the local axis with r=0 through the COM of the Moon itself and with the angle a=0 radial line pointed at a specific feature against the distant stars or CMB is 2.66e-6 rad/s. This is an inertial frame.
GR said: This has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with the fact that you, certain people at NASA, and most other people simply dont understand basic physics.
Uh uh…that’s it…everyone at NASA, JAXA, other reputable institutions taking measurements of celestial objects and predicting their motions and initiating missions to explore these objects, nearly every astronomer and pretty much the entire world sans a few posters on Dr. Spencer’s blog just simply don’t understand basic physics. Yet you and a small band of contrarians figured out something that somehow escaped the collective intelligence of the entire world. That’s totally plausible right?
b,
Why are you using distant stars? The Moon is orbiting the Earth, and shows one face to the Earth. As Newton pointed out, viewed from the distant stars, the Moon “appears” to rotate.
Appearances can be deceptive, particularly to the naive and gullible.
Just look at the poor saps who believe that a paper titled “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature” must be true! Peer reviewed and all!
Some people even believe the authors are scientists! Ho, ho, ho!
…viewed from the distant stars, such as the sun, the Moon rotates on its own axis experiencing day/night cycles.
Swenson said: Why are you using distant stars?
Because in the context celestial mechanics “rotation” is defined using the sidereal reference frame unless otherwise stated. The sidereal reference frame must be inertial meaning that the coordinate system must not be rotating wrt to the universe. The distant stars provide an adequate (though not perfect) reference to construct an inertial frame. A feature on the CMB would likely be a better choice but for obvious reasons that would be more difficult to work with. Imagine the Apollo astronauts trying to use the CMB for inertial guidance as opposed to easy to spot star constellations.
b,
More diverting bafflegab? A feature on the CMB?
Who cares? The Moon continuously falls towards the Earth. The closest point is on the side we always see. We are seeing the underneath of a falling body. Continuously.
Play with your stupid reference frames. Only one force acting on the Moon – gravity. Maybe you can create more, and create some energy out of nothing to go with it!
Just like silly alarmists trying to create hotter thermometers using the magic of CO2!
A good try at diversion. The non-existent GHE will not go away, though.
Keep on with your Lunatic nonsense.
Swenson said: A feature on the CMB?
Although the distant stars provide an adequate (though not perfect) inertial anchor the cosmic microwave background would likely be better. The reason is because the stars (at least the ones close enough to be seen) are still moving relative to each other. The perceived motion is miniscule from our vantage point in the solar system over time scales we typically care about. But they move nonetheless which provides an ever so slight bias. Since the CMB better represents the orientation of the universe it would likely be the closet anchor to a true inertial frame as we can get. I will say that the dipole anisotropy would have to be removed first so it wouldn’t exactly be the easiest anchor to work with.
b,
Oh, oh, oh! I’m impressed – not!
So sciency, so meaningless! You have created another piece of pseudoscientific jargon – the inertial anchor! Then you follow it up with nonsense about “CMB better represents the orientation of the universe it would likely be the closet anchor to a true inertial frame as we can get.”
From this, what do you think the orientaion of the universe actually is, with respect to the CMB?
Why would astronauts need to see constellations, if they were using an inertial guidance system?
Just depending on misreading random snippets from the internet is only likely to make you appear wise to those more naive or gullible than yourself.
Try learning, when you get sick of just making stuff up.
Swenson said: Why would astronauts need to see constellations, if they were using an inertial guidance system?
The inertial platform had to be realigned periodically. The Apollo astronauts did this by pointing an optical telescope at different stars.
b,
You wrote –
“Imagine the Apollo astronauts trying to use the CMB for inertial guidance as opposed to easy to spot star constellations.”
The astronauts used the inertial guidance system for inertial guidance. Are you as silly as you appear?
You are confused about the role of stellar objects (usually discrete stars) to check INS drift, as opposed to using them for celestial navigation purposes.
I feel sorry for your confusion. Don’t blame me for your ignorance.
If you are going to say that you really meant to say something different, you should have thought before pounding your keyboard.
Carry on.
Would you please link to Newton using “appears” in this context.
R,
Give me a reason.
To prove that you didn’t make it up – duh.
R,
Not a good reason. Why should I stir myself at the behest of a dimwitted alarmist? Do you imagine that I consider your opinions important?
Ho, ho ho!
“using the local axis with r=0 through the COM of the Moon itself and with the angle a=0 radial line pointed at a specific feature against the distant stars or CMB is 2.66e-6 rad/s. This is an inertial frame.”
Just a heads up, both ball4 and bobdroege have argued in the past that any reference frame with its origin centered on an accelerating object such as the moon, is not an inertial reference frame.
And I agree with them. But we have to be precise here. A reference frame with r=0 fixed to the center of mass of the Moon is translationally non-inertial because that frame is experiencing translational acceleration. But as long as you point the angle a=0 radial line to distant star or feature on the CMB then it is rotationally inertial because the orientation of that frame is not rotating wrt to the universe.
I explained that to bob. He said that “rotationally inertial” was made up gibberish. Although he was probably less polite.
bdgwx, with all your gobbledygook bafflegab, you remind me of a high-pressure used car salesman, who in reality can’t even drive!
Then you and I agree on that point while bob and I disagree.
I expect he will be along in a minute to pretend that you two are in agreement and somehow I am the only one wrong.
I have given up arguing on this site for the rest of Lent, but some of you bitches need to look some shit up.
Now you may continue arguing about what I said or meant.
Good choice Bob, when you are contributing anything time to move on.
You might want to parse that sentence again, Bill, it doesn’t say what you meant to say.
You no speak good English.
I have another proof the Moon rotates on its axis, but it will have to wait until he is risen, he is risen indeed.
Nope its just sometimes the fingers don’t do what the head is thinking and I seldom proof read.
Alright then, I have you down in my bracket for needing to look some shit up.
What!? Bob that’s not SOP for you? No wonder you are so inculcated.
Well it is March madness, and I am a little insane, and I have stopped arguing for Lent.
I see that all the non-spinners have also given something up for Lent, the looking of shit up.
We get it, bob…you disagree with bdgwx, a “Spinner”, on reference frames, but because you cannot ever admit that, you have to pretend that it is the “Non-Spinners” who need to “look shit up”.
Then tell me dear DREMTY,
Why haven’t you looked up inertial and non-inertial reference frames?
HMMM, you keep using them wrong.
Yes, you think bdgwx is wrong, we get it.
NO you don’t get it DREMPTY,
I have not offered and opinion on the use of translationally non-inertial and rotationally inertial reference frames on this blog.
If you can find me describing the use of those types of reference frames you may find out whether or not I disagree with bdgwx.
I might have said a rotating reference frame was non-inertial, and still is.
But I would like to point out that centering a reference frame on the cog of the Moon and aligned with the CMB would be a non static reference frame, and the use of such may give incorrect results.
I am not here to argue, but a reference frame should be either static or non-inertial.
But it is pretty hard to choose a static reference frame, because we don’t know of anything that is not moving. We don’t even know if the CMB is not moving.
Because we don’t know if the observable universe and the actual universe are moving relative to each other or not.
As the Moon turns, it still turns, and turns and turns.
I used the term “rotationally inertial” and you told me I was talking gibberish. You are so full of shit it’s unbelievable, bob.
That’s because it is, a rotational reference frame can’t be inertial. A reference frame that is rotating is not inertial.
Still haven’t looked it up, I see.
So, you disagree with bdgwx.
But you can’t admit that, because that would be baaaaaaaad for "the team".
"A reference frame that is rotating is not inertial."
He’s not saying that the reference frame is rotating. He’s saying that the reference frame is translating.
"…the orientation of that frame is not rotating wrt to the universe."
So it comes to this. I have to defend bdgwx. Meanwhile bob won’t challenge bdgwx, he will only challenge me.
You couldn’t make it up.
DREMPTY,
That’s right, I just want to argue with you because you are incorrectly using a reference frame centered on the cog of the Moon and calling it an inertial reference frame.
And now it looks like you don’t want to own that mistake.
You just want to try and argue that I and bdgwx disagree.
And just so we are clear, I agree with this statement totally.
“And I agree with them. But we have to be precise here. A reference frame with r=0 fixed to the center of mass of the Moon is translationally non-inertial because that frame is experiencing translational acceleration. But as long as you point the angle a=0 radial line to distant star or feature on the CMB then it is rotationally inertial because the orientation of that frame is not rotating wrt to the universe.”
I have no issue with what bdgwx stated there.
You only think there is disagreement, and I even said I never mentioned the stuff in that post from bdgwx.
You don’t even understand what we are talking about with respect to reference frames, one of the reasons I have suggested that you look them up.
"I have no issue with what bdgwx stated there."
Then we are in agreement, bob…and we always were (although back then you argued with me for days about it, and insisted that "rotationally inertial" was gibberish).
So you can shut your fat, opinionated little cake-hole.
It sounds like bob and I do agree.
He agrees with you now. He did not before.
bob’s expressed thoughts are like a soup sandwich. Sort of all over the place.
DREMTY,
Why don’t you actually quote what I said then, I think you are taking my words out of context, and it looks like I got under your skin and you are taken the insults up a level, still not where I have been, anyway, here goes.
The motion of any object can be broken down into the sum of three and only three motions.
Those motions being rectilinear translation, curvilinear translation, and rotation.
The requirements for both rectilinear and curvilinear translation are that any line segment in the body must remain parallel to the objects initial orientation as it translates. And all particles, or pieces, of the body must move with the same velocity. Velocity being both speed and direction.
An object that is rotating exhibits the behavior than all pieces or particles are not moving with the same velocity, such as a spinning top, where the pieces farthest from the axis of rotation move faster than pieces closer to the axis of rotation. And this is specific for an axis within the body that is rotating.
Now since the far side of the Moon is moving faster than the near side, it is therefore and whenceforth rotating on its own axis.
Now what part of that do you fail to understand?
All of it, because you have been arguing that the Moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis for months if not years.
You owe me fifty dollars for the science lesson.
Notice how when under pressure, bob completely and utterly changes the subject.
Here are your exact words, bob:
“I have described the requirements for an inertial reference frame, they are quite simple, but DREMT refuses to use an inertial reference frame.
He makes up a rotationally inertial frame which is frankly gibberish.”
DREMPTY,
Like I said, your reference frame is not inertial
“Use polar coordinates. Put the radius r=0 through the COM of the Moon and orient the angle a=0 radial line so that it always points to a distant star. Do the calculation. You WILL get 2.66e-6 rad/s.”
That’s your reference frame, still gibberish, if you call it an inertial reference frame, cause it’s not.
Now your comments on my latest proof that the Moon is rotating, because that is and was the subject.
bob quotes bdgwx, and disagrees with him. Then demands that I follow him down his latest rabbit hole.
Here’s where I disagree with your latest "proof":
"And this is specific for an axis within the body that is rotating".
It is not specific for an axis within the body that is rotating. The axis can lie outside the body of the object that is rotating. An object can rotate about an axis that is external to the body of the object.
DREMPTY,
Nope that is not correct, see Mahdavi.
That is for revolving or orbiting, which is the sum of a translation and a rotation, so the Moon is still rotating around an internal axis as well as revolving around an external axis.
That is the condition for rotating around an internal axis, that the velocities of the parts of the body are not the same.
Sorry for you loss.
Now I am arguing with you.
"That is for revolving or orbiting, which is the sum of a translation and a rotation"
No, "orbiting" is not the sum of a translation and a rotation. "Orbiting" is one single motion, a rotation about an external axis. As per Madhavi, Fig. 2(b).
…as per Madhavi, Fig. 2(b) which shows a rotation about the rectangle’s own c axis once per orbit of O just like our moon. Nice selection DREMT, shows you now finally understand Tesla Fig. 6 too which shows the same.
No, Ball4. Note I said, “one single motion”.
You are getting there in that there is a cg rotational motion on Teslas radius R about O orbiting; and at same time a second rotational motion about cg as Tesla physics prove on his radius r about c shown in Fig. 2(b) (where Tesla’s ball M is the Madhavi rectangle).
Tesla shows in more detailed physics why Madhavi is right about Fig. 2(b) rectangle showing similar motions as our moon rotating on its own axis once per orbit.
One single motion, Ball4. A rotation about an external axis. You always did struggle with this concept…seems you just do not understand it. You never will. You could stop trolling, though…
Show the physics DREMT to learn where you go wrong, simple assertions are not working for you.
…maybe you cannot stop trolling. Oh well.
…with its origin attached to an accelerating object such as the moon, is not an inertial reference frame.
Now you can argue with bdgwx! Finally…
Gordon moans:
This has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with the fact that you, certain people at NASA, and most other people simply dont understand basic physics.
Says the clown who thinks the moon phases are caused by the earth’s shadow on the moon! That is hilarious!
Gordon, your credibility went down the tubes long ago. You obviously have no clue regarding basic physics whatsoever. Case in point, your stupid idea regarding curvilinear translation which has no support from any valid reference source whatsoever.
OK, SGW. But, all personal attacks aside…
Consider a vertical circle, like a ferris wheel. The moon has momentum and it is pulled down by earth gravity along the arc of the ferris wheel toward the center of the wheel. If it didnt have momentum it would fall directly toward the earth. Since it does have momentum and there is no resistance to the movement of the moon through vacuum, the moon is doomed to perpetually fall around the earth. In the terms of up and down the moon doesnt rotate; the man on the moon faces down all the time. Its rotating only as a result of the orbit of the moon at a rate of once per orbit. No rotational energy can be involved; its not making any turn at all.
Ken said: No rotational energy can be involved; its not making any turn at all.
And yet the Moon’s rotational energy in the inertial frame through its COM is 3.14e23 joules.
Wrong bdgwx. You can’t create energy by choosing a frame of reference.
Why do you want to be an idiot?
Who said anything about creating energy? I’m only measuring it.
A ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, external to the ball. If you “measure” rotational energy about a second axis that you imagine exists, passing through the center of mass of the ball, then you are in effect creating energy out of thin air. There is no rotational energy about the ball’s own axis. Regardless of reference frame.
b,
You didn’t measure anything. You used a formula incorrectly, and generated a meaningless figure.
There is a saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In your case, a little knowledge places you in the invidious position of proclaiming your foolishness to the world at large! You are in danger of being laughed at by those with quite a lot of knowledge.
Carry on. Nothing wrong with a good laugh!
DREMT said: A ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, external to the ball.
Again…not true.
The translational equivalent of this is kinetic energy.
A 1 kg ball thrown at 10 m/s relative to a train which is also moving at 10 m/s relative to the ground has Et = 0.5*1*10^2 = 50 j of energy in the train anchored frame but Eg = 0.5*1*(10+10)^2 = 200 j of energy in the ground anchored frame.
In other words, if that ball hits an occupant on the train it will impart 50 j of energy, but if that ball hits a bystander on the ground it will impart 200 j of energy.
Motion is relative. This is true regardless of whether it is translational or rotational. You MUST select a frame before any calculations regarding that motion can be performed.
A ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, not two. Regardless of reference frame.
bdgwx, your example indicates once again that you have no understanding of physics. The ball on a train has additive energy due to the motion of the train. A ball-on-a-string is not actually rotating on its axis, so there is NO axial rotation involved. The ball-on-a-string is ONLY “orbiting”.
Your mind is so twisted you can’t see the reality of the simple analogy.
My example illustrates the fact that different observers using different frames of reference calculate different values for the same motion. This is true whether we are talking about translation or rotation.
You can calculate values for an imagined rotation about an imagined second axis for the ball, if you wish, but a ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, not two. Regardless of reference frame.
No, Tesla himself proved DREMT wrong about that, see his ball M analysis.
I saw it, he confirmed I am correct. There are only two alternatives:
1) The center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle, and the rest of the ball is rotating about that center of mass. This is what Tesla briefly discussed, and then went on to argue against.
2) The ball is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
There is no option for the ball to be rotating about both an external and an internal axis. There are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string, regardless of reference frame.
There is no option for the ball to be rotating about both an external and an internal axis in the accelerated frame when readers have seen AND understood Tesla’s ball M analysis for which DREMT cannot find anything wrong & proved our moon inertially rotates once on its own axis per orbit as does ball M.
Tesla’s ball M analysis confirmed I am correct. There are only two alternatives:
1) The center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle, and the rest of the ball is rotating about that center of mass. This is what Tesla briefly discussed, and then went on to argue against.
2) The ball is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
There is no option for the ball to be rotating about both an external and an internal axis. There are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string, regardless of reference frame.
b,
You obviously used the climatological frame of reference. In that frame, W/m2 measures temperature, CO2 controls the world’s temperature while at the same tine it doesn’t control the world’s temperature, Michael Mann is a Nobel Prize winning climate scientist, and all sorts of other fantasies.
Who cares what you think? Why do you think that the Moon’s motion needs anything besides besides one of Newton’s Laws of motion, and Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation to fully describe it?
Be as silly as you like. One face of the Moon continuously faces the Earth, as it falls continuously towards that same Earth! Stand under a falling vertical refrigerator – all you see is the bottom, even though at the Equator, the refrigerator is travelling sideways at around 1000 mph. Or the Poles, at 0 mph. No difference – you’ll wind up squashed, regardless of your calculations.
“I dont know why you have so much trouble seeing that with a jetliner. If you had a taxi-way around the Equator, and the airliner taxied around the Equator it would have the same changes in orientation wrt the stars but it would not be rotating about a local axis. If it took off and flew at 35,000 feet. at constant velocity, it would be doing exactly the same thing, translating in an orbital path without rotation about its COG.”
Then perhaps you can explain why the raw output from the airline’s navigation system indicates that it pitches down 360 degrees for each circumnavigation.
This is an effect which has to be edited by the software to give the illusion that the aircraft has been flying level throughout,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuler_tuning#:
You can’t understand orbital motion, Ent. You’re just grasping at straws.
This has been explained to you before.
EM,
When you admit you cannot find an answer to your question, and convince me you have made strenuous efforts to find the answer, I will gladly tell you why.
It is quite simple.
I don’t know whether you want a clue, but a surface ship using inertial guidance travelling a great circle course does not require pitch correction. Now consider a submarine using SINS, following the same course. Contuous pitch correction needed?
I don’t believe you really want an answer, because that would spoil your trolling efforts.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt it.
Actually they do.
Without the Schuler tuning a ship or submarine’s SINS shows a gradual pitch down as the ship travels a “straight” course across Earth’s surface and a 360 degree pitch down after a circumnavigation.
INS gives you an objective measure of the motion of a vehicle or a Moon. Your interpretation is purely subjective.
Entropic Man, are you one of those that believes every object on the planet is rotating on its own axis, just because the planet is rotating on its own axis!?
Ent, this has been explained to you before. Why do you insist on being an idiot?
INS, “relative to the stars”, and a Foucault’s pendulum all confuse “orbiting” with “rotating about a CoM axis”. All three systems would indicate a ball-on-a-string is rotating about its axis. But, all three would be WRONG. If the ball-on-a-string were really rotating about its axis, the string would wrap about the ball.
Why do you ignore reality?
If the ball-on-a-string were really rotating about its axis more or less than once per orbit, THEN the string would wrap about the ball. It is Clint R avoiding reality.
Your “more or less” is confusing you Ball4.
Greater than one rotation inertially on ball’s own axis per orbit or less than one ball rotation on its own axis per orbit, means in reality the string wraps, that is more clear for the befuddled Clint R.
ClintR has it right, Ball4 has it wrong.
See, your “more or less” is confusing you.
jetliner is a bad analogy. Aircraft has thrust. It encounters resistance from the atmosphere. Its altitude is controlled via movable wing parts. Its orbital path is not independent of these forces and therefore probably shouldn’t be used to explain moon.
K,
Some people must imagine that the Moon is pushed around its orbit by celestial beings.
You are right. The aircraft, ship, or submarine have thrust. Unlike the Moon, they also have other forces acting on them.
Alarmists specialise in irrelevant analogies, and will base endless arguments on the meaningless and inconsequential aspects of their silliness.
Oh well
Swenson aka Amazed aka Flynn
1. ” Alarmists specialise in irrelevant analogies… ”
May I inform you that the Moon-aircraft analogy was introduced first by your friend-in-denial nicknamed ‘Robertson’?
*
2. Moreover, you wrote upthread:
” Why are you using distant stars? The Moon is orbiting the Earth, and shows one face to the Earth. As Newton pointed out, viewed from the distant stars, the Moon ‘appears’ to rotate. ”
*
2.1 Newton never wrote that the Moon ‘appears’ to rotate, nor would he have written ‘seems’ (a term he used when considering moons of Jupiter and Saturn).
Here is Andrew Motte’s excellent translation, nearly identical to that of Emilie du Châtelet, a French mathematician who also translated Newton’s Principia:
PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I.
Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25½ days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
These things appear by the Phænomena.
The spots in the sun's body return to the same situation on the sun's disk, with respect to the earth, in 27½ days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25½ days.
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb;
but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moon's latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
This theory of the libration of the moon, Mr. N. Mercator in his Astronomy, published at the beginning of the year 1676, explained more fully out of the letters I sent him.
The utmost satellite of Saturn seems to revolve about its axis with a motion like this of the moon, respecting Saturn continually with the same face; for in its revolution round Saturn, as often as it comes to the eastern part of its orbit, it is scarcely visible, and generally quite disappears; which is like to be occasioned by some spots in that part of its body, which is then turned towards the earth, as M. Cassini has observed.
So also the utmost satellite of Jupiter seems to revolve about its axis with a like motion, because in that part of its body which is turned from Jupiter it has a spot, which always appears as if it were in Jupiter's own body, whenever the satellite passes between Jupiter and our eye.
*
2.2. What matters in this discussion is not: ‘viewed from the distant stars’. I can’t remember an astronomer who backed up his observations in this way.
With the ‘viewed from the distant stars’ variant, the Non-spinners think they can specify different kinds of motion depending of the view point. Sheer nonsense.
Astronomers use ‘with respect to the fixed [or distant] stars’ in order to obtain a fixed point for ameasurement of motion PERIODS independent from the motion of both observing and observed places.
See for example Tobias Mayer, who computed, in his treatise about Moon’s rotation, for the rotation’s period:
– wrt an equinoctial point on the Moon: about 27 days 5 h;
– wrt the fixed stars: about 27 days 7 h.
*
2.3 As you may have seen (and hopefully understood) above, Newton does not share the Non-spinners’ stubborn view about why the Moon shows one face to the Earth at all times.
*
Langer Rede kurzer Sinn: to distort Newton, one needs more than a couple of Non-spinners.
Yes, Swenson: Oh well…
J.-P. D.
Bindidon continues to display his ignorance of “libration”, as well as mis-interpreting others.
Oh well….
Binny,
You classified the perception of different kinds of motion depending on the view point as nonsense.
Then you say “See for example Tobias Mayer, who computed, in his treatise about Moons rotation, for the rotations period:
wrt an equinoctial point on the Moon: about 27 days 5 h;
wrt the fixed stars: about 27 days 7 h.”
So which motion is involved? You seem to have two equally valid periods – depending on viewpoint.
Strange, that. Are you claiming the same type of motion produces completely different results, depending on viewpoint?
Nonsense?
Swenson
” So which motion is involved? ”
What’s the matter with you, Swenson?
Can’t you read my comment properly? It was mainly about ‘wrt the fixed stars’ having NOTHING to do with a motion, but ONLY with DURATION of a motion.
Mayer computes the DURATION of Moon’s rotation about its interior axis in several ways of which I have chosen two.
One he does by observing a point at the equator of the Moon,in a coordinate system located at Moon’s center which he accurately determined in his treatise.
When the point, from his point of view on Earth, returns at the same place by passing a line determined at observation begin, the fixed star he had chosen and whose position at observation begin was also determined, is not at the same place.
This is due to both Moon’s and Earth’s orbiting motions.
The second computation is done by applying a correction to the first one, in order to obtain fixed star coincidence.
This is EXACTLY what Newton mentions in his Principia, Book III, Prop. XVII, Theorem XV.
If he had been 20 years jounger, he obviously would have done the same work as did Mayer… and Cassini.
How is this done? Look yourself for that, Swenson. I’m a retired engineer, and not an astronomer.
Slowly but surely, you all become so boring.
J.-P. D.
Clint R
Feel free to continue displaying you stubborn lies.
I know a lot more than you about Moon’s
– optical, apparent
and
– physical, real (either free or forced)
libration phenomena.
Does the ball-on-a-string rotate about its center of mass, Clint R?
Please remind me!
J.-P. D.
No, and you agree it does not, if I recall correctly.
DREMT
To be honest, I’m not so terribly surprised by your tremendous lack of humor.
J.-P. D.
Wrong Bindidon. You don’t know squat about lunar libration. If you did, you would realize lunar libration is just one fact that Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
You don’t understand and you can’t learn, so you try to pervert reality to fit your beliefs.
That makes you an idiot.
Oh, I got that you were trying to be funny. I just also recall you agreeing that the ball on a string is not rotating about its own center of mass. That is important to some people here, although you naturally consider them far inferior to yourself…
Binny quotes Newton explaining libration as quite explicitly arising from the Moon’s rotation on its own axis.
But Binny is, somehow, just being an ‘idiot’.
Sure thing.
Thus Newton also must be an ‘idiot’?
Somehow by Moron Team logic, there is a way to weasel out.
Entropic man says:
”If you had a taxi-way around the Equator, and the airliner taxied around the Equator it would have the same changes in orientation wrt the stars but it would not be rotating about a local axis. If it took off and flew at 35,000 feet. at constant velocity, it would be doing exactly the same thing, translating in an orbital path without rotation about its COG.”
Nice try but as Madhavi says: ”Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation” The airplane in both examples is rotating around the center of the earth, not a center of gravity.
Pretty obvious that an aircraft on the ground taxiing along the equator does not rotate about its own axis while circumnavigating the earth. Theres just horizontal velocity and gravity. No spinning.
But some then argue that as soon as its wheels lose contact with the ground this same aircraft suddenly has to start rotating about its own axis to make the same journey. Horizontal velocity and gravity no longer get the job done? By implication, if this aircraft was travelling horizontal to the earths surface and had its control surfaces set to prevent rotation about its own axis, then rather than orbit the earth it would launch into space. Hmmm?
Harves said: Pretty obvious that an aircraft on the ground taxiing along the equator does not rotate about its own axis while circumnavigating the earth.
It depends on which observing perspective you are considering. Consider the following frames of observation using the polar coordinate system to define the frames.
Frame A: It does not rotate in the frame where the radius r=0 is attached to the aircraft and which its angle a=0 radial line always points to the COM of Earth.
Frame B: It does rotate in the frame where the radius r=0 is attached to the aircraft and which its angle a=0 radial line always points to a distant distant star.
Notice that frame A must itself change orientation wrt to an inertial frame to keep its angle a=0 radial line pointed towards the COM of Earth. Because this frame is itself rotating it is non-inertial. Refer to the wikipedia article for more information on rotating reference frames and why it matters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame
It appears to rotate on its own axis in Frame B. But, appearances can be deceptive.
You still haven’t seen through the illusion, bdgwx.
You have that backwards. Let me explain.
In frame A the (r, a) coordinates for the occupants of the aircraft do not change with time. The occupants “appear” stationary. A calculation in this frame suggests no forces are acting on the occupants.
In frame B the (r, a) coordinates for the occupants of the aircraft are changing with time. The occupants “appear” to be moving now. In fact, a calculation in this frame suggests a force must be acting on the occupants.
Question…do the occupants experience a force or not?
Answer…YES.
The occupants’ inertia is going to try and keep them moving in a straight line so the aircraft has to apply a force to keep them inside the aircraft. No doubt the force is small in this particular case, but consider a merry-go-round on a playground in which the force is quite large and noticeable.
The point here is that frame A itself is accelerating (non-inertial) which masks the reality that the occupants are truly accelerating while frame B is not accelerating (inertial) which highlights the fact that the occupants are truly accelerating.
Why does it matter? Because in frame A the fictitious forces (centrifigual, coriolis, euler) must be invoked to explain motions whereas in frame B they do not. This is why I say you have it backwards. For me and most other people any frame in which a fictitious force must be invoked would be the one in which objects only “appear” to move the way they do.
This is probably yet another semantic debate because you’ll no doubt use a different definition for “appear” than the rest of us.
Think about the ball on a string.
You believe it is rotating on its own axis, because you apply a reference frame in which r=0 goes through the center of mass of the ball, and a=0 is pointing towards some distant star. In other words, you are "zoomed in" tight on the ball.
The one, and only true axis that the ball is rotating about lies external to your reference frame! Talk about "out of sight, and out of mind".
“Zoomed in” is now DREMT’s semantic excuse for being wrong inertially. LOL. What semantics is next for DREMT to dodge Tesla’s accurate ball M analysis?
Sure. We can put the radius r=0 point outside the ball. With the angle a=0 radial line still pointing at a distant star the ball still has angular velocity. In fact, it has the same angular velocity as before. The big difference now is that this axis is no longer the ball’s “own axis”.
There is only one true axis of rotation for the ball on a string. It lies external to the ball. There are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string. That is the reality. You can perceive this reality differently, by choosing different reference frames. But you cannot change the reality.
Right DREMT, you cannot change the reality by semantically “zooming in tight” or changing ref. frames as you do. A dog’s tail is not a leg.
I’m glad you agree with me, Ball4. bdgwx can not change the reality by by semantically “zooming in tight” or changing ref. frames as he does. A dog’s tail is not a leg. Thank you for your co-operation.
Right DREMT, you are learning you cannot change the reality of our moon rotating once on its own axis per orbit by your semantically “zooming in tight” or changing ref. frames as you do. A dog’s tail is not a leg.
Right Ball4, you are learning you cannot change the reality of our moon not rotating on its own axis whilst it orbits by your semantically “zooming in tight” or changing ref. frames as you do. A dog’s tail is not a leg.
Ok now DREMT agrees our moon inertially rotates once on its own axis per orbit like a ball on string, toy train, and Tesla’s ball M. It’s about time.
You need to learn to read, Ball4.
You need to learn to read Tesla DREMT. Give it a go & thanks for writing: “Right Ball4…”. It’s about time you learned Tesla’s inertial ball M physics really are correct.
Quote him.
dremt…”Ok now DREMT agrees…”
I think dremt is too polite to state the obvious, that you are a trolling idiot who says things to play with the minds of the group, not to contribute.
Harves
Thanks for the comment, you made in my personal opinion a convenient point.
Though I’m convinced of the Moon simultaneously orbiting around Earth and rotating about an interior axis, I’m horrified by the stupidity of this eternal discussion.
Not only because of
– the trivial toy-like models of the Moon proposed by the Non-spinners;
– their strange will to elevate their authority figure Tesla above all historic and contemporary work on Moon’s spin.
But also, and not less, because of the ridiculous ideas developed by some of the Spinners, who, as you said, endlessly try to demonstrate for example that an airplane flying over Earth rotates about some interior axis.
Also, the use of curvilinear translation by both groups is amazing.
*
Though Corporal DREMT has stated that I’m a Spinner, I prefer to keep equidistant from both groups.
I prefer to read work done by Kepler, Mercator, Newton, Euler, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and lots of contemporary scientists, all discredited by the Non-spinners, and are left aside by the Spinners, who prefer to fight ad nauseam against the Non-spinners.
J.-P. D.
Just like in the climate debate, you like to pretend to remain aloof in your own little bubble, when in reality you clearly come down on one side of the fence.
Thought experiment.
I draw an imaginary line through the Earth.
The line passes through the centre of the Earth and through the vertical axes of two aircraft, one flying above England and one above Australia.
I remove the Earth and slide the two aircraft inwards along the line until they touch underside to underside.
If an aircraft does not rotate in pitch as it flies from England to Australia, why is one aircraft now inverted relative to the other?
Well, that’s one way to miss the point.
You don’t have to go to all that trouble to avoid reality, Ent. Everyone knows an airplane on the opposite side of the globe is inverted. It’s called “orbital motion”. It’s the same as Moon.
You really have no clue, do you?
Yes, the airplane has rolled inverted inertially 1/2 way on its own axis when on the other side of the Earth; when it completes that orbit as Tesla shows the airplane will have rotated once on its own axis per orbit just like our moon, ball on string, toy train, fixed horse on mgr, ftop_t’s orbiting moon in sunshine, and Tesla’s ball M.
EM,
Even worse, all the people on the Antarctic walk upside down. When they go to the Northern Hemisphere for holiday, they all have to be flipped right way up, do they?
Or do they just bounce out of their upside down aircraft on their heads? Don’t be silly – rotating an object around an axis passing through it, requires the application of torque. Pity you can’t find any to rotate antipodean inhabitants when they emerge upright from an aircraft on the other side of the world!
I’ll say it very slowly for
you, as they travel to the
northern hemisphere they rotate
very slowly on their way.
bdgwx wrote, of the ball on a string:
"To measure “rotational angular velocity” I put the radius r=0 point through the center of mass of the object and the angle a=0 radial line oriented towards a distant point. I measure the time it takes for the same point on the surface of the object to start and return to the a=0 radial line. I use the angular velocity formula above to get rad/s. I’ll use the symbol Wr for this value."
As is so often the case, the error is not in the math, but the physics. You have to think, what is the reason that the same point on the surface of the ball starts and returns to the a=0 radial line? Is it because the ball is rotating on its own axis? That is what bdgwx assumes. But, the real reason is that the ball is orbiting an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass. He is confusing the change in orientation that the ball makes due to orbital motion, for axial rotation.
It is DREMT confusing the change in orientation that the ball makes in its orbital motion for no axial rotation as Tesla made clear long ago with his ball M analysis when relativity was being invented and tested.
Our moon doesn’t strare at the sun, the moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit of Earth creating day/night cycles as ftop_t shows in the sunshine:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
I await a response from the person I addressed my comment towards, and nobody else.
No need to wait DREMT, any future bdgwx response will use the same physics as Tesla used in his ball M analysis proving our moon inertially rotates once on its own axis per orbit.
On the contrary…Tesla’s ball M analysis confirmed I am correct. There are only two alternatives:
1) The center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle, and the rest of the ball is rotating about that center of mass. This is what Tesla briefly discussed, and then went on to argue against.
2) The ball is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
There is no option for the ball to be rotating about both an external and an internal axis. There are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string, regardless of reference frame.
So DREMT stops waiting! Learning as I wrote there was no need to wait.
There is no option for the ball to be rotating about both an external and an internal axis in the accelerated frame when readers have seen AND understood Tesla’s ball M analysis for which DREMT cannot find anything wrong & proved our moon inertially rotates once on its own axis per orbit as does ball M.
I stopped waiting because I realized that I ought to correct your misinformation.
Teslas ball M analysis confirmed I am correct. There are only two alternatives:
1) The center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle, and the rest of the ball is rotating about that center of mass. This is what Tesla briefly discussed, and then went on to argue against.
2) The ball is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
There is no option for the ball to be rotating about both an external and an internal axis. There are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string, regardless of reference frame.
There is no option for the ball M to be rotating about both an external and an internal axis when welded to Tesla’s orbiting spokes as Tesla describes in his accelerated frame.
There are only two alternatives:
1) The center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle, and the rest of the ball is rotating about that center of mass. This is what Tesla briefly discussed, and then went on to argue against.
2) The ball is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
There is no option for the ball to be rotating about both an external and an internal axis. There are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string, regardless of reference frame.
If you think there there are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string, regardless of reference frame then go argue with Tesla’s inertial physics as they prove you are wrong.
Tesla never argued that there were two axes of rotation.
…in his accelerated frame.
Quote him.
DREMT said: As is so often the case, the error is not in the math, but the physics.
What law of physics says I cannot position and orient my reference frame such that radius r=0 goes through the COM of the ball and angle a=0 radial line points to the same distant object/feature?
DREMT said: You have to think, what is the reason that the same point on the surface of the ball starts and returns to the a=0 radial line? Is it because the ball is rotating on its own axis? That is what bdgwx assumes.
I assume no such thing. I define a reference frame and make sure it is rotationally inertial wrt to the universe and then I calculate the angular velocity in that frame. If the result is > 0 rad/s then I say it is rotating. At no time do I assume any particular value for angular velocity before I have actually calculated it.
DREMT said: But, the real reason is that the ball is orbiting an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass. He is confusing the change in orientation that the ball makes due to orbital motion, for axial rotation.
I’m not confusing anything here. Remember, I and everyone else have different meanings for the words you are using here compared to you. That is where the breakdown is happening.
…and the point goes straight over your head. You can position and orient your reference frame any way you like, bdgwx. But, with your reference frame "zoomed in" tight on the ball, you can’t see the forest for the trees. The one, and only true axis that the ball is rotating about lies external to your reference frame! Talk about "out of sight, and out of mind".
Nope, Tesla proved DREMT wrong with ball M analysis.
Tesla argued "the moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the Earth, the true and only one."
He never supported the idea of e.g. a ball on a string rotating about both an external and an internal axis. You are delusional if you think he did.
Troll Ball4 just keeps repeating the same things over and over, hoping they might become reality.
When he’s not accelerating more or less, he is more or less accelerating!
Actually they are making the same mistake about Newton when he purportedly wrote the moon rotates on its axis.
the only argument these guys have is to claim every famous scientist was omniscient and read scientific texts like they were biblical texts.
Tesla never supported the idea of e.g. a ball on a string rotating about both an external and an internal axis in his defined accelerated frame.
He never supported the idea of e.g. a ball on a string rotating about both an external and an internal axis. Period. You are delusional if you think he did.
Nope, you just haven’t read/understood enough Tesla, go argue with him.
You are such a ridiculous and relentless troll.
It is an endless task correcting those who are wrong about physics. Go argue with Tesla’s physics if you think he is wrong as you do.
Tesla is dead. Which is what makes you lying about his arguments so despicable.
Tesla’s physics are alive and well; go argue with Tesla’s inertial physics that DREMT originally linked to which was a good find.
Quote him.
Tesla on ball M inertially: “For this purpose I would refer to Fig. 6 showing a ball M of radius r..”
Study that work and see if you can finally understand relativity (it’s hard I know) when Tesla is referring to the inertial frame or his rotating with the spokes frame, see the word in parentheses to help you understand: “If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the (rotating) spokes…” accelerated frame.
You mean, where he goes on to write:
"I shall first undertake to demonstrate that there is no torque or rotary effort about center C and that the kinetic energy of the supposed axial rotation of the ball is mathematically equal to zero."
bill said: If you agree that the moon rotates about an external orbital axis
I do. The math doesn’t lie. The moon has motion around the external axis that goes through the COG of the Earth-Moon system.
bill said: then you tacitly agree that orbital motion without axial rotation is as per the moon on the left and are thus a Non-Spinner.
Absolutely not. “axial rotation” in this context is defined as motion around the internal or COM of the Moon. As above the math does not lie. The Moon definitely has motion around this internal axis. No amount of you wanting “axial rotation” to mean something different is ever going to get NASA, JAXA, ESA, all other celestial mechanics scientists, and the rest of the world to change overnight.
bill said: If you accept an orbit as a rotation then you need to recognize that the model is in compliance with Newtons 2nd Law on rotation.
Of course it is in compliance with Newton’s 2nd Law. No one is challenging that. Likewise, motion about a body’s own axis is also in compliance with Newton’s 2nd Law.
bill said: what I asked you to do was roughly explain the possible sources of F for the rotation around the moons COM. Found it Newtons 2nd Law of Rotation:
You just picked a reference frame. It is radius r=0 goes through the Moon’s COM and assuming it is inertial the angle a=0 radial line points to a distant star. There is a torque being applied in this frame. This torque is the result of friction induced by the tidal bulge that elongates the Moon toward the Earth. The bulge tries to deviate from the perpendicular due to its inertia, but Earth’s gravity pulls it back into alignment. This drags the entire Moon with it because it is mostly rigid. This torque decelerates the Moon slightly.
Now let’s address the question I asked you. What is the torque being applied to the Moon in this frame? Using the 0.4 m/yr drift of the Moon away from the Earth, mass of 7.35e22 kg, and orbit radius of 3.48e8 m and applying the conservation of angular momentum and the fact that the Moon is tidally locked we can compute the angular acceleration term as 6.12e-9 rad/s per million years or 6.12e-15 rad/s^2. And using the Moon’s moment of inertia in this frame of 8.87e34 kg.m^2 we can compute the torque T = I*a = 8.87e34 kg.m^2 * 6.12e-15 rad/s^2 = 5.43e20 kg.m^2/s^2. This is equivalent to a linear tangential force of F = 5.43e20 kg.m^2/s^2 * 3.48e8 m = 1.89e29 N.
This 5.43e20 kg.m^2/s^2 of torque or 1.89e29 N of force in the frame where radius r=0 goes through the COM of the Moon and angle a=0 radial line pointing towards a distant star is causing the Moon to slow down as it rotates on its own axis.
Note that I applied Netwon’s 2nd Law of Rotation exactly as described by your article. The fact that Moon is rotating on its own axis and that the rotation rate is slowing down is 100% consistent with your article.
bill said: perhaps you could provide the answer you lean towards that forms the basis of your spinner position and a little rationalization of why you think that might be the most likely answer.
Absolutely. In the context of astronomical bodies the phrases “rotates on its own axis” or “axial rotation” are defined as the case where angular velocity/momentum/energy are non-zero in the reference frame where radius r=0 goes through the bodies COM and angle a=0 radial line points to a distant object. It is important to note that this reference frame must be inertial. The Moon has angular velocity of 2.66e-6 rad/s in this frame. Therefore the Moon is “rotating on its own axis” or has “axial rotation”. Remember that context is important here. Unless otherwise specified “rotation” is implied to be wrt to the body’s own axis and “revolution” is implied to be wrt to the body’s shared gravitational axis. Again…the context being that of astronomical bodies.
DREMT means wrt to the spinning spokes, where Tesla goes on to write about ball M center C on radius r:
“I shall first undertake to demonstrate that there is no torque or rotary effort about center C and that the kinetic energy of the supposed axial rotation of the ball is mathematically equal to zero.”
because the ball M is welded to the spinning spokes of his wheel and fixed wrt a spinning string Fig. 6.
bdgwx a rather vanilla explanation that reeks of being arbitrary.
Ultimately the physics of angular momentum there are clear analogs of how to approach that in physics.
The most direct way to calculate angular momentum in the earth/moon relationship is to do it essentially the same way as you would do a ring rotating around the earth and reducing it down to a sphere that represents the moon.
This calculation would incorporate all the existing angular momentum for the moon on the left.
You desire then to calculate angular momentum in the moon on the left in the frame where you are not looking at the orbit.
Which is fine too, except that once calculated you don’t add it to the angular momentum calculated in the previous paragraph.
So in effect this angular momentum doesn’t exist independent of the orbit. Its an issue of dependent and independent motions as I have pointed out many times over the course of these threads.
There are real differences here as I pointed out they almost always entail 2 non-parallel axes. It would only be by extraordinary coincidence that they would always be parallel from any view.
Such a calculation might be useful but I am not sure why. Of course it seems more likely that one would want to calculate the force necessary to overcome the rigidity of the system.
Seems to me that the non-spinner point of view is far more practical conceptually. So via the KISS principle used so often in this stuff, the most appropriate way to look at things. Generally speaking it seems creating other frames of reference are for the purpose of making calculations easier while ignoring total system complexity.
Thus it certainly seems a more practical way to look at the system, realizing that mathematically and conceptually you might marry yourself to one way of doing it and by not having a reason to change it you just continue doing it.
that seems to me to be the take home message here, keeping in mind that is also why so many people seem to never be able to see beyond the borders of the boxes they create for themselves. Certainly engineers have already traveled that road.
“Seems to me that the non-spinner point of view is far more practical conceptually.”
No, that position does not explain the lunar day/night cycles as observed. KISS as possible but no simpler.
You misunderstand, bdgwx. You think that the “moon on the right” represents “orbital motion without axial rotation”, and that this motion is best described as curvilinear translation in a circle. Both of these things you have agreed elsewhere, so there is no backing away from it now. Thus, you do not think our moon is rotating about an external axis. You think it is translating in a circle/ellipse. You do not get to have it both ways.
Ball4 says:
”No, that position does not explain the lunar day/night cycles as observed. KISS as possible but no simpler.”
????? I think Ball4 has lost his mind.
“the claims the moons orbit isnt a rotation but a translation.”
A planet just Orbiting, is in pure Translation. The Moon is orbiting and rotating.
Teslas spheres that were not tightened yet were Just Translating, ie just Orbiting.
How do we know? Because he said all parts are moving at the COM velocity. That is pure Translation.
Then when the spheres are tightened they begin to have Rotation. This was the result of Torque around their COM, and N2LOR.
Teslas example is illustrative of how objects that are just translating, and are given axial rotation, will end up orbiting like the Moon.
Ball4 has definitely lost his mind, bill.
I said that bdgwx described "orbital motion without axial rotation" as curvilinear translation and he starts talking about the motion of the moon. One could conclude that bdgwx thinks the moon’s motion is "orbital motion without axial rotation".
“Is that derived from N2LR and if so how do you justify suggesting it doesnt apply?”
N2LR applies when there are torques acting, and when rotation rate is changing as a result.
The moon’s rotation rate is steady (ignoring the precession of its axis direction over 18 y or whatever it is)
“And if you actually believe it doesnt apply then what do you rely upon to calculate the angular momentum for a non-rotating object”
Unclear what you mean here. But AGAIN, for objects that have steady rotation rates, one just calculates angular momentum from the observed speeds, as I did in Q2.
If angular momentum is stable, as it is for the Moon, N1LR applies, and N2LR gives 0, zilch.
DREMT said: But, with your reference frame “zoomed in” tight on the ball, you can’t see the forest for the trees.
What does “zoomed in” mean exactly and why does it matter?
It means your reference frame has its origin in the center of mass of the ball itself. You are isolating the motion of the ball itself and divorcing it from the full context that it is on the end of a string, rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. You are not even looking at the string any more, let alone the external axis the string + ball is rotating around. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it.
The reality is that the ball is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. This remains true, regardless of where you choose to put your reference frame. Of course if you put your origin through the center of mass of the ball, and your a=0 pointing towards a distant star, it is going to appear to be rotating on its own axis!
Do you really not understand the concept of what constitutes an axis of rotation?
DREMT said: It means your reference frame has its origin in the center of mass of the ball itself.
Right. Putting the axis through the ball’s COM is what I’m doing. And I’m doing that because I’m trying to answer questions about the ball’s motion about its “own axis”. If I put the axis somewhere else I might get a different answer, but then I’m no longer answering questions about the ball’s motion about its “own axis” anymore.
DREMT said: The reality is that the ball is rotating about an external axis
Yep. It is certainly doing that.
DREMT said: and not about its own center of mass.
Except that it has angular velocity in the inertial frame that goes through the COM. I and everyone else call that rotation.
DREMT said: Do you really not understand the concept of what constitutes an axis of rotation?
I can tell you my definition of “own axis” is the center of mass of the body in question. So the ball’s “own axis” must go through the ball’s COM. If it goes through a point outside or external to the ball then it is no longer the ball’s “own axis”. Again…that is the definition I and everyone else uses.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”You are isolating the motion of the ball itself and divorcing it from the full context that it is on the end of a string, rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.”
DREMT you are expecting minds to take in more than they are capable of. You are fighting against real biochemistry here. I wonder how many of the sort Madhavi runs into. Probably can pull her historic grading sheets and figure it out. But on the other hand she is also handing out big carrots for the rote learners willing to be bribed.
"Right. Putting the axis through the ball’s COM is what I’m doing. And I’m doing that because I’m trying to answer questions about the ball’s motion about its “own axis”. If I put the axis somewhere else I might get a different answer, but then I’m no longer answering questions about the ball’s motion about its “own axis” anymore."
You do not get to choose where you "put the axis", bdgwx. That’s the whole point. The axis is decided upon by the motion of the object, in its full context. The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, only. You can tell, because the the ball keeps one side always oriented towards the center of revolution…towards the axis. If it was rotating about both an external axis, and on its own axis, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution, and the string would have to be wrapping around the ball. When you put the origin of your reference frame through the the ball’s COM, you are immediately removing most of the necessary context to determine where the axis of rotation is, and how many axes of rotation there are.
"Except that it has angular velocity in the inertial frame that goes through the COM. I and everyone else call that rotation."
You are calculating angular velocity here because you are observing that the same point on the surface of the ball starts and returns to the a=0 radial line. But it does so because the ball is rotating about the external axis, not on its own axis.
No DREMT Tesla proved you are wrong inertially if it was rotating about both an external axis, and on its own axis, only then you would NOT see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution, and the string would NOT be wrapping around the ball.
Go argue with Tesla’s proof.
Tesla argued "the moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the Earth, the true and only one."
He never supported the idea of e.g. a ball on a string rotating about both an external and an internal axis. You are delusional if you think he did.
Madhavi has translation and rotation right bill; Tesla proved her figures are correct long ago. It is DREMT and a couple other commenters here that have it wrong twisting her words around while themselves twisting in the wind.
"DREMT you are expecting minds to take in more than they are capable of"
That could well be the problem, bill. They just simply cannot understand what is being argued. Their programming does not allow it.
Wrong DREMT 1:19pm, you still don’t understand Tesla argued in the accelerated frame with welded to spinning spokes ball M: “the moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the Earth, the true and only one.”
He never supported the idea of e.g. a ball on a string rotating about both an external and an internal axis. Regardless of reference frame. You are delusional if you think he did.
Tesla never supported the idea of e.g. a ball on a string rotating about both an external and an internal axis in the accelerated frame of his ball M welded to spinning spokes. Tesla was perfectly consistent on that afaik.
DREMT has already posted a link where Tesla debunks DREMT’s arguments with ball M proving our moon inertially does rotate on its own axis once per orbit.
Troll4, your accelerating is confusing you more or less.
Actually not at all confused once Clint R reads and understands Tesla’s ball M inertial analysis.
bdgwx says:
Right. Putting the axis through the balls COM is what Im doing. And Im doing that because Im trying to answer questions about the balls motion about its own axis. If I put the axis somewhere else I might get a different answer, but then Im no longer answering questions about the balls motion about its own axis anymore.
———————
Yes and when you do that bdgwx the particles dead center of mass are no longer ascribing rotations of mean diameter as are the particles of the moon.
Its an affliction known as donning blinders to reality and focusing on a non-dynamic slice of time. You can only properly do that when you have fully accounted for the larger picture and then you find yourself left with a unique situation of a spin most likely on a different tilt compared to different influences. Its how experimentation removes the bad perceptions and wrong conclusions. Find the differences and then you will find the similarities.
Ball4, Tesla never supported the idea of e.g. a ball on a string rotating about both an external and an internal axis. Regardless of reference frame. You are delusional if you think he did.
Ball4 is so taken by Tesla’s argument he is trying to coopt it as his own.
Troll4 is now so confused he’s accelerating more or less inertially more or less than more or less inertially accelerating.
It was not even Tesla’s argument. Tesla was just briefly discussing one of the main reasons people thought the moon rotates on its own axis. So the argument was in fact invented by the "Spinners" of that time period. Either way, Tesla then went on to argue against that point. A fact which Ball4 never mentions.
Ball4’s intention is to repeat this nonsense enough times that people start to associate Tesla with the "Spinners" rather than the "Non-Spinners".
Tesla then went on to argue against welded ball M spinning on its own axis in his accelerated frame i.e wrt to his orbiting spokes. A fact which Ball4 almost always mentions and neither bill nor DREMT can understand.
Quote him.
You have shown you have the link(s) DREMT. You can find all the Tesla quotes you want (as you have) for his ball M; any reader with a little google fu can do so too. Just make sure to get the physics right.
So you cannot support your claims.
Tesla’s analysis of ball M inertial physics supports my case; is too much to quote with all the context. Easy to find along with his subsequent discussion of ball M welded to the spinning spokes so that ball M is “fixt” & can’t possibly spin on its own axis in the accelerated frame.
I have searched the document and the word "inertial" does not appear in any of the text. Regarding his brief "analysis" of ball M, that section ends with the following text:
"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.
To begin with…"
"his subsequent discussion of ball M welded to the spinning spokes so that ball M is “fixt” & can’t possibly spin on its own axis in the accelerated frame."
Again, a search reveals no usage of the word "accelerated". This is what he said about the balls becoming fixed to the spokes…nothing that would suggest he is referring to the accelerated frame…
"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. The energy E of each of these is solely that of translatory movement with an effective velocity Ve as above defined such that E = ½ M Ve2. The axial rotations of the ball in either direction are but apparent; they have no reality whatever and call for no mechanical effort. It is merely when an extraneous force acts independently to turn the whirling body on its axis that energy comes into play. Incidentally it should be pointed out that in true axial rotation of a rigid and homogenous mass all symmetrically situated particles contribute equally to the momentum which is not the case here. That there exists not even the slightest tendency to such motion can, however, be readily established.
For this purpose I would refer to Fig. 6…"
Oh I see, DREMT has been faked out by Tesla’s use of the old fashioned word “gyrating” so let me help DREMT understand Tesla:
“This fact, which is borne out both by theory and experiment, is the foundation of the general notion that a (revolving around an axis) body – in this instance ball M – presenting always the same face towards the center of motion actually rotates upon its axis…”
So as Tesla writes “fixt” ball M is in fact rotating upon its axis once per orbit. Then Tesla goes and shifts to the accelerated frame catching the unwary eye off guard. From Tesla’s inertial energy analysis can teach DREMT there are two different radii (R and r) in Tesla’s formula for ball M energy after: “…as explained in connection with Fig. 4, we have also E=…” function of R and r.
So Tesla agreed there are two different axes of rotation R and r for ball M same as our moon rotating once on its axis (r ) per orbit (R )
NB: Merriam-Webster defn. gyrating: “to revolve around a point or axis”
Laughable sophistry. He wrote "gyrating" because the ball M is rotating around center O.
This sentence "…as explained in connection with Fig. 4, we have also E=…" is used in his discussion of Fig. 6! The Ball M we are discussing is part of his Fig. 5…you are not even talking about the same diagram for crying out loud.
Is there any chance of you being honest!?
Here is his description of Fig. 6:
"For this purpose I would refer to Fig. 6 showing a ball M of radius r, the center C of which is at a distance R from axis O and which is bisected by a tangential plane pp as indicated, the lower half sphere being shaded for distinction."
ball4…quote from Tesla…”This fact, which is borne out both by theory and experiment, is the foundation of the general notion that a (revolving around an axis) body in this instance ball M presenting always the same face towards the center of motion actually rotates upon its axis”
I am wondering if you are actually this stupid or whether you are trolling by intentionally misrepresenting the meaning in Tesla’s words?
Tesla is obviously explaining the mistaken prevailing theory that claims a body, like the Moon, that orbits another body while keeping the same face toward that body, is actually rotating about a local axis. He is lampooning the accepted paradigm, not agreeing with it.
bill said: Yes and when you do that bdgwx the particles dead center of mass are no longer ascribing rotations of mean diameter as are the particles of the moon.
I’m not sure what you mean here. All particles regardless of location within the Moon have an angular velocity of 2.66e-6 rad/s in the frame where r=0 is through the COM and angle a=0 radial line pointed towards a distant feature. This includes particles that overlap with the dead center of mass. Don’t take my word for it. Do the calculation yourself.
I think it is intentional misrepresentation, Gordon.
Gordon, good verbatim Tesla quote & study it closely. Tesla is obviously explaining to Gordon the theory that a body, like our Moon, that orbits another body while keeping the same face toward that body, is actually inertially rotating about its own local axis once per orbit like Tesla’s ball M. Tesla is lampooning folks that don’t get the basic theory.
The 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. The fallacy will become manifest on further inquiry.
To begin with…"
bdgwx says:
”bill said: Yes and when you do that bdgwx the particles dead center of mass are no longer ascribing rotations of mean diameter as are the particles of the moon.
Im not sure what you mean here. All particles regardless of location within the Moon have an angular velocity of 2.66e-6 rad/s in the frame where r=0 is through the COM and angle a=0 radial line pointed towards a distant feature. This includes particles that overlap with the dead center of mass. Dont take my word for it. Do the calculation yourself.”
Read it more carefully bdgwx. I said the particles dead center of mass in the moon are ascribing a ellipse that has a mean radius the same distance as the mean orbit radius. They are not simply spinning and ascribing a circle of zero diameter if the moon were stationary or a wavy line or incomplete ellipse or a back and forth movement if the moon were in curvilinear translation.
bill said: Read it more carefully bdgwx. I said the particles dead center of mass in the moon are ascribing a ellipse that has a mean radius the same distance as the mean orbit radius.
Not even close. Remember, I was talking about the frame where r=0 goes through the COM of the Moon and angle a=0 radial line pointed at a distant star.
In the frame where r=0 goes through the COM of the Moon the particles within the Moon have r values that range from 0 to 1738 km. Those dead of center are at 0.
In the frame where r=0 goes through the Earth-Moon barycenter the particles within the Moon have r values ranging from 365,010 to 412,400 km. Those dead of center range from 366,750 to 410,660 km depending on whether the Moon is at perigee or apogee.
Not only do the particles in the frame I selected not ascribe an ellipse like they would for the frame centered on the Earth-Moon barycenter, but they don’t have a distance from the r=0 point in my selected frame that is even remotely close to the distance they have in the frame centered on the Earth-Moon barycenter. In other words the distance the particles are from the Earth-Moon barycenter is orders of magnitude more than the distance to the Moon’s own COM.
I’ll repeat…all particles within the Moon have angular velocity of 2.66e-6 rad/s wrt to an axis through the Moon’s COM and which is always pointed a distant star. Furthermore, this is a rotationally inertial frame. We do not have invoke fictitious forces like we do for non-inertial frames. In that regard I consider this motion more “real” than the apparent stationary motion in the frame that is always pointed to the Earth since that frame is non-inertial and requires invoking fictitious forces to explain the motion.
bdgwx says:
”bill said: Read it more carefully bdgwx. I said the particles dead center of mass in the moon are ascribing a ellipse that has a mean radius the same distance as the mean orbit radius.
Not even close. Remember, I was talking about the frame where r=0 goes through the COM of the Moon and angle a=0 radial line pointed at a distant star.
In the frame where r=0 goes through the COM of the Moon the particles within the Moon have r values that range from 0 to 1738 km. Those dead of center are at 0.
So what was the point you were trying to make?”
Thats not true bdgwx. Your radial line pointing at a distant star is ascribing an ellipse that has a mean radius of 238,900 miles and thus the dead center of the moon is traveling more than 1,500,000 miles per complete revolution if viewed perpendular to the orbital plane. But it isn’t anywhere close to 0 from any distant star where the minimum movement would be 477,800 miles. Whats the matter the cone too long to see the movement?
bill,
Frame A: r=0 goes through the COM of the Moon and angle a=0 radial points at a distant star. This is the Moon’s own axis. This is a rotationally inertial frame.
Frame B: r=0 goes through the Earth-Moon barycenter and angle a=0 radial line points at a distant star. This is the mutual center of the Earth-Moon system. This is a rotationally inertial frame.
Moon particles etch out a circle in frame A.
Moon particles etch out an ellipse in frame B.
Draw this out on a piece of paper and test for yourself.
I think you need to sketch it out. Anyway you look at it the moon particles are etching an ellipse as the moon travels its orbit. You just want to deny reality, bring the moon to a standstill and ‘assume’ its still rotating.
b,
Unfortunately, viewed from a distant star in the same plane as the Moon’s orbit, the Moon appears to oscillate back and forth. True?
Viewed from a distant star normal to the Moon’s orbital plane, the Moon shows one face to the star, and appears to move in an elliptical orbit. True?
I won’t ask if it is true that you are a deluded fanatical alarmist trying to appear intelligent. It is obvious.
bill said: I think you need to sketch it out.
I did sketch it out. I also did the calculation.
bill said: Anyway you look at it the moon particles are etching an ellipse as the moon travels its orbit.
Patently False. Observers in frame A do not see an ellipse. They don’t even see the orbital motion.
bill said: You just want to deny reality, bring the moon to a standstill and assume its still rotating.
No one is bringing the Moon to a standstill. We are making observations from a reference frame that travels with the Moon. This is no different than making observations from a reference frame that travels with the Earth when we are answering questions about motion wrt to the surface of Earth. Do we think the Earth really came to a standstill? Of course not. Motions are relative. That is reality.
A ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. That remains true, regardless of what it may appear to be doing, from a specific reference frame.
Tesla proved DREMT wrong by his Fig. 6 analysis because Tesla correctly used an inertial frame for the total rotational energy E of his ball with mass M rotating on its own axis once per orbit.
As discussed and conclusively settled, Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. Regardless of reference frame.
bdgwx says:
Patently False. Observers in frame A do not see an ellipse. They dont even see the orbital motion.
No one is bringing the Moon to a standstill. We are making observations from a reference frame that travels with the Moon.
——————-
Its a contradiction. Simply putting horse blinders on doesn’t make a legitimate frame. Making a legitimate frame is a process of essentially leaping from an outer space perspective onto the deck of the merry-go-round. When you do that and see a globe welded to the surface its no longer rotating. So you must think you have to walk around the disk and make it rotate. Thats just fooling yourself.
Observe Newtons second law of rotation:
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
This little table top demonstration shows exactly what is going on. Gravity is the string and the moons momentum is the other vector. There is torque being applied to every single particle of the little puck on the table and no torque to cause it to maintain an orientation with the ceiling.
bill said: Its a contradiction.
It’s a contradiction to fix your reference frame to a moving object?
Then why does the graphic in your link clearly show that their choice of reference frame wit radius r=0 at the pivot point is allowed to move with the table as it moves wrt Earth’s own axis, the Sun-Earth barycenter, the Milky Way, local galactic group, etc.?
bill said: Observe Newtons second law of rotation:
No complaints here. That looks like standard rotationally physics. There is nothing in this link that is inconsistent with anything I’ve said. In fact, I whole-heartedly accept Newton’s 2nd law for rotation.
Question…apply Newton’s 2nd law for rotation to the Moon. Put the axis with radius r=0 at the Earth-Moon COG and point the angle a=0 radial line at a distant star. What is the torque being applied to the Moon in this frame?
Bill said: ”Its a contradiction. Simply putting horse blinders on doesnt make a legitimate frame.”
Making a legitimate frame is a process of essentially leaping from an outer space perspective onto the deck of the merry-go-round. When you do that and see a globe welded to the surface its no longer rotating. So you must think you have to walk around the disk and make it rotate. Thats just fooling yourself.
Observe Newtons second law of rotation:
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
This little table top demonstration shows exactly what is going on. Gravity is the string and the moons momentum is the other vector. There is torque being applied to every single particle of the little puck on the table and no torque to cause it to maintain an orientation with the ceiling.
bdgwx says:
bill said: ”Its a contradiction. Simply putting horse blinders on doesnt make a legitimate frame.”
Its a contradiction to fix your reference frame to a moving object?
======================
Strawman! Clearly thats not what I said.
==================
=================
=================
bdgwx says:
bill said: Observe Newtons second law of rotation:
No complaints here. That looks like standard rotationally physics. There is nothing in this link that is inconsistent with anything Ive said. In fact, I whole-heartedly accept Newtons 2nd law for rotation.
===============================
I expect that as you do have horse blinders on and refuse to look at Newton’s 2nd law as it applies to rotations around an external axis.
Respond to the statement: ”There is torque being applied to every single particle of the little puck on the table” and that torque is arising as a result of the pivot point in the center of the table not in the center of the puck.
Instead you draw a fake frame spin up the moon from some mystery torque and go ”Eureka the moon is spinning on its own axis.”
Explain that absurdity please.
Here! I will conveniently provided you the link so that you can audit your own thoughts and come up with a rational explanation.
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
Sorry didn’t finish editing. see below.
Its a contradiction to fix your reference frame to a moving object?
======================
Strawman! Clearly thats not what I said.
==================
=================
=================
bdgwx says:
bill said: Observe Newtons second law of rotation:
No complaints here. That looks like standard rotationally physics. There is nothing in this link that is inconsistent with anything Ive said. In fact, I whole-heartedly accept Newtons 2nd law for rotation.
===============================
I expect that as you do have horse blinders on and refuse to look at Newtons 2nd law as it applies to rotations around an external axis.
Respond to the statement: There is torque being applied to every single particle of the little puck on the table and that torque is arising as a result of the pivot point in the center of the table not in the center of the puck.
Instead you draw a fake frame spin up the moon from some mystery torque and go Eureka the moon is spinning on its own axis.
Explain that absurdity please.
Here! I will conveniently provided you the link so that you can audit your own thoughts and come up with a rational explanation.
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
Here is the conservation.
bdgwx said on March 18 8:23 AM: We are making observations from a reference frame that travels with the Moon.
bill said on March 18 9:43 PM: Its a contradiction.
bdgwx said on March 20 9:00 AM: Its a contradiction to fix your reference frame to a moving object?
bill said on March 20: Strawman! Clearly thats not what I said.
What specifically are you thinking is a contradiction then?
bill said: There is torque being applied to every single particle of the little puck on the table and that torque is arising as a result of the pivot point in the center of the table not in the center of the puck.
I don’t know what you want me to respond to here. What are you asking here?
bill said: Instead you draw a fake frame spin up the moon from some mystery torque and go Eureka the moon is spinning on its own axis.
I didn’t arbitrarily select the frame though. The question or directive I’m given selects that for me. By you saying “on its own axis” it is YOU who are selecting the frame for me. I just do the calculation, come up with 2.66e-6 rad/s, and then and only then do I say “Eureka. The Moon spins on its on axis in an inertial reference frame.”
bill,
I asked this question earlier because I’m not sure you are understanding the content in your link and this will be a good test to see if you understand the material.
Question…apply Newtons 2nd law for rotation to the Moon. Put the axis with radius r=0 at the Earth-Moon COG and point the angle a=0 radial line at a distant star. What is the torque being applied to the Moon in this frame?
bdgwx says:
bill,
I asked this question earlier because Im not sure you are understanding the content in your link and this will be a good test to see if you understand the material.
Questionapply Newtons 2nd law for rotation to the Moon. Put the axis with radius r=0 at the Earth-Moon COG and point the angle a=0 radial line at a distant star. What is the torque being applied to the Moon in this frame?
==================
None, there is no momentum associated with the tension of any radial line drawn in the way you describe.
Your mission should you accept it is to take your diagram on the right and explain how F is applied in that diagram.
We can clearly see F being applied in the Newton rotation around an external axis as it arises from the linear momentum of the moon that we can clearly observe. r is fine in both cases as the progenitor of a centripedal force. That F and r relationship is proportional on every particle of the moon.
So what you need to do is 1) demonstrate how F is not proportional to r in the Newton diagram for every particle in the moon so as to discard any notion that an equal influence exists on every particle; then 2) explain where the F arises from that is unique from the orbital rotation.
Pretty basic stuff once you get all your ducks lined up in a row.
bill said: None, there is no momentum associated with the tension of any radial line drawn in the way you describe.
Tension is a completely different topic. We are talking about torque. The formula for torque is T=Ia where T is torque, I is moment of inertia, and a is angular acceleration.
Again the reference frame is r=0 goes through the Earth-Moon COG and angle a=0 radial line points to a distant start.
And no, the Moon’s angular momentum is not 0 in this frame. Not that it matters because angular momentum is not is required to compute torque.
Perhaps it would be best if you could show your work and resubmit for review.
The point bdgwx is the Newton table diagram provides the basic physics for a rotation of the puck around the external axis on the frictionless table.
You have yet to describe where those basics arise from in your diagram you drew ignoring the external axis. All I did was ask you to describe where these necessary physics arise from and you keep avoiding answering the question.
I think you have me confused with someone else bill. I’ve not drawn a diagram for presented diagram within this blog post. The only diagrams I’m aware of are the on gif DREMT presented and the puck on the table that you presented.
And if you’re asking what physics used to derive T=Ia then the answer is Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion. Your own article makes that quite clear. Nobody is challenging F=ma or T=Ia here.
No bdgwx I am not confusing you with somebody else. I may be confused about your position though. So to clarify:
1)DREMTS test: If you agree that the moon rotates about an external orbital axis then you tacitly agree that orbital motion without axial rotation is as per the ”moon on the left” and are thus a ”Non-Spinner”.
Most folks are trying to characterize an orbit as a translation without rotation. If you accept an orbit as a rotation then you need to recognize that the model is in compliance with Newton’s 2nd Law on rotation.
So if you are not a non-spinner per DREMTS test, then what I asked you to do was roughly explain the possible sources of F for the rotation around the moon’s COM. Found it Newtons 2nd Law of Rotation:
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
By roughly I mean classes of sources, like a pre-orbit rotation. . . .and while I understand you might not be sure of the answer perhaps you could provide the answer you lean towards that forms the basis of your spinner position and a little rationalization of why you think that might be the most likely answer.
I just find the argument that Newton once committed a common grammatical error as a substitute for a physics argument to be totally without merit. One can admire and adore Newton but to do so to that degree sort of is a fallacy don’t you think, like in an appeal to authority?
“At the outset all particles of each ball have been moving with the speed of its center of gravity,”
This is a characteristic of a body in pure Translation. And an object Orbiting without axial rotation.
“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.”
He has clearly shown how tightening the balls has NOW given the balls axial rotation, rotational kinetic energy, and extra rotational angular momentum.
But without any proof or justification, he draws the completely OPPOSITE conclusion, “not by causing axial rotation of the balls.
“The energy E of each of these is solely that of translatory movement with an effective velocity Ve as above defined such that E = ½ M Ve2.”
Nope FALSE. The balls are now Translating and Rotating.
“The axial rotations of the ball in either direction are but apparent”
No, FALSE. The rotation of the balls wrt to the inertial frame is REAL by any measure.
There is no logic or physics to his assertion. This makes no sense. Very strange.
Nate says:
“At the outset all particles of each ball have been moving with the speed of its center of gravity,”
This is a characteristic of a body in pure Translation. And an object Orbiting without axial rotation.
==========================
Nate calls bunk on Newtons 2nd Law of Rotation
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
Nate 6:44pm, you are quoting Tesla. He writes out the full inertial E eqn. correctly for ball M.
THEN Tesla observes that “fixt” ball M cannot possibly rotate wrt to the spinning spokes so Tesla drops that rotation from the E formula in the accelerated frame where the ball M is not rotating, the frame itself is rotating. Tesla leaves it to the reader to figure that out.
From then on whenever Tesla’s writing mentions the moon does not rotate on its own axis, Tesla means in the spinning frame or iow the accelerated frame of his spinning spokes wherein his “fixt” ball M does not rotate on its own axis.
“Nate calls bunk on Newtons 2nd Law of Rotation”
On the contrary, it is the N2LOR that helps us understand why there is added axial rotation on the COM of the balls.
The tightening of the balls onto the spokes, as he describes, causes opposing frictional forces on opposite sides of each ball.
IOW TORQUE around the COM of each ball.
By N2LOR, we will get axial rotation of each ball, as a result.
Thanks Bill. Thanks Nicola.
Nate says:
Nate calls bunk on Newtons 2nd Law of Rotation
On the contrary, it is the N2LOR that helps us understand why there is added axial rotation on the COM of the balls.
==============================
Hmmm, Newton expresses the force as being linear Nate, not the movement.
What makes you think the object entered orbit running a beeline?
The key here Nate, and I unsuccessfully tried to be bdgwx to address this, is that you have two forces F and centripetal force r perpendicular to one another. As illustrated these two forces working in tandem produce a rotation on the external axis.
To produce a rotation on the internal axis F cannot be in the middle of the moon and you already specified it is: At the outset all particles of each ball have been moving with the speed of its center of gravity,. That of course is an absurdity that the momentum posing as F would put a spin on the moon’s COM.
So somewhere in your description you simply just magically invoked it. Newton specified the conditions and in the description of events you describe all that can arise for the torque of F and r in the Newton 2nd Law of rotation is a rotation around earth’s COM. To put a spin on the moon’s COM you need a ”unique” F applying a force offcenter of the COM of the moon. If you see it please diagram it for us.
What are you trying to say about the ball rotation here?
Can you refute that there is Torque applied to the Balls and as a consequence of N2LOR, they Must begin to rotate?
“To put a spin on the moons COM you need a ‘unique’ F applying a force offcenter of the COM”
If planets and moons have spin, and they do, there is no need for an additional torque to keep them spinning.
N1LOR says an object in rotation will continue to rotate unless acted on by a torque.
bill said: To put a spin on the moon’s COM you need a ”unique” F applying a force offcenter of the COM of the moon.
The Moon already has spin about its COM. The gravitational interaction between it and the Earth is producing a force F or torque T upon it which is actually causing it to slow it. Are you challenging this?
Nate says:
What are you trying to say about the ball rotation here?
Can you refute that there is Torque applied to the Balls and as a consequence of N2LOR, they Must begin to rotate?
=======================
So we are down to if I can’t refute the moon has any spin on it that will affirm your certainty it does?
Gee, I can believe that Nate! Thats the way you are convinced CO2 is continuing to cause massive climate change too. Personally I think about the only way I can deal with that is with bug spray.
bdgwx says:
bill said: To put a spin on the moons COM you need a unique F applying a force offcenter of the COM of the moon.
”The Moon already has spin about its COM.”
=================================
So you say bdgwx. But for some reason you can’t prove any evidence of that.
Where as Dr. Madhavi, and Newton both have what appear to be adequate explanations for the spin being on the COM of earth.
===========
==========
==========
==========
bdgwx says:
”The gravitational interaction between it and the Earth is producing a force F or torque T upon it which is actually causing it to slow it. Are you challenging this?”
The moon isn’t slowing bdgwx. The moon’s speed is increasing. Its the earth’s independent axial rotation is what is slowing down feeding the angular momentum into the lunar orbit.
That process suggests that the gravitational influences between the moon and the earth are capable affecting each other and that angular momentum can be exchanged in the process.
The moon’s rotational period, I understand is not increasing as the additional speed is resulting in an increase in the radius of the moon’s orbit.
So if you switched off gravity it might be possible that angular momentum could also be transferred to around the moon’s COM similar to the video where the guy exploded an LP recording by spinning it too fast.
But there doesn’t seem to be any chance at all that gravity will ever be shut off. What might occur instead is an orbit expands until the moon sort of drifts off into another orbit around something else. But the earth might run out of independent spin first.
Interesting huh? You guys should really give DREMT’s proposition a lot more thought than you have. Its clear that the puck on the table in Newton’s 2nd Law of Rotation demonstration is capable of turning the puck exactly like a ball on a string. Gravity works as a string applying those Newtonian forces to every particle in the moon. So why some particles and not others bdgwx? You guys are just inculcated and simply can’t admit to being ignorant about anything at all. DREMT came and produced the only formal references and those references are in complete consistency with Newton’s 2nd Law of Rotation.
I am not claiming there never is an exception to the rule. . . .thats what scientific investigation is all about. When you find something bdgwx come back and tell us you told us so. That will be fine but you aren’t going to find much success improperly drawing conclusions from frames of reference or trying to reverse the burden proof or quoting religious text or even poorly worded sentences by famous scientists.
“So we are down to if I can’t refute the moon has any spin on it that will affirm your certainty it does?”
Nice try at evasion.
No Bill, the question was nothing to do with the Moon.
Try to focus.
It was
“Can you refute that there is Torque applied to the Balls and as a consequence of N2LOR, they must begin to rotate?”
“To put a spin on the moons COM you need a unique F applying a force offcenter of the COM
If planets and moons have spin, and they do, there is no need for an additional torque to keep them spinning.
N1LOR says an object in rotation will continue to rotate unless acted on by a torque.”
The Moon has rotation. All are agreed on that.
There is NO NEED for any additional Torque to give it more rotation.
You seem to be very confused and think the Moon NEEDS some additional Force on it.
It doesn’t, and if you think it does, you really dont understand Newtons Laws for Rotation.
bill said: So you say bdgwx. But for some reason you cant prove any evidence of that.
https://tinyurl.com/6ce8tmz
bill said: The moon isnt slowing bdgwx. The moons speed is increasing.
Both its spin angular velocity and its orbital angular velocity are decreasing. It’s linear orbital velocity is also decreasing. Tidal dissipation is occurring within the Earth and Moon via heating from friction. This energy is balanced by a decrease in kinetic energy of the spin of Earth, spin of the Moon, and orbit of the Moon. And because the Earth is spinning down it is losing angular momentum which transfers to the Moon orbit causing it to recede.
bill said: Its the earths independent axial rotation is what is slowing down feeding the angular momentum into the lunar orbit.
Correct. But like I said above that does not mean the Moon is speeding up either via its spin or its orbit.
bill said: That process suggests that the gravitational influences between the moon and the earth are capable affecting each other and that angular momentum can be exchanged in the process.
Yeah. That’s what we’re trying to say. Momentum is conserved. Earth loses angular momentum while the Moon gains it.
bill said: The moons rotational period, I understand is not increasing as the additional speed is resulting in an increase in the radius of the moons orbit.
Remember the formula for angular momentum is L = I * w. L can increase if either moment of inertia (I) or angular velocity (w) increase. In the case of the Moon I is increasing and w is decreasing, but I is increasing more than w is decreasing. Thus lunar orbital angular momentum is increasing even though its speed is decreasing.
bill said: So if you switched off gravity it might be possible that angular momentum could also be transferred to around the moons COM similar to the video where the guy exploded an LP recording by spinning it too fast.
No angular momentum was transferred in the vide of the record dissociating. The momentum was always there. It is conserved. Therefore the pieces continue to rotate even though they fly off at tangents.
It is important to see the distinction between the record and the Moon though. In the case of the Moon kinetic energy is being converted into heat and lost. That’s not the case for the record.
bill said: But there doesnt seem to be any chance at all that gravity will ever be shut off. What might occur instead is an orbit expands until the moon sort of drifts off into another orbit around something else. But the earth might run out of independent spin first.
Right. It’s just a thought experiment.
bdgwx says:
”Yeah. That’s what we’re trying to say. Momentum is conserved. Earth loses angular momentum while the Moon gains it.”
======================
Thats good bdgwx. We have Newton’s 2nd Law of Rotation to provide a spin on an exterior axis, like a ball on a string.
We have the earth giving its COM axis transferring its angular momentum to the lunar orbit.
Gee we have everything to explain that the moon rotates around the earth’s COM and that if the string breaks the angular momentum will be transferred from the orbital rotation to a rotation around the moon’s COM.
What else should we know about the moon?
Nate says:
”So we are down to if I can’t refute the moon has any spin on it that will affirm your certainty it does?”
Nice try at evasion.
No Bill, the question was nothing to do with the Moon.
Try to focus.
It was
”Can you refute that there is Torque applied to the Balls and as a consequence of N2LOR, they must begin to rotate?”
====================================
Gee you are asking me to what folks asked G&T to do. Namely refute something for which a physical model hasn’t been constructed yet. The way science works is somebody builds a model out of known physical processes using the laws of physics and experiments to establish them as fact. And if the model does not precisely do as claimed its refuted. But one has to first prove it works and how it works before somebody can refute something somebody just might have made up. Like I say God Exists, prove me wrong. If you can do that then maybe I will take a shot at your ridiculous and ignorant claim.
Meanwhile please stop trolling.
bdgwx says:
bill said: To put a spin on the moon’s COM you need a ”unique” F applying a force offcenter of the COM of the moon.
The Moon already has spin about its COM. The gravitational interaction between it and the Earth is producing a force F or torque T upon it which is actually causing it to slow it. Are you challenging this?
===========================
Yes I am challenging it.
1) you don’t get off that easy bdgwx. The moon has a spin around the earth’s COM and no spin around its own COM.
2)The moon is not slowing. It is the earth that is slowing. It is transferring energy to the moons orbit. You know, the conservation of angular momentum? It has to go somewhere.
The article explains it: https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-earths-rotation-is-gradually-slowing-down
“Namely refute something for which a physical model hasnt been constructed yet.”
Lame.
This is Tesla’s model. It is textbook standard. It is the one YOU claimed I was getting all wrong.
YOU said I “Nate calls bunk on Newtons 2nd Law of Rotation” after I explained it.
This makes absolutely no sense.
You keep quoting Newton’s 2nd Law of Rotation but you have no idea how to apply it.
You obviously don’t get it, but you are happy to mansplain it to people who do.
BDGWX,
It is hopeless to think that Bill will ever understand, learn, or be persuaded by ordinary facts and logic.
“The moon is not slowing.” is just another endless rabbit hole that Bill wants to drag us down into, in order to evade the logical arguments we have already made that he cannot refute.
bill said: 1) you dont get off that easy bdgwx. The moon has a spin around the earths COM and no spin around its own COM.
It does have spin around the Earth-Moon COG. It also has spin around its own COM as well. See NASA’s Moon Fact Sheet if you don’t believe me and my own calculations. Note that the entire world has reviewed NASA’s calculations and finds no fault it either. https://tinyurl.com/6ce8tmz
bill said: 2)The moon is not slowing. It is the earth that is slowing. It is transferring energy to the moons orbit. You know, the conservation of angular momentum? It has to go somewhere.
Stop deflecting. We are talking about the Moon; not the Earth. Everyone knows the Earth’s spin about its own axis is slowing down. That’s not the question. The question is…is the Moon’s spin on its own axis and/or orbital motion slowing down? The answer is…BOTH. And I don’t need a lecture on conservation of momentum. I’m the one who’s been explaining it to you. I even told you which forces are play, why the Moon is receding, why it is slowing down, where the lost kinetic energy is going, etc. in another post.
Nate says:
”Namely refute something for which a physical model hasnt been constructed yet.”
Lame.
———————-
Pathetic! You want me to refute your laws of rotation that you haven’t even stated? that is such a pathetic argument!
=============
=============
Nate says:
This is Tesla’s model. It is textbook standard. It is the one YOU claimed I was getting all wrong.
YOU said I “Nate calls bunk on Newtons 2nd Law of Rotation” after I explained it.
This makes absolutely no sense.
===================
You guys are calling Bunk on Tesla and you want to use his argument? LMAO! You just don’t comprehend Tesla. Its simple as that. Tesla’s visionary abilities are so far over you guys head its pathetic.
===================
==================
==================
Nate says:
You keep quoting Newton’s 2nd Law of Rotation but you have no idea how to apply it.
=====================
Pathetic! Newton’s 2nd is so easy to apply its ridiculous! Car mechanics, electricians, plumbers apply Newton’s law every day!
It is just too simple. The demonstration is a piece of cake. You have a pivot, a COM for gravity. You have a string (gravity). And you have a force perpendicular to that string.
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
Your reply is the force isn’t there for a lunar orbit because the spin is already in the moon. A pathetic argument that amounts to nothing but a declaration of fact. Your premise is the only argument you have to reach your conclusion.
Your argument that an orbit isn’t a rotation is total BS. You argue its a translation. A ridiculous argument that theoretically would have to be repeated for consistency and a claim made that where you think the rotation of the moon is occurring (the moon’s COM) is merely a translation as well.
bdgwx says:
March 24, 2021 at 8:24 AM
bill said: 1) you dont get off that easy bdgwx. The moon has a spin around the earths COM and no spin around its own COM.
It does have spin around the Earth-Moon COG. It also has spin around its own COM as well. See NASAs Moon Fact Sheet if you dont believe me and my own calculations. Note that the entire world has reviewed NASAs calculations and finds no fault it either. https://tinyurl.com/6ce8tmz
bill said: 2)The moon is not slowing. It is the earth that is slowing. It is transferring energy to the moons orbit. You know, the conservation of angular momentum? It has to go somewhere.
Stop deflecting. We are talking about the Moon; not the Earth. Everyone knows the Earths spin about its own axis is slowing down. Thats not the question. The question isis the Moons spin on its own axis and/or orbital motion slowing down? The answer isBOTH. And I dont need a lecture on conservation of momentum. Im the one whos been explaining it to you. I even told you which forces are play, why the Moon is receding, why it is slowing down, where the lost kinetic energy is going, etc. in another post.
=============================
Stop obfuscating bdgwx.
Be specific with your claims that 1) Non-spinners are refuted by exactly which calculation you linked to. and 2) A science paper supporting your claim that the both the earth and moon are losing angular momentum and explains where that energy is going in compliance with the law of conservation of angular momentum.
“Newton’s 2nd is so easy to apply its ridiculous! Car mechanics, electricians, plumbers apply Newton’s law every day!”
Then how come when I use it to explain Tesla’s issues, you have NO RESPONSE, no rebuttal, zilch?
You JUST cling to Tesla’s authority! He must be right!
“It is just too simple. The demonstration is a piece of cake. You have a pivot, a COM for gravity. You have a string (gravity). And you have a force perpendicular to that string.”
Then YOU try to claim a perpendicular force is applied on the Moon when there is NONE and NONE NEEDED!
“Your reply is the force isn’t there for a lunar orbit because the spin is already in the moon.”
The Moon HAS ROTATION wrt the inertial frame of the stars.
That is a fact that no one refutes, not even DREMT.
It needs NO FORCE to keep its rotation going. That is what Newton’s Laws say.
If you still dont get that, then you are a moron!
Nate says:
”It needs NO FORCE to keep its rotation going. That is what Newton’s Laws say.
If you still dont get that, then you are a moron!”
No I understand what you said in this post. I am just trying to penetrate where you stand in total. Its not clear with all the bullcrap you guys throw around.
For example, the claims the moon’s orbit isn’t a rotation but a translation. Its not clear what you trying to say.
Can I use standard Newton 2nd Law of Rotation formulas to calculate the various quantities involved in the moon orbiting the earth? Or do I need a special translating formula? Thats questionable when you claim the orbit isn’t a rotation. So call that question 1.
question 2 would be if I can use N2LR to calculate the moon’s orbital parameters, do I then need to subtract something from that result to reserve some of this energy for its spin on its own axis?
depending on your answers I might have some additional questions.
Good point, bill. We know from down-thread that bdgwx and the others describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as curvilinear translation, in a circle. So he would have to describe the moon’s motion as curvilinear translation in a circle plus axial rotation, once per orbit, in the CCW direction. But, at the same time, he is trying to describe the moon’s motion as a rotation about an external axis plus axial rotation, once per orbit, in the CCW direction. And, at the same time, he apparently acknowledges that “curvilinear translation, in a circle”, and “rotation about an external axis” are two completely separate and different motions!
I would certainly like to see bdgwx being corrected by someone from the “Spinner” team…but that seems unlikely to happen, due to a lack of integrity.
The Moon’s orbital motion and rotation are what they are. The debate has been how to describe that motion. KINEMATICS. That is separate from the causes of that motion.
N2LOR addresses causes of rotational motion. So that is not relevant to the description of motion, which is already present.
In any case, there is no sideways force on the Moon like the one you show in the diagram. There is only inward gravity.
I would certainly like to see bdgwx being corrected by someone from the “Spinner” team…but that seems unlikely to happen, due to a lack of integrity.
Dont mix up the Moon with Teslas spheres on spokes.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-644462
I would certainly like to see someone from the ‘NonSpinner’ team acknowledge that Newton does not agree with them on the Moons axial rotation, and Astronomy does not agree with their definition of Orbit.but that seems unlikely to happen, due to a lack of integrity.
I would certainly like to see bdgwx being corrected by someone from the “Spinner” team…but that seems unlikely to happen, due to a lack of integrity..
DREMT said: We know from down-thread that bdgwx and the others describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as curvilinear translation,
No I don’t. Curvilinear translation is when a body moves with all straight lines within the body maintaining the same orientation. Straight lines within the Moon change direction as it moves around the Earth. Now, it is true that when asked if I agreed if it was curvilinear translation I said yes. That was a mistake on my part which I have corrected multiple times already. I never should have agreed to that in the first place. What I should have said was that the Moon has linear velocity and momentum as it orbits the Earth.
bill said: For example, the claims the moons orbit isnt a rotation but a translation. Its not clear what you trying to say.
Nobody is claiming that it isn’t rotation. The question is…does it’s orbit count as “translation”. Although there is some discrepancy with the way “translation” is defined in some texts the prevailing usage implies that it is motion without a change in orientation. So if we are too accept prevailing definitions it most correct to say that the Moon has rotation in its orbit around Earth, but does not translate.
One thing to keep in mind though is that in the context celestial mechanics the word “rotate” has a more specific meaning. Unless otherwise noted it is in reference a body’s own axis. The word “revolution” or “orbit” is in reference to the barycenter of two bodies. That can definitely be confusing because in the more general context “rotate” means that body starts and returns to the same position/orientation with angular velocity in any inertial reference frame.
I said that bdgwx described "orbital motion without axial rotation" as curvilinear translation and he starts talking about the motion of the moon. One could conclude that bdgwx thinks the moon’s motion is "orbital motion without axial rotation".
DREMT said: I said that bdgwx described “orbital motion without axial rotation” as curvilinear translation
I literally just said I don’t describe it that way.
DREMT said: One could conclude that bdgwx thinks the moons motion is “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
I’m going to nip this in the bud too. I do NOT think the Moon’s motion is “orbital motion without axial rotation”. In fact, I accept the opposite. That is…it is orbital motion with axial rotation.
"I literally just said I don’t describe it that way."
No, you said you don’t describe the moon’s motion that way. I said you describe "orbital motion without axial rotation" as curvilinear translation, and you responded that the moon’s motion is not curvilinear translation. So, one could conclude that you think the moon’s motion is "orbital motion without axial rotation".
Do you understand logic, bdgwx?
Ah gotcha…My brain read “without” and “with”. Yes. “orbital motion without axial rotation” would be curvilinear translation per Dr. Madhavi’s definition. Note that “without axial rotation” means there is no change orientation wrt to the universe.
Well done. So, now you can answer this question:
Is it your position that the moon’s motion is:
1) Curvilinear translation in a circle/ellipse plus rotation on its own axis, once per orbit, in the CCW direction?
2) Rotation about an external axis plus rotation on its own axis, once per orbit, in the CCW direction?
N.B: You cannot argue that it is both, because you have already agreed elsewhere that curvilinear translation in a circle, and rotation about an external axis, are two completely different, and separate motions.
DREMT, Sorry for totally misreading that. I’m losing my edge today for sure. My true interest and passion is with tornadoes and so I’m more focused on the tornado potential in the US southeast today where the severe weather parameter space is unusually high. I would not be surprised at all if there were violent long track tornadoes today down there. I’ll try to respond back later if I can, but my participation here will probably be light at best today.
That’s funny…in the time it took you to write that message out, you could have just written "1)" or "2)", quite easily.
Nate says:
”The Moon’s orbital motion and rotation are what they are. The debate has been how to describe that motion. KINEMATICS. That is separate from the causes of that motion.”
Nate you didn’t answer the questions. We know what you don’t believe what the questions are for is to figure out what you do believe.
Question 1: Can I straight up use standard Newton 2nd Law of Rotation formulas to calculate the various quantities involved in the moon orbiting the earth? Yes or no.
Question 2:
If Q1 is yes. If I then calculate the N2LR quantities of the moon rotating on its own axis. Does the represent additional energy in the Sun/Moon system. Yes or No.
If Q1 is no. Then what formula should I use to calculate the momentum of the moon due to the moon orbiting the earth.
DREMT et al has clearly stated a position by which both the above questions can be clearly answered and provided Dr. Madhavi’s kinematics calculations as support for his answer.
You guys have been about as clear as mud. Answering the above questions will help delineate where you stand on this.
DREMT, What does CCW stand for?
Counter-clockwise.
1. No
2. Yes
Thank you for answering. Your comment is in direct disagreement with the rest of the “Spinners”, who would have answered:
1) Yes.
2) No.
I eagerly await their comments to you, with popcorn ready.
Bill, i answered your questions in 2 posts. One was in the wrong thread, but I linked to it.
Did you read them? Refer to my answers provided.
I see DREMT has a big concern about integrity. Just not his own!
“Question 1: Can I straight up use standard Newton 2nd Law of Rotation formulas to calculate the various quantities involved in the moon orbiting the earth? Yes or no.”
I dont see where it is useful. Where do you think it applies?
Question 2:
If Q1 is yes. If I then calculate the N2LR quantities of the moon rotating on its own axis. Does the represent additional energy in the Sun/Moon system. Yes or No.
If Q1 is no. Then what formula should I use to calculate the momentum of the moon due to the moon orbiting the earth.
Momentum of the moon is p= mv.
You mean angular momentum?
then L = Lorb + Lspin
Lorb = mvr
Lspin = Iomega, I = 2/5MR^2 omega = spin angular velocity.
By the way, bdgwx, you are also contradicting yourself. You have already agreed that you think "orbital motion without axial rotation" is curvilinear translation in a circle. In which case you can only think that the moon’s motion is translation plus axial rotation.
I would argue that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is rotation about an external axis, just like the Thoughtco and Wikipedia links confirm. Motion like the "moon on the left".
If the moon were rotating about an external axis, and rotating about its own center of mass, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Just a fact about rotation for you to deny.
Nate says:
The Moon’s orbital motion and rotation are what they are. The debate has been how to describe that motion. KINEMATICS. That is separate from the causes of that motion.
N2LOR addresses causes of rotational motion. So that is not relevant to the description of motion, which is already present.
In any case, there is no sideways force on the Moon like the one you show in the diagram. There is only inward gravity.
================================
thats a disreputably evasive answer Nate. As you know angular momentum is derived from F as a change in momentum over time. Therefore the fingerprint of the past existence of an F resides in the current angular momentum for any rotation subject to N2LR.
So if I were to divine what you are trying to say above the present momentum of the moon orbiting the earth cannot be derived using the principles laid out in N2LR (you claim its not a rotations) and therefore angular momentum derived from N2LR is not present.
And you claim to have answered the 2nd question somewhere else which if Q1 was no you were supposed to provide the means of calculating the momentum without using the principles of N2LR.
I haven’t seen where you did that.
I answered your questions directly also.
“Therefore the fingerprint of the past existence of an F resides”
And??
thank you Nate I see you answered my initial questions while I was composing and searching out the answers you claimed you made.
Nate says:
I dont see where it is useful. Where do you think it applies?
Momentum of the moon is p= mv.
================================
That would be momentum in a straight line Nate. I am talking about the momentum that is associated with a curved line.
Is that derived from N2LR and if so how do you justify suggesting it doesn’t apply?
And if you actually believe it doesn’t apply then what do you rely upon to calculate the angular momentum for a non-rotating object?
I will withhold my comments on your answer to Q2 until you clarify this point.
DREMT said: In which case you can only think that the moon’s motion is translation plus axial rotation.
According to Dr. Madhavi’s definition if a body changes its orientation it is not translation. Therefore I have no legitimate claim to say that the moon’s motion is “translation plus axial rotation”.
I still have a legitimate claim to say that the moon’s motion is “orbit with axial rotation” or “rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis” or using the accept jargon of celestial mechanics “revolution plus rotation” where “revolution” is implied to be on an external axis and “rotation” is implied to be on an internal axis. I will say that celestial mechanics use of the word “rotation” to imply the internal axis is rather unfortunate. But I can’t change that.
"According to Dr. Madhavi’s definition if a body changes its orientation it is not translation. Therefore I have no legitimate claim to say that the moon’s motion is “translation plus axial rotation”."
There’s no reasoning with you, is there!?
If you were arguing that the moon was only translating, then of course the fact that the moon is changing its orientation would be a problem, for the reason you just outlined. But the "Spinner" position is that the moon is translating plus rotating on its own axis. Do you really not get it!? Can you really not mentally add one motion on top of another motion!?
And again, "rotation about an external axis", without rotation about the object’s center of mass, is motion like the "moon on the left". So if you add axial rotation to that motion, you end up seeing all sides of the object from the center of revolution.
I can already tell that you will misconstrue everything I’ve just said, so I’ll make it simple for you. There are two ways of seeing this. The "Spinner" way and the "Non-Spinner" way.
"Spinner" way – the moon is translating, plus rotating on its own axis.
"Non-Spinner" way – the moon is rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about its own center of mass.
Those are the sides. Those are your only options. Pick one.
Bill answer here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-644951
Wrong place
Crickets, from bdgwx…
My position is that the Moon has angular velocity/momentum on its own axis AND on the Earth-Moon barycenter axis.
Not possible. If the moon were rotating about an external axis, and about its own center of mass, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. You simply lack the capacity to mentally add two motions together, as your previous comments have proven.
There is no point talking to you. You are brain dead.
Any excuse for climate alarmists to avoid discussing – climate!
Why am I not surprised?
They’re too cold!
☺
swenson…”Any excuse for climate alarmists to avoid discussing climate!”
Based on their pseudo-scientific explanations for the Moon’s alleged rotation, I’d say they have run out of hot air.
Tesla is shown correct by DREMT clip 10:20am, Gordon, the ball M does not rotate wrt the spinning spokes tho to the eye it seems so. The fallacy of ball M not spinning inertially will become manifest on Tesla’s further inquiry.
See Tesla’s inquiry showing full equation for E = energy of ball M inertially rotating on both R and r radii for two different axes of rotation. Tesla’s proof for ball M rotating once on its own axis r while orbiting on axis R is quite detailed. Tesla’s analysis confirms our moon rotates once on its own axis radius r of moon while fully orbiting earth on radius R distance from Earth/moon barycenter.
His description of Fig. 6 makes it quite clear that there is only one axis of rotation, Ball4. Again, note…Fig. 6, not Fig. 5. Fig. 5 is the one with the spokes. Fig. 6 is a ball on a string. You keep mixing them up.
"For this purpose I would refer to Fig. 6 showing a ball M of radius r, the center C of which is at a distance R from axis O and which is bisected by a tangential plane pp as indicated, the lower half sphere being shaded for distinction"
And this is what he went on to say about Fig. 6:
"I shall first undertake to demonstrate that there is no torque or rotary effort about center C and that the kinetic energy of the supposed axial rotation of the ball is mathematically equal to zero."
DREMT, of course ball M exerts no torque or rotary effort about center C because as Tesla explains ball M is attached to the constantly spinning string and earlier “fixt” to the constantly spinning spokes. One day you may realize Tesla was right that our moon has rotational energy about axis at radius r AND rotational energy about axis at radius R, two different axes in Tesla’s full eqn. E for his ball M. That day has not yet arrived, just study Tesla closely to bring that day closer.
There is only axis O, Ball4.
…wrt to the spinning string Fig. 6 and spinning spokes Fig. 5 as Tesla writes. Inertially Tesla’s full formula for ball M rotational energy E is correct for both Fig. 6 and Fig. 5.
No, the most you could possibly twist out of it, as I have explained before, is the idea that the ball is translating in a circle about O whilst rotating about C (its own axis). Remember Fig. 4
but this idea is what Tesla is arguing against, anyway.
The is just Ball4 SOP. He did it with Madhavi to. so impressed with the evidence, has nothing to refute it with, so he starts making up stuff and claiming it supports his argument.
I have Tesla’s physics for ball M full rotational energy E = function (r,R) with which to refute DREMT, which is really easy as can be observed around here.
You nailed it, bill.
bdg…”No. I do not want to recast my statement. All motions occur in a reference frame. That includes the motion of light. To measure motion you must define a coordinate system or a reference frame”.
When Mickelsen-Morley measured the speed of light did they have to define a coordinate system? Nope. They set up mirrors on the Earth’s surface and simply measured the speed between mirrors.
You have reference frame on the brain. I’ll bet you cannot step out your door each day without checking to be sure you’re in the right reference frame.
GR said: When Mickelsen-Morley measured the speed of light did they have to define a coordinate system? Nope.
Seriously? This is one of the most quintessential reference frame experiments of all time. The entire point of the experiment was to measure Earth’s velocity wrt to the proposed luminiferous aether wind and its effect on light. The reference frame is fixed to the aether which was thought at the time to represent the one true inertial frame. The experiment had to consider all kinds of relative motions including the rotation of Earth in the terrestrial centered sidereal frame, the rotation of Earth in the terrestrial centered synodic frame, the motion of the Earth in the Sun centered sidereal frame, etc. The apparatus itself was floated on a pool mercury so that it could be quickly reoriented relative to these different motions. The experiment took place at different times of day and days of the year again to see if any of Earth’s motions changed the outcome. BTW…the experiment was an epic failure due to the fridge shift of light (which was measured on a frame traveling with the detector) being so small that no apparent motion though the aether could be detected. Thus the conclusion of no aether wind and no aether.
bdg…”This is one of the most quintessential reference frame experiments of all time. The entire point of the experiment was to measure Earths velocity wrt to the proposed luminiferous aether wind and its effect on light. The reference frame is fixed to the aether which was thought at the time to represent the one true inertial frame”.
***
Nothing to do with reference frames. Foucault tried to measure the speed of light using rotating mirrors and Mickelsen repeated his experiment using greater distances and more refined mirrors.
There is confusion over this in Wikipedia and other sources. Some don’t mention Morley at all. Mickelsen-Morley’s focus initially was in measuring the speed of light in different directions, they were not focused on disproving the aether theory.
Morley also worked with Dayton Miller, who claimed to have measured a tiny aether drift. The possibility of that has been heightened since it was discovered that so-called empty space is teeming with neutrinos.
The point is, you don’t need to mention reference frames in physics unless you are dealing with problems of relativity. It’s obvious that if you measure a velocity of 100 mph on the surface of the Earth, and the Earth is moving at considerable velocity itself, that the velocity measured will be a lot higher from another reference frame.
It is presumed when measuring a terrestrial velocity that you are referencing it to the Earth’s surface. It’s insanity considering that velocity relative to distant stars, or wherever. If I read on my vehicle’s speedometer that I am moving at 30 mph, I am not going to add on the Earth’s orbital velocity through space and the solar system’s velocity in the galaxy.
With this Moon problem, you have to put away all the theory you have learned in physics, except for the pertinent theory. That pertinent theory is theory local to the Moon in its orbit. Never mind the stars or any other reference frame or perspective, look only at the Moon.
It has the same side pointed at the Earth at all times, meaning that side is moving in a circle (slight ellipse). Same for the far side and the centre. With those three points moving in concentric circles, ask yourself if it is possible for the Moon to rotate about its centre at the same time.
We are talking about physical rotation with an angular velocity about the axis, not a theorized rotation based on reference frames. You are not talking about local rotation, you are talking about an illusion of local rotation.
GR said: Nothing to do with reference frames.
It has everything to do with reference frames. Literally. They were trying to measure Earth’s velocity wrt to the aether using light. They weren’t trying to measure it wrt to the Sun, Moon, Mars, Milky Way, etc. which would represent anchors for other reference frames BTW. It was specifically wrt to the aether. The reference frame was to be the aether.
GR said: The point is, you dont need to mention reference frames in physics unless you are dealing with problems of relativity.
Patently False. You can’t even measure velocity without declaring a reference frame anyway under any context. All motions are relative.
If you throw a ball at 10 m/s on a train moving at 10 m/s itself how fast is the ball going? There are multiple correct answers depending on which reference frame you select.
GR said: It is presumed when measuring a terrestrial velocity that you are referencing it to the Earths surface.
That is a reference frame. The frame travels with the Earth.
GR said: If I read on my vehicles speedometer that I am moving at 30 mph, I am not going to add on the Earths orbital velocity through space and the solar systems velocity in the galaxy.
YOU might not. But that is exactly what M&M were trying to do. They were trying to measure how fast their apparatus was moving through the proposed aether. The reference frame they were interested in was the one that was fixed to the aether.
GR said: We are talking about physical rotation with an angular velocity about the axis, not a theorized rotation based on reference frames. You are not talking about local rotation, you are talking about an illusion of local rotation.
The Moon’s calculated motion about its axis in a rotationally inertial frame (pointed toward a distant star) is real. Most would say it is more “real” than its calculated motion in a rotationally non-inertial frame (pointed toward the Earth) because the former does not need to invoke fictitious forces. But you tell me…do you think perceived motions that require the fictitious forces to explain are more “real” than perceived motions that don’t require them?
“The Moon’s calculated motion about its axis in a rotationally inertial frame (pointed toward a distant star) is real.”
You are calculating angular velocity here because you are observing that the same point on the surface of the moon starts and returns to the a=0 radial line. But it does so because the moon is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
…in the accelerated frame.
No, regardless of reference frame.
Tesla proved DREMT wrong by his Fig. 6 analysis because Tesla correctly used an inertial frame for the total rotational energy E of his ball with mass M rotating on its own axis once per orbit.
Keep on lying about Tesla, Ball4. I love how we have now moved on from Fig. 5 altogether. Or Fig. 4.
Fig. 5 was the wheel with ball M assembly, and Fig. 6 ball with masss M on string assembly, DREMT. Tesla correctly used both to show you are wrong and that our moon inertially rotates once on its own axis per orbit with his formula for rotational energy E.
I am aware of what the figures are, and his discussion of them. Part of his third article on how the moon does not rotate on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
DREMT is proven wrong by Tesla’s formula for rotational energy E which DREMT has not challenged because using E Tesla shows ref. frames do matter and our moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit. DREMT is using erroneous assertions not proper physics like Tesla.
OK, Ball4.
Ok! Good to see you have come around to agree with me, Prof. Madhavi, and Tesla Fig. 6 analysis.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-639153
Oh, by “OK, Ball4” I am not indicating agreement. I am merely acknowledging receipt of your erroneous assertions.
That’s your usual backslide DREMT; it’s entertaining to watch you twisting in the wind as usual. Pity.
Tesla lays it all out for DREMT physically with examples & still DREMT remains twisting about, running around with hair on fire.
OK, Ball4..
DREMT said: But it does so because the moon is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
Let’s be precise here. The Moon has an angular velocity on its own axis of 2.66e-6 rad/s because it is orbiting the Earth with angular velocity of 2.66e-6 rad/s and because it is tidally locked with Earth.
Just like a ball on a string it’s angular velocity on its own axis is physically constrained. Any perturbation of the angular velocity on its own axis is offset by an opposing force that keeps the angular velocity on its own axis in a stable equilibrium with the angular velocity on the orbital axis.
BTW…if you have a quick release mechanism that can disconnect the ball from the string without inducing any torque you will observe that the ball retains its original angular velocity on its own axis as it flies off at a tangent. This is the law of conservation of angular momentum.
One of the most convincing demonstrations of this is of a spinning a disk that dissociates. The fragmented pieces keep their angular velocity and continue to spin wrt to the inertial frame even though they’ve been disconnected from the mechanism that caused them to acquire that angular velocity in the first place. This is the law of conservation of angular momentum. https://youtu.be/n-DTjpde9-0?t=360
Remember…angular momentum is conserved in inertial frames only. That is why the dissociated disk pieces continue to spin wrt to the up direction at the same rate they were spinning before dissociation. But angular momentum is not conserved in non-inertial frames. That’s why the dissociated pieces appear to start spinning wrt to the spindle even though they had no apparent spin wrt to the spindle before dissociation.
Someone play some Chubby Checker twisting music for DREMT to learn by.
“Let’s be precise here. The Moon has an angular velocity on its own axis of 2.66e-6 rad/s”
You are calculating angular velocity here because you are observing that the same point on the surface of the moon starts and returns to the a=0 radial line. But it does so because the moon is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
Don’t forget about tidal locking DREMT. It is an essential piece in explaining why the Moon has angular velocity of 2.66e-6 rad/s in the inertial frame that goes through its COM.
"…why the Moon has angular velocity of 2.66e-6 rad/s in the inertial frame that goes through its COM."
You are calculating angular velocity here because you are observing that the same point on the surface of the moon starts and returns to the a=0 radial line. But it does so because the moon is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
…in the accelerated frame as per Tesla.
No, Ball4…regardless of reference frame. For the 1000th time.
Tesla’s physics prove that wrong 1001th time. Ref. frames matter in physics.
…but not when it comes to discerning axes of rotation.
Correctly according to Tesla’s physics: …especially when it comes to determining rates of rotation (omega, Ve, Vn) about axes of rotation through O and c at radii r,R.
….but not when it comes to discerning axes of rotation.
bdgwx says:
DREMT said: But it does so because the moon is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
Lets be precise here. The Moon has an angular velocity on its own axis of 2.66e-6 rad/s because it is orbiting the Earth with angular velocity of 2.66e-6 rad/s and because it is tidally locked with Earth.
Just like a ball on a string its angular velocity on its own axis is physically constrained.
===================================
You guys are incorrigible. You insist in not understanding the non-spinner position is that the moon has but one axis and it is an external one. There is no second axis, none, zip, nil. And if it did spin on an internal axis statistically it is extremely likely that axis would point in another direction!
The earth has a second one that points 23.5 degrees away from its external axis for its orbit. Uranus’ second axis points 98 degrees away from its external axis. The moon doesn’t have one because it doesn’t rotate on an internal axis. Yet you guys invent a thousand devices reference frames, momentums, inertias, velocities, and all sorts of devices so you can don horseblinders and go back to insist on some property of this mythical axis that correctly is a property of the moon/earth system.
Its actually hilarious how its done with climate too confounding surface, atmosphere, 33 degree greenhouse effects and all sorts of ridiculous concepts that are never ever explained in a comprehensive format with any true quantities. Even the word climate. Is that surface temperature, atmospheric temperature, does it include the actual role of clouds (not so for estimating the greenhouse effect). Its science presented in the form, rigidity, and integrity of a political argument.
bdg…”GR said: The point is, you dont need to mention reference frames in physics unless you are dealing with problems of relativity.
Patently False. You can’t even measure velocity without declaring a reference frame anyway under any context. All motions are relative”.
Gibberish. Not once on any engineering problem set or exam did I ever have to declare a reference frame. That applies to first year science as well.
I can measure velocity fine without a reference frame. As I said, my vehicle’s speedometer does it every time I drive it. The speedometer is not calibrated to a reference frame and no one cares about them except the highly theoretical.
GR said: Not once on any engineering problem set or exam did I ever have to declare a reference frame.
Yes you did. It was likely assumed or perhaps you just weren’t aware of the concept of reference frames at the time. If you were calculating velocity, momentum, or kinetic energy of typical everyday objects like baseballs, cars, etc. then you were likely doing so wrt to the surface of the Earth. Your reference frame had (x,y) coordinates that were fixed to the surface.
GR said: I can measure velocity fine without a reference frame. As I said, my vehicles speedometer does it every time I drive it.
You’re vehicle’s speedometer is measuring velocity wrt to a reference frame that is fixed to the surface of Earth and moves along with it as the Earth moves around the Sun, Milky Way, etc.
Sure, reference frames are necessary…
…but not when it comes to discerning axes of rotation.
bill said: There is no second axis, none, zip, nil.
So how is that NASA, ESA, JAXA, every celestial mechanics scientists, and pretty much the entire world is able to put an axis such that the radius r=0 point goes through the Moon’s COM and points the angle a=0 radial line toward a distant star and measure an angular velocity of 2.66e-6 rad/s (27.3d period) or when pointed toward the Sun measure 2.46e-6 rad/s (29.5d period)? https://tinyurl.com/6ce8tmz
bill said: The earth has a second one that points 23.5 degrees away from its external axis for its orbit.
The equivalent axis on the Moon tilts 6.68 degrees wrt to its orbit and 5.15 degrees wrt to the ecliptic. https://tinyurl.com/6ce8tmz
bdgwx, you do not get to "put" an axis wherever you feel like.
DREMT said: Sure, reference frames are necessary
but not when it comes to discerning axes of rotation.
Angular velocity, angular momentum, and rotational kinetic energy are all calculated wrt to a declared reference frame as well. All motions are relative. This includes rotation.
DREMT said: bdgwx, you do not get to “put” an axis wherever you feel like.
Not only can you, but in the case of an astronomical body like the Moon it is reasonable and useful to do so through the body’s COM. That’s how we calculate the lunar day/night cycle actually. You put the axis with radius r=0 through the COM and point the angle a=0 radial line toward the Sun. You then time how long it takes for the Sun to return to the same point in the sky as observed from the surface of the Moon and calculate angular velocity as w = 2pi / T. Note that this procedure works for all astronomical bodies regardless of their orbital motion or whether they are tidally locked or not.
Sure, all motions are relative…
…but not when it comes to discerning axes of rotation.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Sure, reference frames are necessary
but not when it comes to discerning axes of rotation.
==========================
bdgwx please carefully note the key word in the above is ”discerning”.
Your use of frames simply act as a lack of discernment and are applied as an ”assumption” instead as I have repeatedly pointed out.
bill said: Your use of frames simply act as a lack of discernment and are applied as an assumption instead as I have repeatedly pointed out.
I’ve said this multiple times now. A “body’s axis of rotation” in the context of astronomical bodies is defined as being through the COM of the body and oriented such that it does not spin wrt to distant stars. There is no liberty in interpretation here. I have to pick that axis and reference frame because that is what the definition requires. If do the calculations in any other reference frame I am no longer quantifying motion on the “body’s axis of rotation”. If I happen to select the reference frame that goes though the COG of the two-body system I am now quantifying orbital motion. That’s just how the definitions work in the context of astronomical bodies and celestial mechanics.
And I’m not assuming anything. I use the reference frame required by the definition and calculate angular velocity in that frame first. Then and only then do I make a conclusion regarding whether the body is rotating on its own axis or not.
I know. You do it differently.
You miss the point over and over again.
bdgwx you are avoiding addressing the issue from this perspective:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-640098
the above perspective provides the necessary explanation of whats wrong with the spinner position.
Your arguments that every day people are plotting off the moon’s internal axis and coming up with correct calculations. But that issue if fully contained within kinematics with what is wrong with it despite getting the right answers for the questions that astronomy is asking at this time. Its important to note that in every instance of that they would get an equally correct answer using the correct non-spinner viewpoint. So all your arguments are non-classifying and fail to address the real issues and potentially the real impacts to astronomy perhaps sometime long into the future. . . .possibly never.
bdgwx says:
bill said: Your use of frames simply act as a lack of discernment and are applied as an assumption instead as I have repeatedly pointed out.
Ive said this multiple times now. A bodys axis of rotation in the context of astronomical bodies is defined as being through the COM of the body and oriented such that it does not spin wrt to distant stars. There is no liberty in interpretation here.
——————————
there is no science in determining definitions bdgwx. You are like the short guy complex dictator chastising artists and often scientists as well (e.g. Pope Urban VIII who understood Galileo’s science but determined it would be politically more feasible to stick with the current definitions supporting geocentrism) for their choice of how they want to explain something and make the common man aware of it. You see that as an assault on the establishment and simply want to squelch it when in fact the squelching of such is exactly and precisely creates the problem the squelcher thinks he is avoiding. . . .like eventually every time.
We can mostly only hope that that process of freeing people from dogma continues to advance as the alternative is a very ugly situation indeed.
bdgwx says:
Ive said this multiple times now. A bodys axis of rotation in the context of astronomical bodies is defined as being through the COM of the body and oriented such that it does not spin wrt to distant stars. There is no liberty in interpretation here.
======================
Indeed bdgwx you are not a free man. Not allowed to think or speak for yourself nor question authority.
======================
========================
=====================
bdgwx says:
I have to pick that axis and reference frame because that is what the definition requires.
======================
Indeed bdgwx you are not a free man. Not allowed to think or speak for yourself nor question authority.
======================
========================
=====================
bdgwx says:
If do the calculations in any other reference frame I am no longer quantifying motion on the bodys axis of rotation. If I happen to select the reference frame that goes though the COG of the two-body system I am now quantifying orbital motion. Thats just how the definitions work in the context of astronomical bodies and celestial mechanics.
======================
Indeed bdgwx you are not a free man. Not allowed to think or speak for yourself nor question authority.
======================
========================
=====================
bdgwx says:
And Im not assuming anything. I use the reference frame required by the definition and calculate angular velocity in that frame first. Then and only then do I make a conclusion regarding whether the body is rotating on its own axis or not.
======================
Indeed bdgwx you are not a free man. Not allowed to think or speak for yourself nor question authority.
======================
========================
=====================
bdgwx says:
I know. You do it differently.
==========================
Insist on evidence and proof and will not sacrifice my integrity to just go along to get along.
======================
Indeed bdgwx you are not a free man. Not allowed to think or speak for yourself nor question authority.
======================
========================
=====================
bdgwx says:
I have to pick that axis and reference frame because that is what the definition requires.
======================
Indeed bdgwx you are not a free man. Not allowed to think or speak for yourself nor question authority.
======================
========================
=====================
bdgwx says:
If do the calculations in any other reference frame I am no longer quantifying motion on the bodys axis of rotation. If I happen to select the reference frame that goes though the COG of the two-body system I am now quantifying orbital motion. Thats just how the definitions work in the context of astronomical bodies and celestial mechanics.
======================
then you aren’t quantifying orbital motion with an orbiting object unless you are into double counting. What you need to first discern to avoid double counting is be sure you aren’t considering the same object properties in both calculations.
======================
========================
=====================
bdgwx says:
And Im not assuming anything. I use the reference frame required by the definition and calculate angular velocity in that frame first. Then and only then do I make a conclusion regarding whether the body is rotating on its own axis or not.
I know. You do it differently.
=========================
Well I can see how you get your answer. But your calculation has already determined the outcome for with regards to the moon. After doing that how do you calculate an orbit without an axis?
bill said: then you arent quantifying orbital motion with an orbiting object unless you are into double counting. What you need to first discern to avoid double counting is be sure you arent considering the same object properties in both calculations.
If I use an axis and reference frame that goes through the two-body COG then I’m quantifying orbital motion.
And I’m not double counting anything. The fact that the object has multiple angular velocities in different frames of reference is no different than it have multiple linear velocities in different frames of reference.
I’m having a hard time understanding what you are challenging here. Can you clarify?
bill said: After doing that how do you calculate an orbit without an axis?
I can’t. The definition of orbital angular velocity adopted by celestial mechanics scientists and everyone else in the world requires me to select the axis that goes through the COG of the two-body system.
Just respond here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-640567
entropic…”If an aircraft does not rotate in pitch as it flies from England to Australia, why is one aircraft now inverted relative to the other?”
So, you are claiming that in a plane taking off from Heathrow in London, the passengers are all sitting upright, but when the plane is over Australia, the people are upside down, held in their seats only by their seat belts. Naturally all their food and drinks would be on the plane’s ceiling.
Do you seriously not get what’s wrong with your thought experiment? ‘Down’, as opposed to ‘up’, on Earth, depends on the direction of gravitational force. Down at Heathrow is the same as down in Australia. The plane has not turned upside down via rotation by the time it is over Australia, it’s in the same position exactly as it was at Heathrow wrt to the surface.
As the plane orbits, or the Moon, gravity acts on either to keep their near sides always parallel to a tangential plane below them. The plane does not rotate about its COG and the Moon does not rotate about its COG either.
The direction of “down” in Australia is 180degrees opposed to “down” in England.
If the aircraft and it’s passengers did not rotate 180 degrees during the flight, they would still be in their original orientation and arrive upside-down.
…and the aircraft would have to be flying backwards. Don’t forget that part.
Exactly, DREMT. That’s why their “model” of pure orbital motion fails. They believe pure orbital motion means the same side of the object always faces the same distant star. But, the vector addition doesn’t work in that bogus belief.
They’ve got jet airplanes flying backward!
Idiots.
No the aircraft never flies backwards, that’s silly, the aircraft simply rolls once on its own internal axis keeping the greasy side down throughout the Earth orbit. As Tesla shows with physics of his ball M on the wheel.
…ball M…inertial…Tesla…accelerated frame…Tesla…more or less than once per orbit…Tesla…inertial…ball M momentum analysis…Tesla proved…ball M…more or less than once per orbit…in the accelerated frame…inertial…
Ball4 says:
No the aircraft never flies backwards, thats silly, the aircraft simply rolls once on its own internal axis keeping the greasy side down throughout the Earth orbit. As Tesla shows with physics of his ball M on the wheel.
=============================
Proving of course an orbital rotation around the COG of the earth is a true rotation. Exactly what the non-spinners have been saying for eons.
If you want to know what something is rotating on simply fix a pencil in its own COG, like a pencil in a compass and observe what gets drawn. If its a dot its a rotation on the objects COG. If its a wavy line or a back and forth partial arc its a curvilinear translation. And if its complete ellipse its a rotation around another object. No question here the plane is flying around the earth. No controversy whatsoever other than from a few pencil heads.
Of course an orbital rotation around the COG of the earth is a true rotation on an axis R away from O. Plus there is one true rotation about aircraft c on radius r to use the nomenclature used by Tesla. Two axes of rotation thru O,c at R and r, bill, as tesla shows in his inertial eqn. for rotational energy E of orbiting ball M.
ball MinertialTeslaaccelerated frameTeslamore or less than once per orbitTeslaR and r…inertialball M momentum analysisTesla provedball Mmore or less than once per orbitin the accelerated frameinertialR and r…more or less than once per orbit…Tesla…hic…
Ball4 says:
”Of course an orbital rotation around the COG of the earth is a true rotation on an axis R away from O. Plus there is one true rotation about aircraft c on radius r to use the nomenclature used by Tesla. Two axes of rotation thru O,c at R and r, bill, as tesla shows in his inertial eqn. for rotational energy E of orbiting ball M.”
Complete gibberish unless labeled on a graph Ball4. Of course you can steal rotational energy from any object revolving in space and attribute a portion of it that same object rotating on its own center. Only problem with that is you don’t leave enough for the object to orbit.
If you want to rotate it on its own axis and orbit you need to add rotational energy. Pure and simple.
“unless labeled on a graph Ball4.”
Tesla’s simple notation is beyond bill since bill hasn’t understood Tesla’s stuff like Fig.s 5 and 6. And yes, as bill writes that’s what Tesla proved with his ball M analysis: our moon has inertial energy of rotation about its own axis proving a need to add that energy into Tesla’s eqn. E.
Ball4, Tesla wrote three articles on how the moon does not rotate on its own axis. In none of the articles did he prove that the moon rotates on its own axis, because that would have rather taken away from his point that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
….in the accelerated frame.
No, regardless of reference frame.
Tesla proved DREMT wrong by his Fig. 6 analysis because Tesla correctly used an inertial frame for the total rotational energy E of his ball with mass M rotating on its own axis once per orbit.
Keep on lying about Tesla, Ball4. I love how we have now moved on from Fig. 5 altogether. Or Fig. 4.
Fig. 5 was the wheel with ball M assembly, and Fig. 6 ball with masss M on string assembly, DREMT. Tesla correctly used both to show you are wrong and that our moon inertially rotates once on its own axis per orbit with his formula for rotational energy E.
I am aware of what the figures are, and his discussion of them. Part of his third article on how the moon does not rotate on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
entropic…”If the aircraft and its passengers did not rotate 180 degrees during the flight, they would still be in their original orientation and arrive upside-down”.
***
For an aircraft to rotate about an axis through its wings, it would mean pointing it’s nose initially in a downward direction. That would cause the plane to dive to a lower altitude. If it continued to rotate, it would reach a position where its nose was pointed vertically downward. Beyond that, the plane would start to turn on its back, at which time it would likely break up. If any passenger was not wearing a seat belt, he/she would end up on the cabin roof.
Why do you have so much trouble seeing this? The way you think makes it obvious to me why your are also a climate alarmist.
harves…”Horizontal velocity and gravity no longer get the job done? By implication, if this aircraft was travelling horizontal to the earths surface and had its control surfaces set to prevent rotation about its own axis, then rather than orbit the earth it would launch into space. Hmmm?”
Glad you understand the physics. Of course, the spinners here will miss your words, ‘by implication’ and think you are agreeing with them.
To repeat your words, ‘horizontal velocity and gravity’ get the job done of maintaining the aircraft at a constant altitude right around the planet. We both know it’s not that simple, the pilot, or autopilot will be constantly trimming to allow for changes in atmospheric pressure, etc.
However, the premise is the same. Constant velocity maintains the aircraft at a certain altitude against the force of gravity. Same with the Moon.
bdg…”The Moons angular velocity using the local axis with r=0 through the COM of the Moon itself and with the angle a=0 radial line pointed at a specific feature against the distant stars or CMB is 2.66e-6 rad/s. This is an inertial frame”.
Why is it you fail to see the mental prison in which you live? Your reality is totally internal, all in your mind.
Empty your mind of all thought for a moment, till it is absolutely still. Tough to do after years of being conditioned to value the motion in there, but it can be done with practice. At one time, I valued thought deeply, now I regard it as mainly old garbage. I would lie on the sofa for hours, just thinking and now I regard such lengthy indulgences in thought as an utter waste of time and space.
With your mind empty, slowly allow this problem about the Moon’s near side always facing the Earth. No stars, no reference frames, nothing but the near face always facing the Earth. Now visualize that near face moving in an inner circle while the far face moves in a larger concentric circle.
Both faces are always moving in concentric circles. Now add the centre, moving in its own concentric inner circle. How can that body possible rotate about the centre while three major points on it are always moving parallel to each other?
Not possible to have a local angular velocity. While still focused on that body, try to understand that if it’s not rotating in our reference frame, it is not rotating in any reference frame. It may appear to be rotating and that illusions requires you to empty your mind again and look at the problem afresh.
Try not to use conditioned analysis, just use awareness. Look!!! The moment you allow conditioned analysis, you may introduce parameters that are not there, resulting in several avenues of thought which may ultimately run in circles.
Einstein solved that problem, apparently, by following a single threads of thought till it was exhausted. Then he’d go back and follow another single thread of thought. If you stop analyzing the brain may just offer you insight, which is something brand new.
GR said: Not possible to have a local angular velocity. While still focused on that body, try to understand that if its not rotating in our reference frame, it is not rotating in any reference frame. It may appear to be rotating and that illusions requires you to empty your mind again and look at the problem afresh.
And yet the math does not lie. The angular velocity in the Moon centered sidereal frame is 2.66e-6 rad/s. NASA, JAXA, ESA, nearly every celestial mechanics scientist, and pretty much the entire world all agree. And I promise you that if you repeat the calculation in the reference frame with radius r=0 fixed to the COM of the Moon and with angle a=0 radial line pointing at a distant star you will get the same value as well. This is despite the fact that the angular velocity in the reference frame with angle a=0 radial line pointed at Earth is 0 rad/s.
Now consider that in the Earth pointed frame all points within the Moon are calculated as having no acceleration which is obviously a paradox since we know that the Moon is moving in a curved path which requires turning. It is therefore not following an inertial trajectory. Why the paradox? Because the frame selected here is itself accelerating and is therefore non-inertial. Analysis in non-inertial reference frames require the invocation of the so called fictitious forces (centrifugal, coriolis, euler). So you tell me…if we conclude that the Moon is not rotating in such a frame where we have to invoke fictitious forces to explain the motion then is that motion real or illusion?
b,
The force of gravity on the Moon causes it to accelerate towards the Earth, at about 0.0027 m/s^2.
No paradox. Why would you think otherwise?
Nothing “turns” the Moon. This was the thinking before Newton’s Laws.
Only one force is acting on the Moon – gravity. No turning force, no torque.
This is the dream of delusional perpetual motion seekers, who convince themselves that they can utilise the force of gravity to make a wheel turn! They would love you, with your insinuation that anything is possible – just magic up the right reference frame!
You may invoke all the fictitious forces you like. It won’t change reality.
come on bdgwx! The moon is not accelerating toward the earth. You guys are really bad at physics. To much book learning and not enough practical experience.
The correct way to put it is the moons motion includes a gravity acceleration ”vector” but it also has a velocity vector tangent to earth and vectors net so it doesn’t accelerate towards earth.
I didn’t say it was “accelerating toward the earth”. BTW…that would imply analysis in a reference frame centered on Earth and which rotates with the Moon.
I said it was accelerating (or at least implied it) but nothing more. The mass of the Moon has changing velocities in the x, y, and z coordinates. That is acceleration.
The reason why the Moon does not follow an inertial trajectory is because of the gravity from Earth applying a force to keep it in the circular motion.
“To much book learning and not enough practical experience.
The correct way to put it is the moons motion includes a gravity acceleration ‘vector’ but it also has a velocity vector tangent to earth and vectors net so it doesn’t accelerate towards earth.”
Who needs book learning when you can just wing it and spew nonsense, or build a bridge that falls down?
Acceleration IS toward the orbit center (Earth).
But no, acceleration vectors and velocity vectors don’t add to produce a NET, they have different units.
This is the same gibberish Clint spews.
The acceleration vector is the change in velocity vector per unit time, and the instantaneous change IS toward the center of the Earth.
Troll Nate returns to misrepresent others.
A vector is not a motion Nate. All it is something to partially explain a motion when more than one vector exists. When only one vector exists it still isn’t a motion it just completely explains the motion.
Bill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images#:~:text=The%20Treachery%20of%20Images%20(French,he%20was%2030%20years%20old.&text=Below%20it%2C%20Magritte%20painted%2C%20%22,This%20is%20not%20a%20pipe%22.
Ceci n’est pas une pipe
No mix up or twisting words DREMT I quoted Tesla verbatim. Fig 5. ball M can be “fixt” to spinning spokes, Fig. 6 ball also of mass M (both balls radius r, spinning about O radius R) is spinning on string. Full Eqn. E function(r,R) applies to both. Neither ball M rotates wrt to spinning spokes (when “fixt”) or spinning string. Tesla demonstrates ball M inertially has two axes of rotation in both Fig. 5 & 6 both having axes at r & R depicted.
No, the most you could possibly twist out of it, as I have explained before, is the idea that the ball is translating in a circle about O whilst rotating about C (its own axis). Remember Fig. 4…
…but this idea is what Tesla is arguing against, anyway.
DREMT fails again to quote Tesla’s words verbatim. The word “translating” is not found in the piece for Tesla to argue at all. Tesla shows ball M “fixt” to spinning spokes in Fig. 5 and fixed to spinning string Fig. 6. And correctly applies his full eqn. E for ball M rotational energy E = function(r and R) for two axes of rotation.
DREMT is simply twisting Tesla’s physics into something else wrongly as DREMT twists in the wind around here.
Look at the description that accompanies Fig. 4, Ball4…
Yes, Fig. 4 caption shows Tesla’s full eqn. E = function (r,R) and refutes DREMTs claim there is only one axis.
It says:
“Fig. 4. — 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 Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
Yes Fig. 4 does confirm two axes for ball M rotational energy E = function (R,r) not one axis as DREMT always claims. Again, Tesla refutes DREMT and DREMT even points out the refutation! Now some more twisting in the wind by DREMT is expected.
“Translational”.
bdgwx, all your delusions, beliefs, and gobbledygook bafflegab are NOT science. You continue to reject reality, which makes you an idiot.
The ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating about its axis. It only has ONE motion.
Face reality, or be an idiot — your choice.
The ball-on-a-string is observed NOT rotating about its axis in the accelerated string frame as Tesla writings point out or it would wrap the string. It only has ONE motion in that frame.
Face reality Clint R by learning at least a little about relativity.
Troll4 accelerates away from reality, more or less once per comment, accelerating to wrapping the string around his neck, relative to his more or less addiction to trolling.
“And I promise you that if you repeat the calculation in the reference frame with radius r=0 fixed to the COM of the Moon and with angle a=0 radial line pointing at a distant star you will get the same value as well.”
You are calculating angular velocity here because you are observing that the same point on the surface of the moon starts and returns to the a=0 radial line. But it does so because the moon is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
…in the accelerated frame.
No, regardless of reference frame.
Tesla proved DREMT is wrong aince Tesla proved the ball M does not spin wrt to the spinning spokes because ball M is “fixt” to those spokes.
Ball4 proved he could not even follow nor honestly represent Tesla’s work, repeatedly mixing up Fig. 5 with Fig. 6, and shamelessly twisting his words.
Troll4 is accelerating, more or less, into his ball M, more or less.
bdg …”And yet the math does not lie”.
Au contraire. Math often lies and that lead Mark Twain to comment…’there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics’.
You cannot apply math to an angular velocity problem ABOUT A LOCAL AXIS when you have no angular velocity about that axis. You are applying the math based on an apparent motion, not real motion.
The coriolis force is called a fictitious force because there is no actual force operating. A mass APPEARS to be moving as if a real force was applied, therefore the motion is apparent, or fictitious.
You are dealing with a fictitious angular velocity which is simply not there. You need to get it that when you dabble with different reference frames you have moved into the realm of fantasy.
GR said: You cannot apply math to an angular velocity problem ABOUT A LOCAL AXIS when you have no angular velocity about that axis.
Use polar coordinates. Put the radius r=0 through the COM of the Moon and orient the angle a=0 radial line so that it always points to a distant star. Do the calculation. You WILL get 2.66e-6 rad/s.
GR said: You are dealing with a fictitious angular velocity which is simply not there.
Patently False. My selection of reference frame above is rotationally inertial because it is not spinning wrt to the universe. The “non-spinner” reference frame where angle a=0 radial line is pointing at the Earth is non-inertial because it is spinning with wrt to the universe. Fictitious forces need to be invoked in non-inertial frames only. It is YOUR frame that requires these fictitious forces; not mine. So you tell me. Who’s perception of motion is more “real”?
“Use polar coordinates. Put the radius r=0 through the COM of the Moon and orient the angle a=0 radial line so that it always points to a distant star. Do the calculation. You WILL get 2.66e-6 rad/s.”
You are calculating angular velocity here because you are observing that the same point on the surface of the moon starts and returns to the a=0 radial line. But it does so because the moon is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
…in the accelerated frame.
No, regardless of reference frame.
And what about parallax?
In your reference frame, the distant stars are not fixed.
See definition of parsec.
“It’s the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs!”
Tesla proved DREMT wrong when Tesla showed reference frames do matter in Fig.s 5 and 6 correctly using Tesla’s inertial formula for rotational energy E.
OK, bob.
DREMPTY,
Let me know when you have figured out how to use an inertial reference frame.
thanks
OK, bob…I’ll pass on your criticisms to bdgwx, the person you disagree with.
Way to be evasive DREMTPY,
I’ll assume that means you admit the Moon spins on its own internal axis.
Seems the "Spinners" have reached "peak desperation".
bobdroege said: In your reference frame, the distant stars are not fixed.
True. That means pointing the angle a=0 radial line toward distant stars isn’t perfectly inertial. But it is really really close. It is close enough that for the time scales in question it provides an adequate proxy for an inertial frame. And the further away the star the less parallax error there is.
Even selecting the Sun provides a marginally decent proxy for an inertial frame. In that frame the Moon’s angular velocity is 2.46e-6 rad/s as compared to 2.66e-6 rad/s using distant stars so it is only off by 8%.
An even better frame of reference might be the cosmic microwave background. But I think it is difficult to use because you have to correct for the dipole anisotropy. You’d probably expend a lot of effort and only gain precision in the 5th or 6th decimal place if that. It would be interesting to know what the experts think of this.
"In that frame the Moon’s angular velocity is 2.46e-6 rad/s as compared to 2.66e-6 rad/s using distant stars so it is only off by 8%."
You are calculating angular velocity here because you are observing that the same point on the surface of the moon starts and returns to the a=0 radial line. But it does so because the moon is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
Nope, I have gone back to the very basic arguments I used in the beginning of this debacle, seems I am encountering a bunch of closed minds.
Bdgwx,
“But it is really really close.”
Yes it is close enough to answer the question of whether the Moon is rotating or not.
bobdroege, Exactly!
Sure, the moon is rotating…just not on its own axis.
Fun Fact: The Moon’s velocity wrt to the CMB inertial frame is 369.82 +/- 0.11 km/s. This compares to velocity wrt to the solar inertial frame of 29.78 km/s and wrt to Earth of 1.02 km/s.
https://tinyurl.com/smfbxc29
in the accelerated frame.
That was reply to DREMT 1:20 pm.
No, Ball4. Regardless of reference frame.
If the Moon wasn’t rotating on its own axis, it would come flying apart, due to the far side moving with a higher velocity than the near side.
Two objects moving with different velocities have to move farther apart, unless they are rotating around a common axis.
Just a fact of physics for you to deny.
It doesn’t come flying apart because it is rotating about an axis. Just not one that goes through the center of mass of the body.
Your rotation about an axis not internal is actually the sum of a translation and a rotation about an internal axis.
It’s the rotation about an internal axis that keeps it from coming apart.
Agree to disagree, bob.
No, “Regardless of reference frame” is wrong according to Tesla’s physics.
…despite the fact that he never even mentions reference frames…
Which is one reason why Tesla’s writing confuses you so.
Are you ever going to stop commenting about Tesla? You are becoming a bit “one note”.
Tesla’s physics from your own link amusingly prove you wrong about the moon’s rotation; every other proper physics would result in the same answer. Just stick with Tesla.
You are simply a relentless, malevolent force.
I would be honored to be called a relentless, malevolent force against bad science.
Even bad science by those famous for their contribution to society.
Tesla was way out of his lane.
“Agree to disagree, bob.”
So the Moon issue is not settled.
The moon issue is settled. We just have to deal with the petulant and incessant denial of the remaining “Spinners”.
Yes, the physics showing moon rotates once on its own axis per orbit were settled by Teslas physics long ago. Assertions to the contrary are futile unless physically proven.
You obviously are unaware of the magnitudes against you.
The moon does rotate on its axis.
Yes, the moon rotates on its axis.
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.
Because of synchronous rotation or tidal locking, our moon rotates on its axis in the same period that it ..
In fact, as the Moon travels around the Earth in a counter-clockwise orbit every 27.5 days, it also completes …
The moon keeps the same face pointing towards the Earth because its rate of spin is tidally locked so that it is synchronized with its rate of …
The Earth rotates around its own axis once every twenty-four hours. The Moon, on the other hand, rotates once around its own axis every 28 days, and once around the Earth in that same 28 days.
The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth. What this means is it keeps the same face or hemisphere toward the Earth as it rotates around its axis
Sorry charlie, there are way more spinners than the few posting here.
There’s the denial.
DREMPTY
“We just have to deal with the petulant and incessant denial of the remaining Spinners.”
Yet you have no arguments for the spinners facts and only offer insults and personal attacks.
At least I can give a valid scientific argument to go with the insults.
And quotes from textbooks.
All you have is Tesla having a lark at your expense.
The denial continues.
You want to talk about climate?
Try this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-56420398
Colorado got more snow than usual.
Remember your water cycle. Where did the extra heat come from to evaporate all that extra water?
Here’s your answer.
A low pressure area carrying warm humid air from the Pacific passed just South of Colorado and dumped its precipitation as snow on the cold ground.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/denver.cbslocal.com/2021/02/25/snow-slam-denver-nearly-foot-accumulation-colorado-snowstorm-winter-snow/amp/
Ent, that wasn’t “extra” heat.
And, where did it go after the water vapor formed snow?
Don’t be such an idiot.
The released latent heat formed the thunderstorms and squall lines which are now dropping tornadoes onto Louisiana and Mississippi.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tornado-wednesday-outbreak-arkansas-mississippi-alabama-tennessee/
Yes, it’s called “weather”.
I suspect that an earlier tornado season would be of some concern if torndoes were most common in the warmest months. But fact is March is in the top tier of coolest months.
Hurricane concerns is more realistic, but so far it seems maybe that the latitude temperature gradient might prevent an increase in hurricanes.
the largest explanation for additional heat evaporating more water is . . . .clear skies and no or few clouds over the water source.
Happens at night too, bill.
Overall everything gets wet at night from the condensation. Sure you can have a warm dry flow off the land that’s going to create some evaporation; but without that its going to evaporate during the day, a lot more on clear days; and you are going to get mostly condensation at night. And of course clear nights cool faster so you get even more net condensation.
So what was the point you were trying to make?
A weather pattern usually seen in Summer appears 2 1/2 months early. I was interested to hear your explaination.
Usual is being defined here as since the late 1970’s. I have lived long enough to see the pattern of weather we are entering into hasn’t been seen since before that. Many things are happening in the natural world right now that were common place in the 1950’s and 60’s. That is especially true in the marine world off the west coast where I have more experience. A classic example of that is bluefin tuna. Scientists estimate bluefin tuna has been overfished for a long time and is about 4% of its virgin biomass, yet on the west coast fishing for bluefin tuna is better than ever seen in the past 80+ years which is long before bluefin tuna became overfished. One cannot underestimate natural variation so claims of an early tornado system not seen since the 1970’s simply isn’t enough information to conclude on anything. One needs to look at the 1930’s dustbowl and see if anything occurred that looks like this at a minimum
The ocean oscillations involve major changes in large ocean currents and it seems to me they move the jet stream. We will have to see if this results in the next decade or so of a thickening of ice in the Arctic as occurred in the late 50’s and 60’s.
It is my experienced observation that climate clearly has multi-decadal cycles. I am not saying such cycles explain all the warming seen. Some in the surface records obviously need adjustment for UHI, some may need adjustment for the solar grand maximum, some may need adjustment for other reasons. Everything I have ever looked at closely suggests multi-decadal and multi-centennial natural variation right down to the ice core record where scientists handwave the 2C variation seen in that record as noise. The trick is to understand what is ‘normal’ in the context of those cycles.
https://youtu.be/EBqcYV1KYeE
bill hunter…”The correct way to put it is the moons motion includes a gravity acceleration vector but it also has a velocity vector tangent to earth and vectors net so it doesnt accelerate towards earth”.
***
I don’t regard gravity as a force that causes the Moon to accelerate. Rather it acts as a force to move the Moon slightly off its linear, instantaneous path. Certainly, if the Moon lacked its current momentum, it would be accelerated toward the Earth.
F = ma only applies if F is large enough to overcome the inertia of m to produce motion. Otherwise, you have static equilibrium. I think, somehow, with the mass of the Moon, and its momentum, gravity can’t really accelerate it. I think some kind of equilibrium is at work.
Some people get upset with the notion of an acceleration vector acting with a velocity vector. If I remember my vector calculus theory correctly there is a way to work with both using a matrix.
However, I like to look at it in another manner. The Moon has a constant linear momentum and momentum is produced by a force. A force in the opposite direction to the momentum is required to reduce the momentum to zero. I think, therefore, it should be possible to replace the momentum with the force required to stop it with a vector pointing in the opposite direction to that force vector.
In other words, if the Moon crashed into something it would produce a force equivalent to its momentum.
So now you have two force vectors, the one for gravity and the one to replace momentum. If you take those vectors at any one instant they should form a resultant vector pointing along the instantaneous orbital path.
BTW…I have not worked out the math for this to verify my theory.
I don’t disagree. The gravity vector is constantly changing direction which entails a self limiting mechanism. . . .e.g. constantly beginning a new acceleration in a new direction. I am certainly not in the mood to work the math out travels over 750,000 miles while falling less than 480,000 miles. Halfway through that fall the moon is traveling the opposite direction, it shouldn’t be too difficult to figure out the terminal velocity of the fall.
Bill,
The Moon is always traveling the same direction around the Sun, it never travels in the opposite direction.
Because the Earth is traveling faster around the Sun than the Moon is traveling around the Earth.
“Halfway through that fall the moon is traveling the opposite direction, it shouldn’t be too difficult to figure out the terminal velocity of the fall.”
This science stuff is beyond you isn’t it?
“Some people get upset with the notion of an acceleration vector acting with a velocity vector. If I remember my vector calculus theory correctly there is a way to work with both using a matrix.”
Yes Gordon, they don’t understand the basics, they then get frustrated, and then angry. All that is needed is to convert to the same units. For example, a velocity vector is only an acceleration vector averaged over the time interval. You can’t expect the idiots to understand vectors.
“I think, therefore, it should be possible to replace the momentum with the force required to stop it with a vector pointing in the opposite direction to that force vector.”
Correct again. In fact, that’s Newton’s 2nd Law, F = dp/dt, or F = d(mv)/dt, or F = ma.
Besides using velocity, force, or momentum vectors, you could also use displacement vectors.
Hilarious that Clint spouts these formulas to appear impressive, but can’t even solve the simple v=rw formula for the moon.
I seem to have an envious stalker.
Several times, Bindidon has tried to misrepresent Newton. He pulls quotes from Newton’s discussion of “libration”, trying to claim that means Moon is rotating about its axis. Bindidon’s scam only fools idiots like troll Nate, who slurps it up: “Binny quotes Newton explaining libration as quite explicitly arising from the Moon’s rotation on its own axis.”
Idiot Bindidon has convinced idiot Nate that libration is somehow “proof” Moon has axial rotation. That’s how they keep the nonsense going. That’s how a cult works. They feed off each other, ignoring facts and reality.
Here’s the reality:
Lunar Libration
Lunar Libration is nothing more than a change in how Moon appears as viewed from Earth. Moon appears to “wobble”, but the motion is not actual. An example makes it much clearer.
A runner runs on an oval (elliptical) track. An observer stands at one focus point of the ellipse. When the runner is closest to the observer (semi-minor radius of ellipse), the observer sees only the left side of the runner, if the runner’s “orbit” is counter-clockwise.
As the runner progresses down the track, the observer can see more of runner’s back. At a certain distance, the observer may be able to read the number on the back of the runner’s shirt. When the runner is at the far end of the track (apogee), the observer again only sees runner’s left side. As the runner starts back, the observer may be able to see the number on the front side of runner’s shirt.
The observer can see more than just the left side of the runner, depending on where runner is in the orbit. It’s the same with Moon.
Moon’s orbit is a little more complex, as it is also tilted relative to Earth’s orbit. It would be similar to the runner running on a transparent tilted plane. At one end of the oval, the observer may be able to see the bottom of runner’s shoes. At the other end of the track, the observer may be able to see the top of runner’s head.
All the different views of Moon is what is referred to as “libration”. It is not hard to understand. At no time does the observer ever see the right side of the runner because the runner is NOT rotating about his axis.
“The observer can see more than just the left side of the runner, depending on where runner is in the orbit. It’s the same with Moon.”
Except it is NOT quite the same. Even if the track were an ellipse and even if the runner varied his speed appropriately, this model does not give the correct results as seen by an observer at a focus. Yes, it gives some form of libration, but not the correct form of libration.
In particular, this “runner on a track” model gives less libration than we observe for a tidally locked moon. The runner would have to run “catawampus”, with his body angled out as he ran from perigee to apogee (showing more of his back), and angled in as he ran from perigee to apogee (showing more of his front).
And the “ball on a string” model gives no libration, so it is an even worse model. Basically you have two different models that are interesting, clever, intuitive, and wrong — they fail to match real orbits.
Tim you need some evidence for that claim.
This is getting at the heart of the discussion! If I was correct, would you agree the other models were wrong? If the runner in Clint’s discussion gives the wring libration, would you accept that he is missing some important pieces of the puzzle?
No, it is obfuscation at the fringes of the discussion. It is most certainly not “at the heart of the discussion”, Tim. You only say it is because it is your little hang-up, your thing that you cling to in order to continue to believe in the status quo. Every “Spinner” has their own one. For some it is reference frames, and then they are “at the heart of the discussion”. For some it is definitions of “translation”. Then they are “at the heart of the discussion”. And so on.
Tim, that would be incorrect as Clint R and the rest are missing all the pieces of the puzzle, they don’t even have the box to look at.
…and some of them are just here to troll.
DREMT,
The whole unending discussion is about what should be understood when someone says an object like a moon is “orbiting without rotating on its axis”. What interpretation is most useful for describing the motion? Which fits in with the general rules of physics? Which makes the most accurate predictions.
There are basically three options. The center of mass of the moon is following an elliptical path and …
1) one point is always directly toward the planet (like a ball on a string).
2) one point is always directly forward (like a train car on a track)
3) all points maintain their orientation relative to the “fixed stars”
The real moon does not do any of these!
1) It does not keep one point on the surface straight toward the earth (it has libration).
2) It does not keep one point always forward along the orbit (the wrong sort of libration).
3) It does not keep the same orientation with the stars.
To fix the three models you could postulate:
1) the moon actually does rotate slightly forward and back as it “orbits without rotating” (to create libration).
2) the moon actually does rotate slightly forward and back (in a slightly different way than (1)) as it “orbits without rotating” (to correct the incorrect libration).
3) the moon rotates uniformly once per month, creating a steady change in orientation relative to the stars.
Tim, what is your idea of what “orbital motion without axial rotation” is? “Moon on the right”, I assume…
TF, the more nonsense you spew the more you indicate your ignorance of the subject.
That’s why this is so much fun.
You do love the bold font, don’t you DREMTY?
No.
Tim Folkerts says:
There are basically three options. The center of mass of the moon is following an elliptical path and
1) one point is always directly toward the planet (like a ball on a string).
2) one point is always directly forward (like a train car on a track)
3) all points maintain their orientation relative to the fixed stars
==================================
Tim
I wrote a conceptual model here of how I would expect Tesla’s object to enter orbit and maintain no internal axis spin (if it has none) As the radius of trajectory begins to shrink, the angular velocity will increase to conserve the angular momentum. (ice skater phenomena)
So in that model why would I not expect libration to occur in an elliptical orbit?
Since the runner on the elliptical track has his right arm moving faster than his left arm, therefore, he is not translating rectilinearly nor curvilinearly, clearly he must be rotating as those are the only three choices.
blob, have you been sharing a room with SGW?
He has the same confusion about motions as you.
Clint R,
Is that all you got?
Attack the person, not the argument, are you now or ever have been of member of the communist or republican parties?
blob, are you more ashamed of your lack of knowledge, or the compassion to SGW?
Dagnabbit, I overlooked the typo, it should be:
blob, are you more ashamed of your lack of knowledge, or the comparison to SGW?
Cunt R,
You know I can misspell your name as well.
My knowledge level is fine enough to have a fairly long science and technology career.
You are the one that flunked eighth grade science, however do you manage to make a living?
All wrong, TF.
It’s a clear, simple example of “libration”. You can’t stand reality.
And, as has been explained to you numerous times, the ball-on-a-string is not meant to model Moon. It is only a simple analogy of orbital motion, without axial rotation. The same side of the ball always faces the center of the orbit.
No one expects you to understand physics. You’ve made too many disastrous errors to have any credibility.
You’re an idiot.
Clint, it was a clear, simple example of incorrect libration. You cant stand reality.
With no understanding of the issues, TF resorts to trolling.
In particular, one of us is wrong here and one of us is right. Simply shouting or insulting or demeaning or repeating will not provide resolution. Somewhere we need to find a source of data that will resolve this discussion. So find data about the libration of the moon or admit both of us have testable hypotheses and neither of us has yet presented sufficient data to resolve the question of how the moon librates.
So quit insulting or demeaning with your unsupported biased opinions.
Where’s your model of orbital motion without axial rotation?
That would be fun to see….
Tesla correctly showed a model of orbital motion without axial rotation in his wheel assembly with ball M study, perhaps Clint R could learn from Tesla’s work and explain just how Tesla did so.
Wasn’t that the one where the balls were not fixt to the spokes?
Yes bob. Tesla then increased the rotational ball M friction from nil to “fixt” showing the increase in momentum needed to spin ball M up to rotate inertially once on its own axis per orbit. Tesla having convinced himself of that (being same as ball on string Fig. 6 and our moon), then showed the ball M inertially has rotational energy per orbit while “fixt” in his formula for full inertial rotational energy E.
Tesla then proved wrt to the spinning spokes ball M (and his ball on string) is not rotating on its own axis in the accelerated frame. And all this work was initially pointed out by DREMT who just can’t ever understand & write correctly the basic rotational physics in his own initial link. Pity.
We’re still waiting for TF’s model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
I guess we’ll be waiting quite a while….
“Tesla then increased the rotational ball M friction from nil to “fixt” showing the increase in momentum needed to spin ball M up to rotate inertially once on its own axis per orbit.”
He increased the friction from nil to “fixt” and concluded that the increase in kinetic energy was all “translational”, there being no kinetic energy of rotation, because the ball is not rotating on its own axis. That’s what he said, anyway. You can ignore his words and invent whatever you wish in their place, Ball4, but don’t expect people to take you seriously. He never mentioned anything about inertial or accelerated frames, this is just your invention.
“there being no kinetic energy of rotation”
False, not Tesla’s words those are DREMT’s own mistaken words.
DREMT needs to study Tesla much more closely. If DREMT does, then find Tesla wrote the “effective” v in his inertial formula for E ( 1 / 2 mv^2) is really Tesla’s Vn “for a rotating body” on its axis r arrived at from ball M making “n revolutions per second” on its own axis about c radius r.
So many DREMT mistakes, so little time…
“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. The energy E of each of these is solely that of translatory movement with an effective velocity Ve as above defined such that E = ½ M Ve2. The axial rotations of the ball in either direction are but apparent; they have no reality whatever and call for no mechanical effort. It is merely when an extraneous force acts independently to turn the whirling body on its axis that energy comes into play. Incidentally it should be pointed out that in true axial rotation of a rigid and homogenous mass all symmetrically situated particles contribute equally to the momentum which is not the case here. That there exists not even the slightest tendency to such motion can, however, be readily established”
“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. The energy E of each of these is solely that of translatory movement…”
Tesla clip from DREMT: “with an effective velocity Ve as above defined”
Tesla Ve as above defined for a rotating mass: “the effective velocity of the mass at n revolutions per second”
I know Tesla’s nomenclature is hard to follow and it has caught some little fish, you know like DREMT.
Tesla again lengthening DREMT’s second clip somehow cut short: “The energy E of each of these is solely that of translatory movement with an effective velocity Ve as above defined such that E = 1 / 2 M Ve^2”
Ve above defined formula includes rotating mass of n rotations per second on its own axis c. Tesla is hard to follow thereby thoroughly confusing DREMT (and Tesla’s editor) but the astute physics reader can correctly follow along.
I have no idea what you are trying to say, Ball4. Sorry.
That’s fairly obvious DREMT, Tesla is a confusing writer, so write out Tesla’s physics for your self here then to discover where you go wrong. Tesla’s physics show his “energy of translation” from Ve is from a rotating mass. So Tesla’s physics are better to follow than his wording; those physics show Tesla proved our moon rotates once on its axis per orbit.
Troll4 has no idea what he’s trying to say either. His only purpose is to confuse and distract.
Btw Tesla’s writing then drops the subscripts Ve and Vn and goes with just V in his rotational energy eqn. E further confusing the situation but the astute physics reader can follow along, with a headache.
Tesla isn’t a confusing writer, Ball4. At all. I can follow what he’s saying just fine. It’s you that is completely incoherent.
DREMT writes “there being no kinetic energy of rotation” and then Tesla showing there IS KE of rotation from Ve. So DREMT is just as confused as many by Tesla’s writing habits and use/misuse of subscripts. The astute physics reader can pick a way through “tho”.
I observe DREMT refuses to write out Tesla’s physics and I do know why.
I observe Ball4 refuses to explain himself clearly, and I do know why. It’s because he likes to troll.
Meanwhile, Tesla writes in plain English that anybody can understand:
"The axial rotations of the ball in either direction are but apparent; they have no reality whatever and call for no mechanical effort."
Is Troll4 still trying to misrepresent Tesla?
What desperation!
Tesla’s physics though prove this: “The accelerated frame axial rotations of the ball about c at radius r in either direction are not apparent in that frame; they have no reality whatever in that frame as in Tesla’s formula for E find omega = 0 and call for no mechanical effort because the orbital rotation about O at radius R is constant & there is no friction by definition.”
If Tesla’s writing were more correctly detailed, then you two would not be harping as you do. You two could learn this by writing out Tesla’s physics here but you are not capable or choose not to do so.
Yes, ClintR…he is still going…
Troll4 accelerates away from reality, more or less once per comment, in Troll4’s desperate attempt to misrepresent Tesla because that’s all Troll4 has, relative to his more or less addiction to trolling.
And all the parts of the ball are not moving with the same velocity, therefore the ball is rotating on an internal axis, see any text on plane motion.
No, therefore the ball is rotating about an external axis.
blob, just stick with trolling.
You don’t have a clue about the science.
Yeah, I do.
I passed eighth grade science where I corrected the teacher who was saying the Moon doesn’t rotate, she was smart enough to agree with me and our eighth grade science textbook.
bob decides to stick with trolling.
He’s good at it1
Yeah, but trolling is just for funzies, Science is what I do for a living.
So you admit you troll for fun.
Yeah,
But the thing is you are too stupid to tell when I am teaching science and when I am trolling.
OK, troll.
DREMPTY,
Too bad you keep walking into the broom closet instead of the science classroom.
I can’t help you there.
OK, troll..
Meanwhile out in the real world real climate scientists are doing God’s work…
The Science Behind Impacts of the Climate Crisis
Date: Friday, March 12, 2021 Time: 11:00 AM Location: Online via videoconferencing
Opening Statement
Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Witnesses
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Princeton University [Truth in Testimony]
Dr. Zeke Hausfather, Director of Climate and Energy, The Breakthrough Institute [Truth in Testimony]
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Zeke-Hausfather-Congressional-Testimony-highrez.pdf
Dr. Noah S. Diffenbaugh, Kara J. Foundation Professor, Department of Earth System Science, Kimmelman Family Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University [Truth in Testimony]
Dr. Paula S. Bontempi, Dean, Graduate School of Oceanography, Professor of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island [Truth in Testimony]
That is a great writeup. Thanks for sharing.
It beats this: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/at-the-white-house-the-purge-of-skeptics-has-started/#comments
It beats this: https://tinyurl.com/DrRoysAttempt
With idiots now in charge we can expect to see more extremism like this. It’s all in an effort to corrupt and pervert reality.
Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) is so corrupt she has even been denounced by other Black-Americans.
There is still no answer to the following:
How much of the warming is due to natural causes?
What is the ideal temperature for the earth?
What evidence do you have that carbon dioxide from human activity is causing any of the modest warming observed in the climate?
All have been answered, and in fact the best set of answers came from Exxon’s climate scientists 40 years ago. You have been looking in the wrong places, obviously.
“All have been answered, and in fact the best set of answers came from Exxon’s climate scientists 40 years ago. You have been looking in the wrong places, obviously.”
Errm … nothing in Exxon’s climate studies shows anything like the graph at the top of this blog. Exxon’s projections are wrong.
“Of the 1.1C of warming maybe about 0.1C or so is from non-anthroprogenic causes. Most of that 0.1C would have been pre-WWII though.”
Please cite a source. Most of the literature I’ve seen indicates we don’t know enough about how our climate works to be able to make such an assertive statement.
“That depends. What are you wanting to optimize?”
I’m partial to human flourishing with temperatures such as allowed Vikings to grow enough barley on Greenland with which to make beer and Romans to grow enough grapes in the North of England to make wine. IE warmer as now.
“I recommend the IPCC AR5 WGI Physical Science Basis report. It is only meant to be an introduction, but does provide an adequate summary of the evidence. It’s only 1500 pages and pretty easy to follow so it won’t take long to get though. You are of course encouraged to dive into the 9200 peer reviewed publications cited and the various publications they cite as well to get more details on the various topics. Again…it’s only an overview, but it does make for a good starting point.”
It wouldn’t matter if it were 92000 Peer Reviewed Papers. The only papers that matter are those that actually address the data. The data doesn’t support the AGW hypothesis.
Those 9200 peer reviewed publications and 1500 pages of IPCC AR5
report came in handy during the recent run on bog roll.
“Errm … nothing in Exxon’s climate studies shows anything like the graph at the top of this blog. Exxon’s projections are wrong.
https://ibb.co/Fh0nfH7
I guess you had to be there!
Like I said, you’ve been looking in the wrong places.
Ken said: Please cite a source.
IPCC AR5 WGI Physical Science Basis Report. All sources are cited.
Ken said: Im partial to human flourishing with temperatures such as allowed Vikings to grow enough barley on Greenland with which to make beer and Romans to grow enough grapes in the North of England to make wine. IE warmer as now.
You’ll want the global mean temperature to remain relatively static then.
Ken said: The only papers that matter are those that actually address the data.
Yes. That’s what the IPCC AR5 WGI report is addressing. All citations are relevant.
Ken’s not a reader apparently.
Finally some good news:
According to Pay with GasBuddy data, US gasoline demand Thursday rose 8.5% vs last Thur and was up 17.5% vs the avg of the last four Thursdays. Week to date through Thurs, we’re up 4.9% from a week ago. Thurs was up 1.8% from the last pre-COVID Thurs.
We need deniers to deny harder.
bdgwx says:
”Yes. Thats what the IPCC AR5 WGI report is addressing. All citations are relevant.”
=========================================
LOL! With almost a total lack of standards enforcing restraint on expressing personal/group opinions on matters within a science paper and almost an equal lack of standards enforcing any definition of what science is there is no truth in that claim. It sort of boils down to a sentence by sentence analysis. I would be willing to concede that it highly likely all the citations have some degree of relevance but without anything to measure that by its pretty much a self serving, non-skeptical form of sycophancy.
Ok bill. If you find a citation that is discussing a medical trial regarding a cancer treatment or how to best design a freeway interchange or some other topic completely unrelated to climate science then I’ll concede my claim that all citations are relevant and restate it to say most citations are relevant instead. Fair enough?
Obviously then limited to that your skepticism is fully politically motivated. Seems to me that at least half of America gets that. . . .or else we wouldn’t have a clue what the swamp was.
So your argument here is that because the IPCC AR5 WGI Physical Science Basis report cites sources relevant to climate science it follows that I have to be politically motivated?
No bdgwx I am just commenting on your susceptibility to not discern political influences in science. Its really interesting how your side spends a good deal of time claiming exactly the same thing but instantly goes into complete denial about their own side.
And when the truly monied dominant side tries to squash the other side they do it not scientifically because they have no science to do it with. . . .they do something like take a poll of science papers and determine some non-controversial characteristic of them like a super majority of scientists accept that its likely mankind is doing stuff to warm the planet. . . .no threshold of materiality. . . .no attempt at accurately quantifying that group in terms of the greatest show on earth the IPCC position.
Politics permeates science to an obscene degree and you willingly don the horse blinders to go along with it. Today’s typical science paper on issues made important to the public are only a little more than propaganda. Now please note I said ”typical” thats because of the irresistible urge of one side to crush the other in a flood of propaganda. Climate is an extremely complex topic. I have spent several decades studying it and actually building stuff to address climate issues. I was studying this stuff back in 1973 and by 1979 was an earnest designer of climate mitigating technologies. So I know a little about it. Professionally I haven’t pursued it for a couple of decades as I moved on to other natural systems. Indeed its fascinating stuff but I have a nose for BS and that nose is well experienced in background information that I can easily spot as not being considered. I have a kindred spirit in the form of Patrick Moore. Like him I started out as an activist but paid attention to the real objectives, matured and stayed focused. Such approaches seem more and more laid to the wayside as the world becomes ever more responsive to the 15 second soundbite.
bill said: No bdgwx I am just commenting on your susceptibility to not discern political influences in science.
How do you determine if a citation is political or not?
Can you give me an example of a citation in the IPCC AR5 WGI bibliography list that you feel is overly political?
There is no easy definition because like financial statement declarations in the absence of independent audit there is a wide range of accuracy. Auditors literally work their butts off wording disclosures, adjusting number for consistency with those disclosures and compliance with accounting standards.
Science papers do not even approach nor even pretend to approach such levels of rigor.
So each paper needs careful analysis of 1) the foundation of assumptions; 2) the materiality of such assertions to the specific situation at hand.
3) certainty related to accuracy. If the certainty of accuracy is loose one cannot conclude to a higher level of accuracy by doing something stupid like taking a mean value then using that as to conclude to a higher level of certainty (a stupid thing that the IPCC does).
There is a lot more but thats enough for now.
A great example is how the ignorant minions take the work of Lewis and Curry on climate sensitivity.
They fail to note the huge caveat in the first sentence of the abstract. ”Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived based on the best estimates and uncertainty ranges for forcing provided in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)”
They then take that as a blessing for those estimates and uncertainty ranges and it takes a life on of its own and suddenly people are claiming that Lewis and Curry endorse those assumptions when in fact they are only testing sensitivity to an assumed given forcing as measured against observation records which in turn are assumed to not already have been influenced by the same assumed forcing.
So a great deal of what passes as science by the IPCC came about via a politically appointed committee and its like a poison that permeates the entire body. The poison is being sent there as settled science and finds it way into just about everything.
Yet another pandemic on science seen throughout history.
Eventually its gets sorted out through the process of continuing investigation, but how many lives have been ruined in the process?
A classic example is if you have any doubts about the Charney Report or manabe and wetherald you can pretty much toss a huge portion of the IPCC attribution chapters as settled science inclusive of the Lewis and Curry paper. We don’t know how CO2 influences the lapse rate at all. And besides water vapor we don’t know how any of the other items do either. So it becomes a game of starting with the big piece assumption then getting the scissors out to make all the other pieces fit.
So there is no way to tell if any of the 9200 publications that the IPCC cites is political, but you’re convinced they must be?
bdgwx says:
”So there is no way to tell if any of the 9200 publications that the IPCC cites is political, but youre convinced they must be?”
What do you mean we have now way to tell. I just explained that the foundation of a large percentage of those documents are in fact based on political dogma. Take the dogma underlying out and all the findings fall apart. There is great science occurring in the IPCC on questions that may or may not be true. If the former then they are science if the latter then they are nothing more than an exercise.
When auditing you MUST identify if there is a foundation to the underlying assumptions. Using an educated guess after accepting the fiat can’t be established as more than an exercise.
And of course if you are in business in a single payer industry you do the exercises or you simply don’t earn a living. . . .and worse than that if you have the balls to say something about outside of your work, people just make it more difficult for you to earn a living.
Take calculating sensitivity. You can do a lot of work, have a lot of discussion, read a lot of papers about ways to increase the validity of your exercise in calculating sensitivity. . . .but in the end because of the fiat I mentioned above your answer tells us nothing about what the sensitivity of the environment really is.
Can you give me an example of a publication that the IPCC AR5 WGI report cites that you feel is political?
bdgwx I already said the Charney Report and the acceptance of Manabe and Wetherald as science was a political decision and not based on scientific evidence. So everything that relies on those two political fiats are tainted by politics. I am not going to go in and trace back all the references in the IPCC and then go thru their references, and again go through the references 3 layers deep and so on to trace them back, but you either know many do or you really don’t know anything.
Charney and Manabe papers are examples of a politically driven adoption of anti-science. It is exactly how things worked in tribal society 6,000 years ago. Big cheese makes a declaration and it was going to stand as long as you were unsuccessful in overturning the Chief.
It does have some redeeming scientific value in pissing off the members of the tribe sufficiently to take a whack at the Chief. So its old as the hills. Biggest member of the species with most resources makes the decisions and everybody else is forced through the enforcement arm to comply with the mandates that follows the Chief’s rationalization of what is best for him.
They even have a name for it and papers rationalizing it Post Normal Science.
IPCC AR5 WGI does indeed cite Charney and Manabe. Can you provide an example within their publications that you feel best illustrates your point?
The multi-layer greenhouse model. Its so poorly described one could not even design a test of it. Of course the excused is that you would need experimental worlds with lapse rates to test the theory. Thus clearly there is a specific Nobel Prize awaiting the first scientist that does establish it.
So a scientific model is “political” if it is “poorly described”?
Of course not bdgwx. It only becomes political through 1) claims of overly hyped scientific certainty; and 2) is then used as an excuse to regulate or legislate.
Its akin to you quoting statistics of temperature records that don’t measure the controversial areas of certainty. It is political to engage in intellectual dishonesty for the purpose of trying to convince others of a level of certainty. In all my years in my profession where true liability exists for such forms of intellectual dishonesty, I have actually spent more time crafting statements to carefully avoid such a lack of relevant disclosure than the actual time it took to uncover the uncertainty.
Gotcha. You probably don’t even need to mention #1. Nearly all models of reality have been used to some extent to regulate and legislate. And since the works of Manabe, Charney, and pretty much all climate science is built upon these other models you can probably just cut to the chase and say all climate science is political since pretty much all of science itself is political. Going by your definition and criteria of course…
OK so now we cross the Trumpian bridge.
Fact is I have a lot of years of experience in policy based upon science. I know a good deal of the history surrounding it. Have to or I wouldn’t be effective. One must study history in order to avoid repeating it.
Where I currently work I came into the system around the time of a massive failure. As a young environmentalist devoted to science informing policy I assumed the failure was due to resistance to go along with science.
It took a good bit of time and research where I discovered that the failure was actually in following the science. It was the science that was wrong. Sure there were some problems that kicked off the effort to manage but half-baked science can be more dangerous than no science. As they say the most dangerous thing is a little bit of knowledge where you believe you know what is right. When conscious of your own ignorance you focus on eliminating that ignorance rather than ignorantly doing even more damage.
Do it yourself repairs of just about anything is a pretty good example of that. Today the internet is full of instruction videos of how to avoid damaging the thing you are trying to repair more than it already might appear to be damaged. Its ubiquitous truth in life. Many people learn the hard way and cease making fools of themselves. Relying on science work lacking standards or credentials is not unlike going to a blood letting doctor back in the days where doctors who knew a little were motivated to do too much often.
This fact can be seen everywhere if you take the time to look. Happy to say now 30 years later the work I contribute to getting done is increasingly becoming more effective.
With climate change we are messing with the entire system. More appropriate would be to make a list of stuff we really are ignorant about and putting motivations out there to resolve some of those questions. I can think of a number of useful things to accomplish that clearly can. As to experimental evidence of the current greenhouse effect I have to admit to being puzzled as to how to resolve the uncertainty. But over the years I have learned that people are amazingly imaginative and stuff that stumped people, smart ruminators actually figure out some pretty amazing stuff and come up with ingenious ways around seeming impenetrable barriers.
It also becomes more clear to me everyday that the early days of drama about impending disaster simply has not materialized so we have time to go about this in a way that is very positive.
And finally we need to continue to work diligently to ensure this does not fall the hardest on those least able to afford it.
Ken said: How much of the warming is due to natural causes?
Of the 1.1C of warming maybe about 0.1C or so is from non-anthroprogenic causes. Most of that 0.1C would have been pre-WWII though.
Ken said: What is the ideal temperature for the earth?
That depends. What are you wanting to optimize?
Ken said: What evidence do you have that carbon dioxide from human activity is causing any of the modest warming observed in the climate?
I recommend the IPCC AR5 WGI Physical Science Basis report. It is only meant to be an introduction, but does provide an adequate summary of the evidence. It’s only 1500 pages and pretty easy to follow so it won’t take long to get though. You are of course encouraged to dive into the 9200 peer reviewed publications cited and the various publications they cite as well to get more details on the various topics. Again…it’s only an overview, but it does make for a good starting point.
Don’t forget to consider all of the other forcing agents like CH4, CFCs, aerosols, land use changes, etc. as well. Those are incredibly important too.
“That depends. What are you wanting to optimize?”
Very good answer bdgwx. You would get different answers depending on 1) your concern for human welfare or 2) your concern for the snow/ice pack over Detroit to be exactly 5,280 feet deep.
Yeah…colder if you want polar bears to thrive and descend down the latitudes. Warmer if you want flora and fauna to once again take hold in the polar regions. It’s all a matter of perspective.
Looks like bdgwx comes in about 40% higher than the IPCC. . . .and he calls himself a skeptic? LMAO!
IPCC SR15 SPM A.1 point states Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8C to 1.2C.
In the federal arena in the absence of law otherwise (as if laws should ever establish science) what matters is the 95% confidence level. For that the IPCC considers half that warming as manmade and in my opinion even that measure is quite iffy of having achieved that level of confidence. Dr. Curry has concurred with the same opinion. Roy has also along with Lindzen, Happer, Akasofu, and many many others.
Its actually the warmists that claim that level of confidence by counting science papers, that include papers of all the above.
Its total BS.
Indeed nobody wants to talk about why the IPCC doesn’t have much confidence in poisoned body, they participate out of hope their participation will prevent the body from turning into a corpse.
Sometimes for science to get back on the track of discovery you need to find an exorcist to rid it of evil spirits.
Good questions, Ken. There have been no scientific answers, so here goes:
How much of the warming is due to natural causes?
All.
What is the ideal temperature for the earth?
I can’t answer that one, but I’m content with the current belief it’s 288-289 K.
What evidence do you have that carbon dioxide from human activity is causing any of the modest warming observed in the climate?
There is no scientific evidence. They try to correlate increasing CO2 to warming, but it’s more likely the warming is causing the increased CO2.
The “ideal temperature” question is very interesting. The Warmists claim we have warmed over the last century due to CO2. So that would mean they believe colder temperatures are “ideal”. I wonder if they really understand what colder temperatures mean.
C,
May I be so bold as to suggest the Earth does not have an ideal temperature. It appears to have started as a molten blob, with a surface temperature of some 5000 K or so.
Since then it has cooled to its present point.
As it slowly exhausts its internal radiogenic fuel supplies, it continues to cool, albeit very, very, slowly.
However, to keep things in perspective, the present solid crust in relation to the molten interior is about the same proportion as the skin of an apple is to the rest of the apple. Pointless and irrelevant analogy I know, but what the hell, I can’t help myself!
No CO2 magic heating. No greenhouse effect. Just ever more strident alarmist pseudoscience!
“How much of the warming is due to natural causes?”
I would say Earth’s surface temperature is the temperature of the entire ocean, so it’s currently about 3.5 C
But what call earth surface temperature is the global surface air temperature.
The global surface air temperature would be mostly the ocean global surface temperature, and this hasn’t measured accurately.
But it said the global average air temperature is about 15 C.
And it’s said the global average land surface temperature is about 10 C, and make be 15 C, the ocean average temperature have to be and is said to be about 17 C.
Earth has been in Icehouse global climate for about 34 million years, and in last few million year it’s been the coldest.
Earth has been in an icehouse global climate, because it’s ocean has been cold. During the 34 million years, the ocean has been as cold as perhaps 1 C and perhaps more than 5 C. Most opinion is that in last 1/2 million years the ocean has not been as warm as 5 C.
If our ocean was 5 C, it have dramatic effects.
What would the dramatic effects of our ocean being about 5 C?
According to wiki, we are in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, ongoing for
33.9 million years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
And during warmer interglacial periods during this age, when ocean was 4 C or warmer, there was much higher sea levels. In last interglacial {which ocean temperature of about 4 C] it’s thought sea levels may have as high as 9 meter above our present sea levels, but tend think it was about 5 meter higher and the ocean could have been closer to 5 C. But if was highest part of range of 9 meter, it possible the ocean could have been 4 C and could have been volcanic activity in both or either of our polar ice caps. There seems to be agreement that Greenland is currently less volcanically active and volcanic activity in Antarctica has quite common in the news. It also seem possible the ocean was 4 C or warmer for quite long period of time.
It seems a consequent of our present becoming .5 C warmer {about 4 C} is having ice free arctic sea ice during the summer. And if ocean were 5 C, we could be ice free of polar sea ice in winter as well as the summer. And this should result in more snow fall in the polar regions. And more rainfall in polar regions.
And it would be uncommon to have frozen lakes in the world- though if at higher elevation, lakes, could commonly freeze.
It seems if ocean was 4 C, the Sahara desert could green. And 5 C ocean would certainly green the Sahara desert. And outside of tropics there would be far more water vapor, globally, and would also green other deserts in the world.
Somewhere above, I see, for the umpteenth time:
” Several times, Bindidon has tried to misrepresent Newton. He pulls quotes from Newton’s discussion of “libration”, trying to claim that means Moon is rotating about its axis. ”
*
The only way to get rid of such denial of evidence is… to repeat what Newton himself wrote in Book III of his Principia Scientifica:
PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I.
Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25½ days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
These things appear by the Phænomena.
The spots in the sun's body return to the same situation on the sun's disk, with respect to the earth, in 27½ days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25½ days.
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb;
but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moon's latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
This theory of the libration of the moon, Mr. N. Mercator in his Astronomy, published at the beginning of the year 1676, explained more fully out of the letters I sent him.
This is the English translation of Newton’s original Latin text:
https://tinyurl.com/c3a2kbte
*
Newton has clearly explained:
– Moon’s libration [in longitude] is due to its diurnal motion;
– Moon’s day arises from its revolution about its axis;
– Moon’s day is menstrual, i.e. equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb.
*
Why do such people have nothing more to offer than denial and insults?
Why don’t they have enough balls to scientifically contradict what Newton wrote? Maybe they lack the knowledge how to do?
I repeat the words of one of my former university professors:
” Who is unable to contradict will soon start to discredit.”
He was so terribly right.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, I don’t know if you have a language problem or are just ignorant. You seem to miss words such as:
“…with respect to the fixed stars…”
“…therefore with respect to the fixed stars…”
“…the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb…”
IOW, everyone knows Moon APPEARS to be rotating about its axis as viewed from “fixed stars”, and everyone knows the period of a lunar day. But, Moon does NOT actually rotate about its axis.
You just keep making the same mistake over and over, hoping to change reality.
It’s not working for you….
“IOW … “
It’s fascinating that Clint feels qualified to take the very clear words of Newton (“arising from its uniform revolution about its axis”) and ‘reinterpret’ a ‘correction’ that the moon only ‘appears’ to rotate.
Well one shouldn’t read to much into the words of a great scientist whose write up solely comprises a partial sentence that is totally grammatically flawed because of a dangling pronoun reference to which one has no idea exactly which axis he is talking about.
So what was arising out of this rotation?
You should do better. Newton said what he said then you made the fallacy error of affirming the consequent to prove the antecedent true.
The moon’s day would arise out of the moon’s revolutions no matter which axis it rotated upon.
So your argument is the most basic of all fallacies that most often written as:
If it rains the sidewalk will get wet.
The side walk is wet
Therefore, it rained.
Its a fallacy because the sidewalk might be wet from turning the lawn sprinklers on and in fact probably is the most common cause of wet sidewalks.
Newton said if the moon revolves the day will rise.
We can affirm the day rose.
But Newton didn’t say the moon’s axis is an internal axis. . . .you just believe there should be one and there would be none if the moon is not rotating on an internal axis. . . .thats because the moon is only potentially would have an internal axis if it was rotating on one and it could be pointed in all possible positions.
That is a fallacy you made not Newton. Clint apparently understands that so at least he is more qualified to say that than you are to dispute it.
One of my biggest pet peeves is all scientists should be required to take a few courses in logic.
hunter
” … reference to which one has no idea exactly which axis he is talking about. ”
You always have so wonderful, pseudosemantic excuses, like have all people who always try to distort things instead of scientifically contradicting them (what you btw probably are absolutely unable to do).
*
In a comment, I proposed you to read a section of Steven Wepster’s work about Mayer’s treatise, in which Wepster shows nhow Mayer computed Moon’s rotational axis.
You answer made clear that you did not read that document. At best, you’ll have superficially skimmed it over.
So, please, READ again, in the following part:
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
starting at page 173 the section 9.5.1:
” Locating the rotational axis ”
while looking at figure 9.1 (that is Mayer’s ‘figure 27’ of his treatise, carefully redrawn by Wepster).
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
If, when reading on page 175
” Mayers goal of finding the orientation of the lunar axis entails the determination of the angle α = AP between the ecliptic poles and rotational poles, and the precise longitude EF of the equinoctial point N. ”
you still are not willing to accept that the rotational axis computed by Mayer is interior to the Moon, then, sorry: you are definitely a true denialist.
J.-P. D.
binny…”In a comment, I proposed you to read a section of Steven Wepsters work about Mayers treatise, in which Wepster shows nhow Mayer computed Moons rotational axis”.
Once again, you have confused a slight waggle, as the author calls libration, with a complete 360 degree rotation about a local axis. However, the author is as deluded as Mayer and everyone else who thinks the Moon can keep the same face pointed to the Earth while allegedly rotating through 360 degrees.
Here’s the author on rotation:
“It is well known that the moon always turns the same side of its surface towards the earth. Upon closer inspection this turns out to be only approximately true. For several reasons the moon is subject to a slight apparent wiggling, called libration. The reasons for this wiggling are as follows. First, due to the diurnal motion of the terrestrial observer, his aspect of the moon varies between moonrise and moonset. Second, the moon rotates (practically) uniformly around its axis while its velocity of revolution around the earth varies: consequently, a terrestrial observer sees some-times a bit more of the leading half of the moons surface, and sometimes a bit more of the trailing half”.
The author is utterly confused. For one, the Moon does not turn one side to the Earth, it is gravity that does the turning through changing the linear momentum of the Moon into an orbit. For another he claims the Moon rotates uniformly. You can see that is stuck in his mind with the notion that the Moon keeps turning the same side to the Earth.
None of these people understand physics based on the force and momentum involved. As Bill Hunter pointed out recently, the only force on the Moon is gravity, which is a centripetal force. Mayer, in his book, thought there was a centrifugal force as well, which would act out the way. The Moon’s gravitational effect on the Earth pulls on the Earth outwardly, but there is no significant centrifugal force operating on the Moon, other than the Sun, which is slight.
The author has also explained the cause of libration incorrectly. He has it right about the velocity of the Moon varying slightly in its orbit but that is due to the slightly elliptical orbit. If he had analyzed that aspect he may have seen the error in his analysis.
If the lunar orbit was circular, there would be no libration. With a circular orbit, a radial line from the lunar centre to the Earth centre would always be centre to centre. With a slightly elliptical orbit, that is no longer true. A radial line from the Moon now points slightly to the side of Earth’s centre and that increases the more the Moon moves into the more eccentric part of the lunar orbit.
That radial line represents a line perpendicular to the near side face. It does not point at the Earth’s centre and it is derived by drawing lines from each focal point of the ellipse to the Moon and bisecting that angle. Therefore, the near side points further away from Earth’s centre as the Moon moves into the more eccentric parts of the orbit, allowing us to see more around the near edge of the Moon.
That’s libration and there is no rotation of the Moon causing it. The lunar velocity changes because, with the radial line from the Moon pointing away from Earth’s centre, only a sine or cosine portion of gravity is operating on the Moon. That cosine/sine portion varies with the ellipse eccentricity allowing the Moon’s momentum to have a greater effect, hence an effect on the resultant orbital path.
As the Moon’s momentum takes a greater effect, the orbital path becomes elongated until gravity starts to drag the Moon back toward Earth.
If you draw an elliptical orbit, with the Earth at the principal foci, and you locate the Moon at different points on the orbital path, you can draw lines from each lunar position to each focal point and bisect the angle. The resulting line will show you where the near face is pointing and why we can see more around the near edge for each lunar position.
Robertson
” Once again, you have confused a slight waggle, as the author calls libration, with a complete 360 degree rotation about a local axis. ”
This comment is, among all those you wrote yesterday around 10 PM, the most ridiculous one.
Once again, you prove your inability to correctly read, let alone to understand what people (here: Wepster, and hence Mayer) wrote.
*
On page 173:
” Second, the moon rotates (practically) uniformly around its axis while its velocity of revolution around the earth varies: consequently, a terrestrial observer sees sometimes a bit more of the leading half of the moons surface, and sometimes a bit more of the trailing half.
{ With practically, Wepster means that Moon’s revolution is not perfectly uniform, but is disturbed by tiniest irregularities, called ‘physical librations’, in opposition to the optical, apparent librations (latitudinal, longitudinal and diurnal).
But so tiny these are, Newton manifestly was aware of them, as Wepster states on page 173:
” The fourth libration is too small to be observable for Mayer: this so-called physical libration was first hypothesized by Newton, but only in the 1840s were sufficiently accurate measurements available to prove its real existence. ”
*
The amplitude of these physical librations (more than one were discovered) was computed by hand in 1963 by the Russian astronomer S. Habibullin, recomputed in 1976 using a computer by the French mathematician O. Calamé, and once more in 1982 by the Belgian mathematiciam M. Moons. Two pretty strong women! }
*
On page 174:
” These points are not fixed relative to the surface of the moon; instead they both traverse the complete equator NLZnz during one revolution of the moon about its axis.
*
As usual: the longer your posts, the more redundant and fallacious they are.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, as usual you can’t understand your own source. Every time you see the words “axis” or “rotation”, you automatically believe that “proves” axial rotation. Quoting things you don’t understand, especially out-of-context, ain’t science.
If you understood orbital motion, you would realize one side of the orbiting object always faces the center of the orbit, if the object has no axial rotation. That’s the motion of Moon.
No amount of misrepresenting others will change reality.
wrong again, TF. Those quotes were not the “very clear words” of Newton. They were the words of the translation. Newton wrote his work in Latin.
You don’t know anything about the science.
(Got that model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” yet?)
tim…”Its fascinating that Clint feels qualified to take the very clear words of Newton (arising from its uniform revolution about its axis) and reinterpret a correction that the moon only appears to rotate”.
I would not think that Newton would confuse revolution with rotation. It’s likely he was referring to the lunar orbit as revolution and rotation about its axis as revolution about the Earth as its axis.
Clint R
” IOW, everyone knows Moon APPEARS to be rotating about its axis as viewed from ‘fixed stars’… ”
You always try the same tricks.
While Newton talks about
MEASUREMENT with respect to the fixed stars,
you intentionally distort his words by writing instead
MOTION as viewed from the fixed stars.
That is completely different.
See my reply to Swenson upthread, who made the same mistake as you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-637535
There you see the difference between
– computing a rotation period when a point on the rotating object returns at the same place
and
– computing the same period when a fixed star returns at the same place at the end of the rotation.
For the Sun, that is TWO DAYS.
*
You are not courageous enough to say: ” Newton and Mayer were wrong “, let alone would you ever be able to prove it.
You simply keep misrepresenting what they wrote.
I know: you would never even try to read such a paper, but others might very well, because the use of the stars in motion measurements is very well explained therein, e.g.on page 4:
http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Symposium/kazan.pdf
J.-P. D.
Wrong Bindidon. Newton was right, you are wrong.
We’ve asked TF for his model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. He can’t provide one. You can’t either. Do you know why you can’t provide one? Because the model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is the ball-on-a-string, which is Moon’s motion. We know the model because of the work of Newton.
You’ve lost this, but you can’t admit it. Your ship is sinking.
binny…”You are not courageous enough to say: Newton and Mayer were wrong , let alone would you ever be able to prove it”.
For one, Mayer was never, in his dreams, in the same class as a scientist as Newton. For another, I have the courage to state that Mayer was wrong. Don’t know what Newton was thinking since I have not read him carefully on the subject nor do I have much faith in the translation from Latin to English.
It was likely initially a translation from Latin to Old English, then to modern English,a frightful thought. Mix that with authors who have a biased POV and you have trouble.
Robertson
” I have the courage to state that Mayer was wrong. Dont know what Newton was thinking since I have not read him carefully on the subject nor do I have much faith in the translation from Latin to English. ”
That is the signature of the dumb and ignorant boasters, who “have the courage to state that Mayer was wrong.
But that you never and never have the ability to prove it: that, Robertson, does not seem to disturb you.
*
” It was likely initially a translation from Latin to Old English, then to modern English, a frightful thought. Mix that with authors who have a biased POV and you have trouble. ”
Only uneducated Contrarians like you have trouble with such work, Robertson.
You don’t know anything about all that, but come here and push up with your ridiculous blah blah!
Why don’t you try to LEARN, instead of endlessly posting your redundant, egocentric guesses?
*
You are not even able to make, when reading a book, the difference between main text and foot notes!
And due to this incredible inability, you even dared to call Andrew Motte, one of the few, highly regarded translators of Newton’s work, a “cheating SOB”.
Your POV, Robertson, is not ‘biased’. It is pathological, diseased and – regardless what you write – totally redundant.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
The lunar day (hence diurnal) relates to sunrise and sunset. From the viewpoint of the sun, all sides of the moon are observed. Apparent rotation on axis. Maybe you misunderstand the concept of day as involving sunrise and sunset on the Moon.
However, from the closest point on the Moon’s surface to the Earth, the Earth does not rise and set. Stays overhead. Certainly no axial rotation with respect to its orbit round the Earth.
Moving right along, Newton wrote –
“And in all truth I assure thee that although thou hadst our body mercurialized without the addition of mercury of any of the metals made per se that is without the addition of mercury it
would not be in the least profitable unto thee, for it is our ☿ only which
hath a celestial form & power, which it receives not only so much from
the compound body as from the fermental virtue which proceeds from the
composition of both the body & the ☿ by which is produced a wonderful
creature. So then let all thy care be to marry 🜍 with 🜍, that is our ☿ which
is impregnated with 🜍 must be espoused with our gold then hast thou two
sulphurs married & two ☿s of one ofspring whose father is the ☉ &
☽ the mother.”
This is part of a recipe to transmute base metals into precious ones. Do you really think I discredit Newton by asserting that he was wrong? Do you really believe that Newton could turn lead into gold?
I don’t. If that makes me a science denier, then so be it. What about you?
Swenson
” The lunar day (hence diurnal) relates to sunrise and sunset. ”
Wrong.
In astronomy, the day of a celestial body represents – in analogy to Earth – a complete rotation about its center of mass.
The rest of your condescending, lenghty prose is, as usual, redundant. Skipped.
J.-P. D.
binny…”In astronomy, the day of a celestial body represents in analogy to Earth a complete rotation about its center of mass”.
We humans refer to ‘day’ in different contexts. There is day, as opposed to night, where a day refers to sunlight exposure. Night is an absence of solar energy input.
Therefore, Swenson is right about sunrise and sunset.
Robertson
What a dumb reply!
I repeat, for the most ignorant boaster on this blog:
” In astronomy, the day of a celestial body represents – in analogy to Earth – a complete rotation about its center of mass. ”
No, Swenson is NOT right.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Just repeating something you made up – “In astronomy, the day of a celestial body represents in analogy to Earth a complete rotation about its center of mass.”, does not mean it is true.
Your assertion is obviously the work of a person to whom English is not their primary language. You, perhaps?
Alarmists continually redefine words to suit their purpose – eg. slow cooling becomes an increase in temperature, less than 50% means near certainty, and so on. You may choose to define a day anyway you like. So may I. Fair enough?
I ask again, do you really believe that Newton could turn lead into gold, or do you only appeal to Newton’s authority when it suits you?
Just describing people as dumb, ignorant boasters doesn’t mean you are right. Would you call Newton a dumb, ignorant boaster for believing things you don’t agree with?
Carry on.
Swenson
” Just repeating something you made up ‘In astronomy, the day of a celestial body represents in analogy to Earth a complete rotation about its center of mass. “, does not mean it is true. ”
What a dumb, stubborn, ignorant, condescending reply.
YOU, Swenson, have here to prove it is wrong. But you would never be able to do that.
You comfortably keep pushing up with your endless redundant, non-binding prose.
If I was asked for persons endlessly having to say something, but never have something to say, you would be on top of the list.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, “diurnal” refers to daytime. You see it used informally (slang) to mean “daily”, but the formal definition is the time during Sun’s period of illumination.
“Nocturnal” is reserved for the period when there is no solar illumination.
Clint R
You should learn to correctly read comment sequences.
I didn’t use ‘diurnal’.
I wrote ‘lunar day‘, out of which Swenson himself made ‘lunar day (hence diurnal).
‘Diurnal’ indeed has a meaning and a usage context differing from ‘day’.
Bindidon, you should learn to correctly read comment sequences.
I didn’t say you used ‘diurnal’.
Clint R
Don’t try to kid me, that won’t work, you lack the necessary sensitivity to do that.
You perfectly know what you wrote to me, and how it was intended:
” … ‘diurnal’ refers to daytime. You see it used informally (slang) to mean ‘daily’, but the formal definition is the time during Sun’s period of illumination. ”
The correct recipient of the paragraph in fact is Swenson, who used that term, and not me.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you should learn to correctly read comment sequences.
I didn’t say you used ‘diurnal’.
You have a real problem with language.
We are talking about Newton’s revolutionary work on planetary motion, which has proven correct for last 3.5 centuries, not his ideas on metallurgy which was still stuck in that century and proved wrong.
Just as Tesla’s electrical work was revolutionary. But his ideas on the Moon were…wrong.
Science is not the people who developed it.
Science is a set of facts and ideas that live on or not.
Tesla was correct that Moon does not rotate about its axis. Moon is only orbiting, with no axial rotation
Only idiots have trouble with reality.
Tesla was correct that our Moon does not rotate about its axis in his accelerated frame. In that frame, Moon is observed only orbiting, with no axial rotation because the frame itself is spinning.
Only some who haven’t learned relativity have trouble with the reality that momentum is conserved across frames.
Yep, Ball4 is still misrepresenting Tesla.
As Troll4 accelerates away from reality, more or less once per comment, he now conserves his idiocy across frames.
Ball4 says:
”Only some who havent learned relativity have trouble with the reality that momentum is conserved across frames.”
No the only concern is when somebody invents a frame, puts a spin on an axis, and then turns around and claims the frame is proof of the spin.
bdg…”Use polar coordinates. Put the radius r=0 through the COM of the Moon and orient the angle a=0 radial line so that it always points to a distant star. Do the calculation. You WILL get 2.66e-6 rad/s”.
Reminds me of the 4 climate alarmists trying to screw in a light bulb. One stood on the chair holding the light bulb in the socket while the other three rotated the chair.
better still, according to your analysis, when a person rotates a light bulb while screwing it in, it’s not the light bulb that is rotating, it’s the room. We must not forget the orbital motion and rotation of the Earth, the motion of the galaxy, and any other motion in the universe, screwing in a light bulb, rather than being a straight local physical twisting action, is a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional action independent of the person screwing in the light bulb.
There is an upside. If you removed all humans from the Earth, with their torturous ability to mangle reality, the Moon would stop spinning, time would end, and devices would not shrink as they moved at ever-increasing velocities. If we removed only the set of humans who think like you, we’d be free of covid, have no climate/warming issues, or political correctness.
GR said: better still, according to your analysis, when a person rotates a light bulb while screwing it in, it’s not the light bulb that is rotating, it’s the room.
Not even close GR…NOT EVEN CLOSE. Put the radius r=0 point through the COM of the light bulb and point the angle a=0 radial line toward a distant point in the room. ALL point in the room will have an angular velocity of 0 rad/s in that frame. But all points on the light bulb will have > 0 rad/s. This is a rotationally inertial frame wrt to Earth. No fictitious forces need to be invoked. The twisting the bulb is therefore real.
GR said: We must not forget the orbital motion and rotation of the Earth, the motion of the galaxy, and any other motion in the universe, screwing in a light bulb, rather than being a straight local physical twisting action, is a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional action independent of the person screwing in the light bulb.
Duh. Motions including rotation are relative. Calculations regarding angular velocity, angular momentum, and rotationally kinetic energy depend on the reference frame chosen. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.
bdgwx is so dense he couldn’t recognize Gordon’s sarcasm.
Like Norman, bdgwx just keeps pounding on his keyboard, hoping something will come out right.
It never does.
binny…”Newton has clearly explained:
Moons libration [in longitude] is due to its diurnal motion;
Moons day arises from its revolution about its axis;
Moons day is menstrual, i.e. equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb”.
***
Easily explained. Libration is due to the Moon’s motion in its elliptical orbit. Moon’s day is dependent on rotation about the Earth as its axis. Moon’s day is menstrual is related to the angle with which the Sun strikes the Moon in its orb (orbit).
Nothing hear about lunar rotation about a local axis. Move along folks.
Robertson
You wrote upthread
” I would not think that Newton would confuse revolution with rotation.
It’s likely he was referring to the lunar orbit as revolution and rotation about its axis as revolution about the Earth as its axis. ”
People like you, hunter, Clint R, Swenson, DREMT ans some others may misread, misinterpret and misrepresent historical science as long as they want.
Luckily, you all can’t manage to erase it.
*
See, for the umpteenth time, Newton’s Principia Scientifica
https://tinyurl.com/c3a2kbte
In Book III, Prop. XVII, Theor. XV, foot note (e) 76. Semper respiciet quamproximè
you read
” Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit ”
*
Translation in English:
” For the Moon uniformly revolves about its own axis in the same time as it completes its period around Earth ”
To misinterpret such a text, one must be either dense, stubborn or disingenuous.
J.-P. D.
Google translate: “For since the time that I done around the Earth the moon around the axis of the same period of his life, were acquitted by its own uniform and rolled away the”
DREMT
How is it possible to use Google’s translator with Latin as source? It utterly fails. Are you really so naive, so unexperienced?
Why not Greek, Arabian, Farsi or Thai? Even from French to English, the tool often enough shows his own boundaries.
In my native tongue, one uses to say ” plus na� to meurs “, i.e. ” More naive you die “.
Even though it was at least 50 years ago that I had a solid education in Latin, I still manage to translate such simple things.
J.-P. D.
Duh! The blog doesn’t like ‘i with umlaut’ in UTF-8. So what.
I’m curious if this will work….
ï
Bingo!
Just pointing out that for those who don’t speak Latin, there is no way to be sure your translation is correct. And, even if it were, I don’t take Newton’s word as “the word of God”. Just because he may have said something is so, does not mean that it is.
What I, personally, know for certain is that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball…and as far as I am aware you have agreed with that in the past. That agreement is all I’m looking for. I no longer have much interest in the moon discussion, every possible argument that could be made, has been already. I am much more interested in who can agree with the simple fact that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, and who lets their programming prevent them from acknowledging that simple truth.
The simple fact is that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis as observed from the accelerated frame proven by Tesla Fig. 6 physics; it’s just those who let their programming prevent them from acknowledging that simple truth that are easily shown wrong by simple physics.
For Ball4, the programming that prevents him from acknowledging the simple truth is “reference frames”. For others, it will be something else.
Bindidon, in your “native tongue”, it would be spelled “…tu meurs”, not “…to meurs”.
You have a lot of trouble with language.
The simple fact is that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis as observed from the accelerated frame proven by Tesla Fig. 6 physics; it’s just those who let their programming prevent them from acknowledging that simple truth that are easily shown wrong by simple physics.
Ball4 has a lot of trouble with commenting in the right place.
The site at first rejected a comment then posted it; when in chat mode the site seems to object to some comment placements.
Anyway, simple momentum wheel physics prove DREMT wrong, and DREMT has not posted any physics supporting a failed position; DREMT just simply asserts a failed position.
Think what you want.
Clint R
Wow! You are nearly genial.
You’d have been totally genial if you had discovered that I forgot the ‘f’ at the end of ‘naif’ (without umlaut this time, sorry).
Does the ball-on-a-string rotate about its center of mass, Clint R?
J.-P. D.
Does the ball on a string rotate about its center of mass, Bindidon?
Perfect DREMT! Bindidon’s translating tool blows up in his face.
DREMT
” And, even if it were, I don’t take Newton’s word as ‘the word of God’. ”
Ha!
I also don’t take Newton’s word as ‘the word of God’.
But… unlike you, I trust 1000 times more in
– Cassini, Kepler, Mercator, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer/Mädler, etc etc
– Habibullin, Mac Donald, Eckhardt, Rizvanov, Chapront, Migus, Calamé, Moons, etc etc
than in a few whose alleged authority you prefer to appeal to
– Tesla
– Savič, Vujicič, Tomič.
Just because these four above may have said something is so, does NOT AT ALL mean that it is.
J.-P. D.
I don’t appeal to anyone’s authority. I don’t take anyone’s word for anything. The only reason I have even been discussing Tesla recently is because Ball4 keeps misrepresenting him.
Now…does the ball on a string rotate on its own axis, Bindidon?
It’s really, really hard not to say ‘Yes’, but it wouldn’t be sarcastic enough.
Well, you once said of the horse on the merry-go-round that it rotates about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis, so I would have assumed you would say the same about the ball on a string.
DREMT
Of course I say the same about your BOAS!
But that doesn’t mean anything for me.
Let me remind you that I do not find these trivial toy examples useful for a sound discussion.
The movements of the Moon in their entirety are far too complex to be described by such examples, let alone would it be meaningful and useful to derive any motion theory out of them.
J.-P. D.
Cassini shouldn’t even be on the same list as Newton and Kepler. You need to delete Cassini, and insert Galileo.
But, you’re not interested in getting things right, aka, “reality”.
Clint R
A little modesty has never hurt anyone.
Read what Cassini achieved in his life before you put him down as an astrologer:
https://www.universetoday.com/130823/who-was-giovanni-cassini/
*
In a blog of the School of Mathematics and Statistics,
University of St Andrews, Scotland, I read moreover:
” His first interest, however, was in astrology rather than astronomy. He read widely on this topic and soon was very knowledgeable, yet was convinced that there was no truth in astrological predictions.
It was, rather strangely, his extensive knowledge of astrology that led to his first appointment. In 1644 the Marquis Cornelio Malvasia, who was a senator from Bologna with a great interest in astrology, invited Cassini to Bologna.
He offered him a position in the Panzano Observatory which he was constructing at that time. ”
…
” His expertise, however, covered many areas other than astronomy.
He was an expert in hydraulics and engineering and as such was consulted regarding the dispute of 1657 between Bologna and Ferrara on the course of the River Reno. The dispute was settled by Pope Alexander VII with advice from Cassini and for several years after this he was regularly consulted by the Papal Court as an expert on river management.
He wrote treatises on this aspect of his work, in particular on the flooding of the river Po. He was also employed by the Pope in 1663 as superintendent of fortifications, then he travelled to Rome again in 1665 when he was named Superintendent of the waters of the ecclesiastical states. ”
Will you have reached so much, when your life comes to end?
J.-P. D.
Cassini wasn’t in the same league as Newton, Kepler, and Galileo.
Not even close.
You know you have 3 astrologers and one alchemist on your list.
Bindidon, you can’t accept reality. That means you can’t learn.
* Newton proved what “pure orbital motion” is. One side of the orbiting object always keeps one side facing the inside of the orbit, like a ball-on-a-string, or a runner on a track, or the wooden horse on a merry-go-round. That’s the motion of Moon — orbiting but NOT rotating about its axis. You reject that reality.
* “Lunar libration” is an apparent motion. It is not an actual motion. It is the apparent motion we see from Earth, as Moon completes its elliptical, tilted orbit. This was explained above by the simple analogy of a runner on a track. You reject that reality.
But, it’s not enough for you to just reject reality. Like TF, Troll4, Norman, Nate, SGW, and several others, you believe you most pervert and corrupt reality. You have no interest in truth.
All that makes you, and the others, idiots.
OMG, I forgot to include bdgwx in the list. How could I have forgotten! He’s also the one that doesn’t understand energy balance. He can’t get anything right.
I need to find my complete list of “reality-deniers”.
Clint R
You are at least 100 % right!
J.-P. D.
for bdgwx and bindidon:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/18/twice-as-much-carbon-flowing-from-land-to-ocean-than-previously-thought/
this is major ownage.
“After accounting for these effects, the authors were up for a surprise: they found much higher numbers for the land to ocean carbon transfer of 900-1900 million tons per year (see Figure). ”
So for the past 5 years, you 2 individuals have claimed nonstop that the ocean sinks are beyond capacity. Well well well, looks like your precious little so called energy imbalance, is due to natural sources, not manmade! ballgame!
jay cadbury phd
Maybe you’re phdeed, Mr Cadbury, but nonetheless, you are quite wrong as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t participate in energy (im)balance or CO2 discussions, as this requests a knowledge way above mine AND that of 99% of the people posting comments on this blog.
My one and only contribution to the CO2 discussion is this:
https://www.centrale-energie.fr/spip/spip.php?article151
I’m too lazy to translate that stuff in English by using Google Trans.
It would be useless work anyway, as it would be immediately discredited and denigrated.
J.-P. D.
WUWT said: After accounting for these effects, the authors were up for a surprise: they found much higher numbers for the land to ocean carbon transfer of 900-1900 million tons per year (see Figure).
Yep. I’ve already seen it. This refines the land-to-ocean inflow from about 0.9 GtC/yr to 1.4 GtC/yr +/- 0.5. Total oceanic uptake assuming the air-to-ocean inflow remains equal (bad assumption) would go from 80.9 GtC/yr to 81.4 GtC/yr. This is a change of ~0.6%. The +2.3 GtC/yr imbalance on the ocean is measured directly though. What this means is that ocean-to-air outflow is probably underestimated by 0.5 GtC/yr which would refine it from 78.4 GtC/yr to 78.9 GtC/yr for a change of ~0.6% as well. A 0.6% change is hardly Earth shattering.
The publication can be found here.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GB006684
And the figures I cite above come from IPCC AR5 WGI chapter 6 figure 6.1 pg 471.
jay cadbury phd said: So for the past 5 years, you 2 individuals have claimed nonstop that the ocean sinks are beyond capacity.
First…I haven’t been posting here for 5 years.
Second…The ocean is beyond capacity. It is a net sink right now.
jay cadbury phd said: Well well well, looks like your precious little so called energy imbalance, is due to natural sources, not manmade! ballgame!
First…the Earth Enerby Imbalance is a completely different topic.
Second…this publication does NOT in any way shape or form imply that the net uptake carbon by the ocean is from natural cause.
Third…You should probably read the paper and understand what its contribution to the body of knowledge regarding the carbon actually means before you declare “ballgame!”.
bdgwx
Thank you for this comment, much appreciated.
J.-P. D.
bdgwx said: Second…The ocean is beyond capacity. It is a net sink right now.
Hmm…that didn’t come out right. What I should have said is that the ocean is beyond its buffering capacity. It cannot scrub out all of the excess CO2 building up in the atmosphere quickly enough. The fact that the ocean is a net sink is a separate line of thought.
the ocean can’t be beyond its buffering capacity bdgwx.
The IPCC knows the ocean buffering rate with a half life of a two or three decades. With warming preceding somewhere between .1 and .2 per decade. We could delay doing anything for a few decades and easily stay below the 2.0 degree warming standard. That why the ecowarriors are desperate to get that lowered to 1.5 degrees from the beginning of the industrial age no less.
Why from the beginning of the industrial age? Warming has been positive so far. The biggest risk of even getting back to the prosperity of the first half of the 20th century would be from cooling. Thats the big risk. More clouds blocking out the sun would have an impact on the growing of crops.
and the growth of plankton in the oceans. Bioproductivity would suffer.
Buffer capacity is the ocean’s ability to take up excess carbon from the atmosphere. The rate at which carbon is being added to the atmosphere exceeds the rate at which the ocean can buffer it. This is partly why CO2 concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere. The ocean is definitely beyond its buffer capacity. It is also believe that the buffer capacity will decrease as temperatures rise.
“With warming preceding somewhere between .1 and .2 per decade. We could delay doing anything for a few decades and easily stay below the 2.0 degree warming standard. ”
The numbers suggest otherwise.
Preindustrial baseline 1850-1900 average temperature and 280ppm CO2.
midrange climate sensitivity 3.0
Forcing effect 1C per 3.7W/m^2 change.
Current warming 1.2C.
Warming due to CO2 = 5.35ln(C/Co)3/3.7
Current warming required 5.35ln(370/280)3/3.7 =1.2C.
370ppm CO2 occurred in the mid-1990s giving a warming lag of 25 years.
1.5C warming requires 5.35ln(395/280)3/3.7
We passed 395ppm in 2010, which committed us to passing 1.5C in 2035.
With current CO2 at 411ppm we are committed to 5.35ln(411/280)3/3.7 = 1.7C in 2046.
To reach 2C we would require 5.35ln(445-280)3/3.7
At 2ppm/ year we will reach 445ppm in 2038 and 2C 25 years later in 2063.
In summary, unless something changes drastically we can expect:-
1.5C 2035
1.7C 2046
2.0C 2063
It is already too late to stop 1.7C, though we might delay 2C if the opponents of mitigation stop dragging their feet.
EM,
Yeah. And using an alternate approach with Earth energy imbalance of +0.87 W/m^2 with a modest sensitivity of 0.5C per W/m^2 we have another 0.4C of warming already baked in. That’s 1.6C and in the ballpark of your 1.7C figure. If we want to limit warming to 1.5C then we’ll either have to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, pump more aerosol pollution in to offset the warming, or hope for a prolonged period of elevated volcanic activity.
bdgwx
Yes, you can approach this problem from several directions and they all give similar answers. Even the simplest assumption of continuing 0.2C/decade warming gives 1.5C in 15 years and 2.0C in 45 years.
1.5C in fifteen years time and 2.0C in 40 years is becoming the default projection.
Unfortunately even the Paris Agreement targets are not going to make much difference. Too little too late and human nature won’t allow more.
bdgwx says:
Buffer capacity is the oceans ability to take up excess carbon from the atmosphere. The rate at which carbon is being added to the atmosphere exceeds the rate at which the ocean can buffer it. This is partly why CO2 concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere. The ocean is definitely beyond its buffer capacity. It is also believe that the buffer capacity will decrease as temperatures rise.
================================
You just need to slightly revise your take. The ocean is not beyond ”its” buffer capacity. Perhaps you mean to say that Anthropogenic emissions are beyond the buffering rate of the ocean to timely take it up and prevent atmospheric levels from rising in the face of emissions continuing their accelerating rate. But if emissions aren’t accelerating the CO2 content will rise to a level where a balance is found as ocean uptake increases with a higher concentration in the atmosphere. Of course alarmists spin it has if the buffer capacity of the oceans will never catch up as long as we are emitting CO2.
Bill Hunter
At present we are emitting enough CO2 to increase concentrations by 4mm/year and the equivalent of 2mm/year is being taken up by the oceans.Unfortunately three factors are changing the ocean’s ability to continue.
1) Increasing ocean temperatures bring the amount of dissolved CO2 closer to its maximum capacity. This shifts the equilibrium, making it harder to dissolve CO2 and easier to return it to the atmosphere.
2) Chemical buffering converts dissolved CO2 into carbonic acid H2CO3, bicarbonate HCO3- and finally carbonate CO3–. Each step releases anH+ ion and decreases pH. As the ocean pH decreases it becomes harder to remove CO2 from solution, which limits further uptake from the atmosphere.The
3) As the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, it encourages further uptake of dissolved CO2 in accordance with Henry’s Law.
Regrettably the net effect of the three processes is to decrease the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere.
It is not alarmist to expect ocean CO2 buffering to decrease; it is optimistic to expect it to continue at its present rate.
Actually you need to take in and consider that the estimated half life of CO2 in the atmosphere as estimated by the IPCC is about 2 to 3 decades and the thing to keep in mind we don’t have to think in terms of reducing carbon in the atmosphere to the level of today. What we need to identify is what level of CO2 is likely to change from net beneficial to net harmful considering its life giving benefits. To me that seems clearly some amount of carbon well out into the future. I am not even all that keen on applying the breaks to stop right at that point.
I would prefer we go beyond it then return as a validation of what we believe. Maximizing human potential, welfare, and future is almost certainly a game of testing barriers. Its not a game for the timid as there is an appropriate word for the timid. . . .food.
“Actually you need to take in and consider that the estimated half life of CO2 in the atmosphere as estimated by the IPCC is about 2 to 3 decades”
I think you’ve misinterpreted. That 2-3 decades is not the time it takes for the extra CO2 we’ve put in to disappear altogether. It is the time a single CO2 molecules is likely to remain in the atmosphere before being exchanged into one of the other two reservoirs.
There are three main CO2 reservoirs, the atmosphere, the oceans and the biomass.
The atmosphere contains about 50% of the total, with 25% each in ocean and biomass. Though our emissions are released into the atmosphere, it accumulates and exchanges between all three reservoirs.Hence we release enough to increase the atmospheric CO2 by 4ppm/year, but only see a 2ppm increase.
The extra CO2 we release will persist for much longer than you estimate. It will only be removed from circulation by weathering, sediment formation and subduction. This will not take decades, but hundreds of thousands of years.
Entropic man says:
I think youve misinterpreted. That 2-3 decades is not the time it takes for the extra CO2 weve put in to disappear altogether.
It is the time a single CO2 molecules is likely to remain in the atmosphere before being exchanged into one of the other two reservoirs.
=================
No you are incorrect. The average time a molecule of CO2 spends in the atmosphere is much less.
—————-
——————-
——————
Entropic man says:
There are three main CO2 reservoirs, the atmosphere, the oceans and the biomass. The atmosphere contains about 50% of the total, with 25% each in ocean and biomass.
————————–
That is so ignorant it is laughable. carbon sinks in the ocean are many orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere. And there is an unknown additional sink of mineral deposits underlying the ocean thus we don’t yet know all the means by which CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere. You need to read up in the main IPCC reports on carbon removal rates. When somebody tells you how many years it will take for carbon to fully equilibriate keep in mind its a logarithmic function and the tail is very long if you want to get the last extra molecule out of the atmosphere.
The rate of balancing is logarithmic and what your daddy didn’t tell you is half of it would be gone in 2 to 3 decades. Look it up. Its in the IPCC reports.
So extending that analysis on the basis of no perceptible net harm for emissions emitted in the past yet seen; when we do see harm we will need to reduce emissions.
Everybody is panicked over how hard that would be to do yet doing it before we need to do it carries the risk of bad investment in a world where people really do need their governments to help rather than harm people.
Its been quite a while since I looked at Moana Loa but there is a rather extraordinary variability in CO2 growth rates that don’t correspond to changes in emissions. Much more to learn there.
After a quick search.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/05_2.shtml
Check the reservoir sizes.
Note. I left out soil because it includes tundra and peat bogs which exchange only slowly. The ocean, biomass and atmosphere are the three reservoirs between which carbon flows easily.
I also left out sediments and carbonaceous rocks such as chalk, limestone and shales. They circulate on much longer geological timescales.
LOL!
From EM: ”There are three main CO2 reservoirs, the atmosphere, the oceans and the biomass. The atmosphere contains about 50% of the total, with 25% each in ocean and biomass. ”
From EM’s source: ”Sizes of reservoirs are given in mass units. For example, the atmospheric reservoir of carbon (mostly in the form of carbon dioxide) is about 750 GtC (Gigatonnes of carbon � see the glossary of scientific units for further clarification). The ocean is near 40,000 GtC; the biosphere is near 610 GtC; and, depending on how it is defined, soil is almost 1600 GtC.”
Hmmm, may math comes out:
atmosphere: 750gtc equals 1.75%
bioshere and topsoil organics: 2,210gtc equals 5.1%
oceans: 40,000gtc equals 93.1%
Were you off a bit EM or did I misinterpret you?
Gee lets add in mineral deposits and see what we get!
atmosphere: 750gtc equals .0000135%
bioshere and topsoil organics: 2,210gtc equals .0000399%
oceans: 40,000gtc equals .0007220%
Mineral deposits: 5,540,000,000gtc equals 99.99922%
The IPCC pretends, primarily in the highly politically influenced executive summaries that we know the rates of transfer between these sinks but really all they do is either assign zero or some incredibly slow guess.
Further the variation in atmospheric carbon uptake is huge showing a seasonal sawtooth pattern and year to year variation. Simply moving the sun over the southern oceans creates a rise of CO2 in the northern ocean (Hawaii) at a steep slope. Which is a testament of how much carbon is being taken up. When the sun moves over Hawaii thats accelerating the rate of carbon coming out of the oceans in Hawaii but Hawaii’s measurements are plummeting.
The more you blame rising CO2 on anthropogenic emissions the faster the recovery should be. thats because we can control them and the numbers that get thrown around that want to take us all the way back to the days of carbon starvation and lamenting about how long that would take is simply bonkers.
So yes we have a lot more control over the amount of anthropogenic increases in CO2 than the powers to be want us to know. So they bury the facts in the science document and up the language of certainty in the political executive summaries and issue doomsday predictions of what did you say? Hundreds of thousands of years to extract the last extra molecule?
We don’t want to go back to that time EM. It is insane to dream of that.
Judith Curry has noted that skeptics are quoting the underlying science published deep in the thick stuff of the IPCC more and more. And that is due to dedicated scientists swimming up stream to get good science. I wish them continued funding and rewards. I wish Roy and John funding for a surface record effort to better identify and quantify UHI as discussed a few threads back.
The big push toward mitigation isn’t a wise push. What it is is more the natural need on the part of politicians that have hung their hat and futures on this in need of programs they can credit for solving the problem. It is nothing more than the fact that when you give a kid a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
Bill Hunter
I must stop debating late at night. I lose my edge.
Your numberes are correct, but the don’t properly reflect the behaviour of the system.
Take a look at the carbon cycle here.
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#/media/File%3ACarbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg
Look at the distribution of dissolved carbon in the ocean. 39,000 Gt of that 40,000 Gt is in the deep ocean and stays there. Only 1020 Gt is available for exchange with the atmosphere.
This is the key point. Carbon sinks vary in their mobility. A carbon molecule absorbed by photosynthesis may be respired back into the atmosphere in an hour. A carbon molecule absorbed into deep ocean sediments may not return to the atmosphere for a billion years.
For the purposes of our discussion of the probable lifetime of the high atmospheric CO2 concentration, we need to focus on the sinks which are mobile on geologically short timescales. This means the atmosphere, the biomass, the surface layers of the ocean and part of the soil.For process purposes the biomass and soil overlap. You could argue that they constitute a single reservoir.
those are all good points but none of them detract from the theory that if the perturbation stops roughly 50% of the perturbation will be eliminated in as little as 2 or 3 decades. This is acknowledged by the IPCC. This was discussed in here perhaps a year ago.
The mixing zone of the ocean is called that for a reason. Above the thermocline the ocean is warmed by solar radiation that penetrates roughly an average of 150 meters and thus is subjected to convective overturning. The interchange between the deep ocean and the surface ocean is largely unknown. However, recent studies suggest that it is greater than previously thought. Coastal deep water upwellings are responsible for the nutrient rich waters that aid greatly in feeding ocean productivity.
Until the early 2000’s upper and lower ocean water exchange was simply disregarded by climate science as immaterial in mitigating both temperature trends and carbon take up. Today it is believed by Charney report adherents as being the primary cause of warming falling short of projections. Personally I don’t believe that as I don’t simply sit back and imagine a solution to a problem and declare it as true. My thoughts on the matter span a wide range. Like instead of burying heat at the bottom of the ocean is it possible the ocean bottoms are cooling. Cooling from a large increase in annual ice melt volumes followed by near equally larger refreezings squeezing massive amounts of heavy brines out of the freezing seawater turning it into fresh water ice layers.
Before the arctic ice retreated many years of freshwater ice layers were present insulating the ocean top. As ice has retreated in the summer, winter refreezes have increased in the their volume (not their extent). Further investigators have long acknowledged open waters being exposed to winds many 10’s of degrees below freezing blowing across surface waters and creating downwellings of saltwater at its maximum density figures.
There seems to be a lot of evidence of arctic ice cycles. Captain Larsen sailed the deepwater Northwest passage in 1944 and reported seeing very little ice. The Hudson Bay Company made passages in the 1930’s but their shipping scheduling due to frequent ice ups at Fort Ross offloaded their goods there then put it on other boats or transported across the Bellot Strait on sled to a boat waiting at the end of the strait.
It makes sense that such a variation could exist that takes decades to complete a cycle and could be associated with large ocean climate systems surrounding the arctic and not necessarily just ocean currents. Wind and current work hand in hand, thus shifts in the jet stream currently being suggested to be the handiwork of climate change and bringing cold weather south might in fact be just the opposite and be part of a multi-decadal climate cycle that has become somewhat buried in anthropogenic change or simply just varies greatly itself.
It is rather sad to see how new untested theories on climate variability such as ocean mitigation becomes very popular quick while old theories on ocean mitigation that has been well debunked hang on. One can easily observe a bias in that. This discussion of carbon sinks and quick partial recovery are but examples of that. I have been doing policy stuff for over 30 years and the IPCC is far away from being the only place that goes on.
Bill Hunter
Take a look at Figure 6.39 here, showing the expected reduction in CO2 if we stopped emitting.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/carbon-and-other-biogeochemical-cycles/
That is 80ppm in 450 years, about 1.7ppm/decade. Perhaps you can show your link which says that most of the excess would be gone in 30 years.
box 6.1, Figure 1
I predict the return of La Nina.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
… and, as usual, I don’t:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
https://4castwidgets.intelliweather.net/enso/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
WUWT’s ElNinimeter just passed over ‘-0.5’ for the first time since months.
You look at bits over two weeks, and I don’t.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
When will it stop snowing in Bavaria?
https://tinyurl.com/4y678579
(Zugspitze is at 3000 m alt)
You are witty.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/de/munich/80331/weather-radar/178086
A very rainy start to autumn in Australia.
https://www.accuweather.com/pl/au/sydney/22889/weather-radar/22889
From an educational organisation, relating to Newton’s thought experiment –
“But as we increase the muzzle velocity for our imaginary cannon, the projectile will travel further and further before returning to earth. Finally, Newton reasoned that if the cannon projected the cannon ball with exactly the right velocity, the projectile would travel completely around the Earth, always falling in the gravitational field but never reaching the Earth, which is curving away at the same rate that the projectile falls. That is, the cannon ball would have been put into orbit around the Earth. Newton concluded that the orbit of the Moon was of exactly the same nature: the Moon continuously “fell” in its path around the Earth because of the acceleration due to gravity, thus producing its orbit.”
Now, if you accept what Newton was proposing (and observations and measurements of orbital paths support Newton’s speculation), then you might wonder what might cause the cannonball to spin on its axis. Given that the one and only force acting on the cannonball (and the Moon) is gravity, by definition, you would have to involve magic, or something similar.
As a matter of interest, the side of the Moon perpetually facing the Earth is heavier than the other. This of course was unknown to all early scientists. They may have realised that an unbalanced rotating object will eventually stop with its centre of gravity closest to another object. Just basic application of Newton’s Laws.
Correct, in general, but they are a little sloppy in the specifics. They appear to forget about the original “muzzle velocity” when they state there is “one and only force acting on the cannonball”. The original momentum must remain or the cannonball will fall out of orbit. The momentum represents a force, just as gravity represents a force. An orbiting body requires two forces.
Momentum is not a force, its units are kg*m/sec
Force units are kg*m/sec^2
Gravity is a force, momentum is not.
That’s 50 dollars for the physics lesson, I’ll put it on your tab.
Notice how bob misrepresents my words. That’s what “trolling” is all about.
bob misrepresents my words, then believes he is “cute”.
He’s just another useless idiot.
Momentum represents a force by Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion, F = dp/dt
Also, don’t forget to notice bob’s “”Gravity is a force”.
Gravity is an “acceleration”. Poor bob can’t even get the basics right.
I could spend all day correcting these trolls, but it wouldn’t help. Idiots can’t learn.
Yes,
Gravity is a force, that’s why they call it the force of gravity, note another way to write the second law is F = M * a.
A derivative of a function is not the same as the function.
That’s another science lesson, Fifty bucks added to your tab.
And I didn’t misrepresent your words.
Here they are
“The momentum represents a force, just as gravity represents a force. An orbiting body requires two forces.”
Momentum does not represent a force, a force is the derivative of momentum.
An orbiting body requires one force, when swinging a ball on a string there is only one force.
That’s another Grant.
ClintR
You are wrong. Momentum IS NOT CONSIDERED A FORCE! No Newton’s 2nd Law does not state momentum is a force.
Gravity is a force.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/newton2.html
If you have ever actually studied real physics at some point in your life, you might seriously consider going back and reading up on it.
You are quite a bit off any real science at this point.
See, idiots can’t learn.
That’s right, you can’t.
And idiot Norman provides another link he can’t understand.
The link contains a “difference form, with constant mass” of Newton’s 2nd Law. Norman can’t understand “difference form”, because he can’t understand physics, or calculus.
Norman can’t learn. He’s an idiot.
(This is so much fun!)
Clint R doubles down on stupid.
This is really, really, really funny.
Idiots like Norman and bob don’t understand physics. And, they can’t learn. They provide more examples here. They get things wrong and then start claiming someone else doesn’t understand physics!
Norman provided a link to a NASA site for kids. The NASA site indicated I was right, and the two idiots were wrong.
Norman and bob now get to argue with the “NASA kids”!
It’s been over an hour since idiot Norman commented, and he hasn’t reappeared yet. He’s likely off searching the Internet for more links he can’t understand. But, bob just continues to troll. They can’t learn.
The fun continues.
Clint R,
The site shows you are wrong, you have to do an operation to get to force from momentum.
So force is not momentum and momentum does not represent a force.
Just keep doubling down.
Gee isn’t this fun?
ClintR
You are even wrong with this idiot statement you make constantly!
YOU: “And idiot Norman provides another link he can’t understand.”
The true form of this incorrect statement would actually be
And idiot ClintR comments incorrectly about another link he can’t understand.
You are truly a stupid person. Yes you can insult all the intelligent knowledgeable people who know physics. You certainly know nothing about any physics at all. I guess you do know that a ball on a string rotates around a center point. That seems the limit of your physics knowledge. Not sure what makes you think you know things. You are a very strange troll. You are totally stupid in reality but believe you are a genius. Really bizarre.
ClintR
Here is another link you are too stupid to understand.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/momentum/u4l1a.cfm
A change in momentum is because of a force acting on an object. Momentum is NOT a FORCE! Are you actually trying to argue this point? Are you really that stupid or are you just trolling (which is also very stupid activity).
Learn some physics. Your idiot insults does not change your ignorance. Nor will it make you smarter.
Norman is now just trolling, like bob — distortions, misrepresentations, diversions, and false accusations. You can tell Norman is getting frustrated and angry, he’s making two comments at a time!
What makes this especially interesting is NASA actually got the basic physics correct here:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/newton2.html
When NASA gets something right, the idiots reject it. But, when NASA gets something wrong, the idiots slurp it up. Their cult beliefs are more important to them than reality.
Newton’s 2nd Law: F = ma = mdv/dt = dp/dt
(Sorry for the reality.)
ClintR
You idiot! You don’t know how to properly use physics equations!
Your equation says that if there is a change in the momentum than the change is the amount of force applied! It does not claim momentum is a FORCE!! Don’t be so stupid!
The dp means a change in momentum vs change in time. If you have an incremental change in momentum over time you have a force present causing that change in momentum (Gravity, electromagentic, nuclear).
If the momentum is not changing (no dp) then no force is present.
The object moves with constant velocity. I do not know how you can screw up concepts so badly but I guess you can.
You are wrong but too stubborn in your ways to see your own error. Give it up already, it just makes you look really stupid to pursue this course. Gravity is a force, momentum is NOT!
As usual Norman, you make so many mistakes I don’t have time to correct them all. I’ll just correct one of your first ones: “The dp means a change in momentum vs change in time.” Wrong, “dp” is a change in momentum, “dp/dt” is a change in momentum vs a change in time.
You’re trying to beat up the straw man you built. I never said “momentum” is a “force”. Momentum “represents” a force, just as gravity, or acceleration, “represents” a force. Gravity, itself, is NOT a force.
Once again, some reality for you:
Newton’s 2nd Law: F = ma = mdv/dt = dp/dt
PS Your straw man is actually beating you up!
ClintR
You are still being an idiot. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. It is stupid though.
Momentum does NOT represent a force at all!! Please accept that as reality. A change in momentum does represent a force. Not momentum. Do you understand the word “change”? If momentum does not change there is no force.
Your correction is true dumbass. Look at what I was referring too. Don’t actually be as stupid as you post!
I was referring to your equation. Read what I posted before making a dumbass correction that was not needed.
The equation you post is simple. You do not seem to understand what is stated.
The magnitude of a force can be found if you know the CHANGE in momentum with respect to time or you can find the change in momentum if you know the force applied.
Gravity is a force dumbass. Your stupid posts do not change this.
Here:
https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html
Give up this stupid line of posts.
I’ll address Clint R’s sloppy use of the word represent, typically it would mean equal to in the context Clint R is using it.
He should not be so sloppy.
Yeah, gravity is a force.
“Wrong, dp is a change in momentum, dp/dt is a change in momentum vs a change in time.”
This is more sloppy writing from Clint R
And the term dp/dt can not be broken down into a change in momentum vs a change in time, because it is the infinitesimal change in momentum with respect to time. Usually spoken as the change in momentum with respect to time, not a change in momentum vs a change in time. So you know you are talking about a derivative.
If you want to refer to a change in momentum vs a change in time, use the correct symbols, that would be delta p / delta t.
Math and Physics lessons at the same time are extra, 75 dollars added to your bill.
Gravity is not a force. It is an acceleration. Gravity can “represent” a force, in certain conditions, if mass is present. Just as momentum can “represent” a force, if one knows what one is doing.
Once again, some reality:
Newton’s 2nd Law: F = ma = mdv/dt = dp/dt”
Clint R,
there is no charge for homework assignments.
Look up the gravitational force equation and use it to calculate the gravitational force between the Moon and the Earth, and compare it to the gravitational force between the Sun and the Moon.
Note for idiots: I did not say the gravitational acceleration equation.
Let’s speak Mr Newton himself:
” I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly. ”
The equation is the following:
F = G * (m1 * m2) / r^2
Where F is the force, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects interacting, r is the distance between the centers of the masses and G is the gravitational constant.
*
A momentum is NOT a force; it is the effect of a force being applied over an interval of time.
*
Thus, Norman and bobdroege are right, and, as usual, Clint R is wrong.
J.-P. D.
Oh good, Bindidon has joined. Like Norman, he and bob have been searching the Internet trying to disprove physics!
The gravitational constant, “G”, is NOT the same as the acceleration due to gravity, “g”. For people that do not understand physics, it can be confusing.
“G” has units of (length^3)/(mass*time^2), whereas “g” has units of (length)/(time^2).
But, this discussion is about “momentum representing force”, which comes from Newton’s 2nd Law:
F = ma = mdv/dt = dp/dt
I guess the idiots will have to do more Internet searches….
ClintR
It is obvious you are trolling to get reactions. I have given you the facts. You still want to troll to get more reactions from people. Momentum does not represent a force! A change (look at this word please) in momentum is caused by a force. Gravity is one of the basic forces of nature. Your statements just make you really stupid.
You are stupid on so many levels.
I wonder if Einstein knew a few ClintR types in his world. It seems he was directing this one at you.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ab/4f/f3/ab4ff3e8781219ffc7995a0150fcab52.jpg
Idiot Norman, do you own a hammer?
If so, put one hand on a table. Then, hit that hand as hard as you can with the hammer. The hammer will have a certain momentum.
Then answer the question, “Does momentum represent a force”?
(Did I mention that you are an idiot?)
Clint R,
I have to give you a D on your homework.
The gravitational constant G has the units m^3*kg^-1*sec^-2
Sorry A on the regrade
ClintR
You are deep into a pseudo-physics. I do not know if anything can help you at this point.
I will try.
You think that in a collision it means that momentum is a force.
Here this will explain why it is not.
https://openstax.org/books/college-physics/pages/8-3-conservation-of-momentum
They have a temporary force component in each case (car one and car two) but the force components cancel so there is no actual force present in a collision (the hammer point you are attempting to make). The momentum does not change, no force, just transfers, the total momentum is conserved. Can you understand that point?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v2RHtBTbj8
If you add the components of momentum in these collisions you will have no change of momentum. You will have a transfer of momentum but no change of momentum, the value will remain the same. Hence no force. The change in momentum from one object to the other is not considered a force. It is termed a collision.
Norman, just do the hammer experiment.
Physics is WAY over your head.
Do the hammer experiment.
ClintR
Rather than me foolishly strike my hand with a hammer why don’t you do something useful and learn physics. You seem to know very little on the topic but you like to talk about it. It would help this blog if you learned a bit before posting. You would not see so incredibly stupid if you learned a bit. I do know it is hard for you to learn but put some effort into it. It will be rewarding in the long run. With your current level of physics knowledge you are not rational and cannot hold an intelligent debate on any issue.
You say something very stupid. You are proven it is stupid so you repeat it a few more times (as if they means something). Then you insult and call people who are vastly smarter than you idiots.
What a screwed up mind you have there bud. You need to work on it a bit. Learn some real physics, don’t repeat stupid points endlessly, then post some intelligent material that can be useful.
So, what did we learn?
1) Bindidon loves his anti-science.
2) bob can’t teach stuff he doesn’t understand.
3) Troll Norman insults and slanders, but is a coward when it comes time to defend his nonsense.
Really, we didn’t learn much new….
We have learned that if Clint R puts something in quotes, it means he doesn’t understand it.
“An orbiting body requires two forces.”
Yeah, if you count momentum as a force.
But then it’s not a force and neither is a dog’s tail a leg.
bob, would it make any difference to you if I said “vectors” instead of “forces”?
NO! You would just find some other way to avoid reality.
That’s what idiots do.
Yes it would,
You do know that all vectors are not forces, but all forces are vectors.
An orbiting body has at least three vectors, one for velocity, one for acceleration, and one for the force causing it to orbit.
But only one force acting on it.
There is no force pushing the Moon along its path.
“The momentum represents a force, just as gravity represents a force.”
This little bit from you is still wrong.
See? You’re not into reality. You’re just trolling.
No, I am not trolling.
I am trying to help you understand.
Yeah, I am into reality, the reality is that momentum is not a force, nor does it represent a force.
Still won’t crack that physics textbook.
Here’s the reality, for idiot trolls to ignore/reject/pervert.
Newton’s 2nd Law: F = ma = mdv/dt = dp/dt
I can’t wait for the moon debate by the lunatics to be over so we can get back to disagreeing about the causes of climate change.
No wait, the lunatics are part of the reason why there is a climate change debate at all.
It should be readily obvious that AGW hypothesis is wrong.
The fact that learned scientists 9aka lunatics) can’t get the moon’s rotational energy right should raise some introspection of why there are now carbon taxes and other unfortunate poverty inducing climate measures being contemplated.
Some of you should have your high school diplomas revoked.
Ken
“It should be readily obvious that AGW hypothesis is wrong. ”
The AGW hypothesis predicts the following changes, all of which have been observed.
Increased surface temperature.
Increased troposphere temperature.
Troposphere hot spot
Decreased stratosphere temperature.
Raised troposphere.
Increased ocean heat content.
Decreased outward longwave radiation.
Increased downwelling longwave radiation.
Energy imbalance.
Increased atmospheric CO2.
Increased ocean CO2.
Decreased ocean pH.
Increased sea level.
Decreased Arctic, Antarctic and glacial ice sheet mass.
Decreased Arctic sea ice extent.
Decreased temperature gradient across polar front.
More unstable polar jetstream.
Given the weight of evidence it is certainly not “readily obvious” that the AGW hypothesis is wrong.
Unless, or course you have an alternative hypothesis which better explains all of the above.
Ent, all that nonsense could be natural. Or, it could be caused by millions of pizza ovens.
But, we know it’s not caused by CO2.
That’s reality.
Every single one of those in the list can be attributed to natural climate variation. Man’s contribution cannot be quantified. That would be like trying to quantify termites’ contribution to global warming.
Some of the predictions are related to warming in general. Ocean heat content would increase whatever was causing the warming.
Some are more specific.
The natural warnings you refer to, such as a brighter sun, would lead to a warmer troposphere and a warmer stratosphere.Only warming due to non-condensing greenhouse gases such as CO2 leads to a warmer troposphere and a cooler stratosphere.
Richard Whybray
” The natural warnings you refer to, such as a brighter sun, would lead to a warmer troposphere and a warmer stratosphere.Only warming due to non-condensing greenhouse gases such as CO2 leads to a warmer troposphere and a cooler stratosphere. ”
Exactly.
But until now, the role of H2O (water vapor) has been far more important than that of CO2.
This might change during the century.
J.-P. D.
LMAO!!
entropic…”The AGW hypothesis predicts the following changes, all of which have been observed”.
No one has ever proved the points you list have anything to do with the AGW hypothesis, whatever it is. No one has proved that humans are in any way affecting global temperatures and climates. It’s ingenuous to claim a causal relationship between AGW and the points you list when there is no scientific proof of causation.
You’re not a scientist are you? Scientists talk about evidence, not proof. You can never prove a hypothesis correct because there is always the possibility that the next experiment will show that your hypothesis is wrong.
What you can do is use your hypothesis to predict the outcome of experiments or observations. If the outcomes match the predictions it strengthens your confidence in the hypothesis.
Several of these predictions can be tested easily. Dr Spencer measured downwelling longwave radiation using only an oven thermometer.
We’re back to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s definition.
“A sceptic questions the claims and then embraces the evidence. A denier questions the claims and then rejects the evidence.”
You are rejecting scientific evidence from a wide variety of studies, including many from sceptics such as Dr Spencer.
If you wanted to retain some remnants of scientific credibility you would be following scientists such as Soon, Lindzden and Curry who have accepted the observational evidence and seek alternative hypotheses to explain them.
Ent, you have a history of perverting science. You believe you can make up your own reality. That’s the beauty to the Moon issue. That issue shows you will go to extremes to protect false beliefs. You will do whatever you must to support the anti-science. Your cult is more important to you than reality.
Entropic man says:
What you can do is use your hypothesis to predict the outcome of experiments or observations. If the outcomes match the predictions it strengthens your confidence in the hypothesis.
Several of these predictions can be tested easily. Dr Spencer measured downwelling longwave radiation using only an oven thermometer.
Were back to Neil deGrasse Tysons definition.
A sceptic questions the claims and then embraces the evidence. A denier questions the claims and then rejects the evidence.
=======================
You are playing fast and loose with the facts there EM.
Individual experiments use control variables to test the hypothesis. There is no control variable in observing warming as we can’t run an experiment without CO2 and see if it is still warming.
So we just handwave away the possibility of a LIA recovery/solar grand maximum.
Its also a large leap of faith to jump from a theory of ghg radiating heat at us according to their temperature and line of sight right into an insulation theory regarding multiple layers.
bill: “There is no control variable in observing warming as we can’t run an experiment without CO2 and see if it is still warming.”
Sure there are control variables. The controlled warming experiments have been run countless times in the lab and out in the wild.
“So we just handwave away the possibility of a LIA recovery/solar grand maximum.”
No, the climate variables are now measured and accounted for within reasonable CIs at 95%, so no handwaving or leaps of faith are needed.
“ghg radiating heat”
bill, nothing radiates heat, not even ghgs, massive objects radiate EMR; by those unlearned statements you show a lack of much accomplishment at all in the field of atmospheric science.
Ball4 says:
bill: “There is no control variable in observing warming as we can’t run an experiment without CO2 and see if it is still warming.”
Sure there are control variables. The controlled warming experiments have been run countless times in the lab and out in the wild.
===========================
Wow Ball4 WHO sold you that pile of horseshit? They can’t even get single layer greenhouses to work much less multi-gas layered ones. They have way too many problems with diffusion of the insulating layers. And in the wild is just that no control population!
Wake up and smell the coffee dude! You have been conned.
Ball4 says:
So we just handwave away the possibility of a LIA recovery/solar grand maximum.
No, the climate variables are now measured and accounted for within reasonable CIs at 95%, so no handwaving or leaps of faith are needed.
===============================
You mean the number of variables a scientist can count wearing a blindfold can be measured and accounted for.
One doesn’t need to look far to know what a load of bullshit that inculcated sort of thinking entails. Lets start with counting clouds. Cloud variability isn’t understood well enough to not pose a risk to account for the entire industrial age warming. And thats just uncertainty in one variable able to gobble the entire theory up.
So who spoon fed you that shit-laden goulash its all been measured and accounted for? Your trusted teacher/media/politician/scientist?
bill, you are just way behind in your atm. basics studies. Beginning atm. radiation text books show how a single layer atm. accurately computes measured median global temperatures. Multi-gas, multi-layered ones do even better. Wake up and smell the coffee dude, time to get to work. You have several years of study ahead to achieve an understanding of earthen climate.
Yes, the variables have been measured and accounted for: you know, they have these things called satellites now. They measure cloud cover & incoming and outgoing radiation across the whole globe continuously, day AND night.
Over time, global cloud variability is practically nil as observed from those satellites. I’d give you links to all the papers and texts but they would be wasted on you because you lack the basics to understand them. Yet you write around here as if you do while trying to deceive the innocent. Won’t work bill, too many astute readers and commenters around here for you to succeed in your efforts.
Ball4 says:
bill, you are just way behind in your atm. basics studies. Beginning atm. radiation text books show how a single layer atm. accurately computes measured median global temperatures. Multi-gas, multi-layered ones do even better.
=================================
LMAO! I am not even going into your other arguments until you correct that absurdity above. How can a multi-layered atmosphere do it better than a single layered one (noting that both are multi-gas), if the single layered one does it accurately?
That of course is absurd. I recognize a single layered atmosphere greenhouse effect and have the three following statements to make about it.
1) Greenhouse gases are necessary for the greenhouse effect but may not alone be sufficient for a greenhouse effect.
2) A greenhouse effect exists and greenhouse gases are a critical component of it.
3) A single layered greenhouse gas model does not support the outputs of projected warming from climate models nor from Modtran.
Of course with number 3 I slyly took this beyond your ”measured” warming claim into ”projected” warming. It is when you go there you need to jump into the layered model as the single layered model doesn’t do the job.
Staying in the historic we are currently warm, obviously greenhouse gases play a role in climate. There are questions though regarding whether a cold atmosphere can warm a warmer surface. Those questions were fleshed out in detail by G&T. Nobody has ever responded point by point with G&T and instead tried to take them to task on some of their conclusions, thus the real issues around the greenhouse effect have been unresolved.
And truthfully it doesn’t matter what anybody actually believes. Evolution moves incredibly slow and there isn’t any observable evolution happening in the human race beyond their ability to process, maintain, store, knowledge. The inadequacy and abuse of ”belief” is equally ubiquitous throughout history. In that final thought the only thing that has happened is some significant improvement in our institutions and a big improvement in the lethality of the weapons we have created to bring down misery from the abuse of belief.
bill, the single layer atm. simple calculation works accurately enough for earth because that single layer is not IR opaque. Single layer won’t work accurately for Venus where the lower atm. IS opaque in the IR bands of interest where there is a need for an iterative multi-layered iterative solution.
For earth, the simple model with single layer works accurately enough as predictions for global climate temperature increase due CO2 ppm added after 1938 using it turned out reasonably accurate through 2013.
Ball4 says:
bill, the single layer atm. simple calculation works accurately enough for earth because that single layer is not IR opaque.
Single layer wont work accurately for Venus where the lower atm. IS opaque in the IR bands of interest where there is a need for an iterative multi-layered iterative solution.
========================
A conclusion you draw on the erroneous conclusion that Venus is nothing more than an earth with a higher ppm count of CO2.
And of course that is complete balderdash, a great example of ignorance creating the conclusion.
bill, fyi there is also a surface pressure difference of about 90x at Venus which alone causes increased IR opacity in lower atm. You will want to factor that into any response. Of course the multi-gas, multi-layer iterative approach takes total pressure(z) at each layer into account.
You have a point there that fits with my thinking. When we emit enough CO2 to grow the earths atmosphere by a factor of 90+ we will probably be cooler than Venus because we are further from the sun.
But I don’t see that happening anytime in the next million years.
So the entire world including those at NASA, JAXA, ESA, astronomers, physicists, high school students, and pretty much everyone else sans a few contrarians on Dr. Spencer’s blog can’t figure out how to calculate rotational kinetic energy even though many of these people write textbooks on the matter and somehow that makes client scientists wrong as well? Seriously?
What on earth are you talking about, bdgwx?
Is this just another of your venomous spiels that you take no responsibility for?
Like this one:
“Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.”
1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?
b,
I have a small 10kg kettlebell hanging from my finger.
Show me how clever you are. Calculate its rotational energy, Feel free to call on the ” . . . entire world . . . ” to help you, if you like.
Are you so stupid that you don’t know how stupid you are?
What are client scientists? I know you didn’t mean to write climate scientists, because such mythical creations don’t exist!
Client scientists are wrong because it has been politicized by the UN and the left and turned into a mockery.
For no other reason than to stir the pot some more, can the moon on the right be described as “retrograde” motion?
The “moon” on the right is orbiting counter-clockwise and rotating on its axis clockwise, in synchronous rotation with the orbital period.
So yes, that could be considered “retrograde”.
Rob Mitchell
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The rotating images create an optical illusion for some and they think the Moon on the right is actually rotating on its axis as it orbits the center.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a8/The_Dress_%28viral_phenomenon%29.png/220px-The_Dress_%28viral_phenomenon%29.png
Similar to this popular illusion some see a black dress others see a blue dress.
If you want to get away from any optical illusion you can take two quarters and put them on a table. One will be the Center (Earth) Quarter and it will not move. You take the other quarter (Moon) and move it around in a circle around the Earth Quarter. You will quickly find that you have to rotate the Moon quarter to make the same side always point toward the Earth quarter. By doing this real test you can dispel the illusion that has gripped some of the bloggers. Now move the Moon quarter around the Earth one with no rotation (you know if you rotate it by twisting it in a direction). The Non-rotating Moon Quarter will do exactly what the Quarter on the right is doing. If you made a video of your quarters the rotating one (the one you know rotates because you are physically twisting it as you move it around) will resemble the Moon on the left. The non-rotating quarter will look like the Moon animation of the right. Try it and let me know what you find. The less people that are deluded into thinking the Moon is not rotating on its axis, the better.
norman…”You take the other quarter (Moon) and move it around in a circle around the Earth Quarter. You will quickly find that you have to rotate the Moon quarter to make the same side always point toward the Earth quarter”.
****
Yes, Norman. Thanks for stealing my experiment and not presenting it as I described it.
If you mark the moving quarter to indicate the side that always faces the Earth, and you try to rotate the quarter through 360 degrees, to represent a full rotating of the Moon about its local axis, that mark will no longer point at the Earth. It will, in fact, rotate through 360 degrees with the mark pointed away from the stationary coin by mid orbit.
To get that effect, you must roll the moving coin around the stationary coin. The question you have to ask with the two gif images is how the Moon on the left manages to keep the same side always pointed to the Earth. If you look at it really closely, the dark spot side is always rotating on an inner orbit, while the outside face rotates on its own outer orbit. An astute observer must conclude that Moon cannot be rotating about its inner axis, since that axis is also rotating in an inner orbit between the near face and the outside face.
To achieve a full orbit with the same moving coin face pointed at the stationary coin, you must SLIDE (translate) the moving coin around the rim of the stationary coin. At the same time, you must adjust the moving coin so the mark points to the centre of the stationary coin. That’s how gravity acts on the Moon, it adjusts the linear momentum of the Moon so it TRANSLATE into an orbit.
That is the only explanation for the left gif, and for the real Moon in its orbit, keeping the same face pointed to the Earth.
Gordon Robertson
I do not know what your quarter test will prove. I know that moving in a circular orbit confuses some. Do the quarters, as I explained, in a square around the inside quarter. Then you will see what is going on. You really need to do the test though. Endless banter is not solving this.
Gravity acts to move the Moon in a roughly circular path around the Earth (being much smaller in mass the barry center is within the Earth). The Moon rotates once on its own axis as it orbits the Earth.
If you actually take the time to do the two quarters the reality will show you that you get exactly the Moon on the left when you physically rotate the quarter as you move it in a circular path and keep the same side facing the center. You can even be certain you rotated the quarter because if you start with the Moon quarter facing the earth to the left and move it around CCW you will also rotate it CCW to keep the face pointed toward the earth quarter. On the opposite side the moon quarter is upside down. You also know you are rotating it as you move, you can watch your hands.
But as I said, if you don’t see it with a circular path (mental block on your part) then go in a square path. Then you can’t deny you rotate the quarter at each edge to keep it facing the center. Try it then repost.
No, Norman, the “optical illusion” is that the “moon on the left” is rotating on its own axis. Instead of your coins, consider a ball on a string that was viewed from above. Its motion would resemble that of the “moon on the left”. The same side of the ball would remain oriented towards the center of the orbit whilst it moves around it. Just like the “moon on the left”.
In previous discussions, you have acknowledged that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, it is merely rotating around an axis that is external to the ball, a central point. Well, it’s the same for the “moon on the left”, even though there is no string. The motion is that of “rotation about an external axis”, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass.
DREMT
You seem stuck on the “ball on the string” analogy. This example for orbits only works on the orbital motion. It is a useless analogy for any other motion to consider.
I really am not that interested in using this to describe the Moon.
Use the Quarters instead they are a much more illuminating example showing clearly how the Moon can rotate once on its own axis as it orbits the Earth and keep the same side always facing Earth. When you use the Quarters there is zero doubt or any illusion that you are not rotating the quarter as you move it around a circular path (orbit). It will be the same as the Moon on the left.
At the same time you can move the quarter around in a circle with zero rotation (again you can tell you are not twisting the quarter in any way as you move it) and it will be the same as the Moon animation on the right.
If you get off the “ball and string” and go to quarters you will see your error. If not you can continue endless posting and still be wrong, drawn into an optical illusion you are not willing to break with actual evidence.
Norman doesn’t like the “ball-on-a-string” analogy because it describes orbital motion!
“You seem stuck on the “ball on the string” analogy. This example for orbits only works on the orbital motion.”
That’s the motion of Moon. Moon is only orbiting, not rotating on its axis.
Trolls and idiots hate reality.
Norman, you have already agreed in a previous discussion that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, same as Bindidon has. That’s good enough for me. I don’t feel the need to discuss anything further with you.
DREMT
Again the ball on the string is a very poor analogy for celestial bodies. It only explains orbiting motion and not well at that. Most celestial bodies have elliptical orbits which a “ball on a string” does not represent at all and also the “ball on the string” has no ability to show any rotations which all the celestial bodies (even the Moon) seem to have.
Just because a “ball on a string” can appear to mimic what you see the Moon doing does not mean it is a valid analogy to describe the Moon’s motion through space.
The quarters are far better as the circular orbit can be created as well as rotation.
Norman, all the “ball on a string” needs to convey is the concept of “orbiting, without rotating on its own axis”. It doesn’t need to do anything else. It’s the same motion as the “moon on the left”. Axial rotation is then separate from that motion.
Again, you agree that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. That’s good enough for me.
DREMT
It seems you want to hold on to your illusionary belief. If you wanted to know the truth you would do the quarters any you would quickly see (if you made a video with you moving the quarters) the quarter that is rotating once on its axis per orbit matches the Moon image on the left. The nonrotating quarter matches the moon on the left. I am not sure why you are not willing to expose your strongly held belief to an actual test. The quarters quickly show (with no doubt remaining) your current view is a false one. You can energize it with the power of belief but the evidence (quarters) show it is clearly wrong. No one can make you see the truth and if you are happy with your delusion then I guess it is what you need. I know there are several people out there that are totally convinced the Earth is a flat plate with a small Sun moving around the plate. No one can ever change their mind, they are happy with the notion.
If you want to be scientific you must follow the evidence. The quarters clearly show your current position is not at all correct. If you want belief, than no one will change your view.
Norman, I did such “experiments” as your quarters a long, long time ago.
You agree the ball on a string does not rotate on its own axis. That’s good enough for me.
norman…”The Moon rotates once on its own axis as it orbits the Earth”.
***
That means the side of the Moon that always points to the Earth must rotate through 360 degrees around the Moon’s COG. How does that work, Norman? Not one spinner has demonstrated how the Moon rotates about its COG through 360 degrees and still keeps the same face pointed at the Earth.
That’s what my coin experiment is intended to demonstrate clearly. Mark the moving coin on one side and keep that mark always pointed to the stationary coin. If the Moon is rotating then the moving coin representing it must have that mark rotate 360 degrees about the centre of the moving coin.
The mark appears to rotate through 360 from a perspective of the stars, which is you looking down on it. Look closely. The mark is moving in its own inner orbit while the outside face is moving in its orbit. The mark and the outer edge are moving in concentric circles. Not possible for local rotation about the centre.
This is translation without rotation, Norman. Same thing as driving a car right around the Equator, if it was possible. The same side of the car would always point to the surface and the car would never rotate about its COG.
If you roll the moving coin to emulate local lunar rotation, you cannot keep the mark pointed to the Earth. The instant you begin rolling the coin the mark no longer points at the stationary coin.
Mark the moving coin on one side and keep that mark always pointed to the stationary coin by rotating the moving coin once on its axis per orbit of the stationary coin. Just like a ball-on-string does.
Yes, Gordon you got it, the Moon is rotating since the moving coin representing it must have that mark rotate 360 degrees about the centre of the moving coin to keep the mark facing the staionary coin.
A ball on a string does not rotate on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
Tesla’s figure 6 analysis proved you wrong on that DREMT, time to wake up and study his work.
Incorrect, Ball4.
Certainly looks like it if you look at it and blot out the string and what its tied to at the other end.
Norman gets several things wrong, as usual.
1) The reason you must rotate the quarter is to replicate orbital motion. Gravity causes the curved orbit. Gravity does not cause axial rotation.
2) Orbital motion is modeled by a ball-on-a-string. The ball might APPEAR to be rotating on its axis, when viewed from outside its orbit, but it is NOT. If it were rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it.
3) Norman doesn’t understand that “tidal locking” is a hoax, and he can’t learn.
The ball does APPEAR to be rotating on its axis, when viewed from outside its orbit, and it is doing so. If it were rotating about its axis more or less than once, then the string would wrap around it.
Clint R denies the evidence.
DFTT
(Don’t feed the troll.)
ClintR
1) You do not need to rotate the quarter. You can do either. If you don’t rotate the quarter you get the same result as the Moon on the Right. If you rotate it once per orbit you get the Moon on left.
2) Orbital motion can be roughly modeled by a ball on a string but that is all. A ball on a string model is useless in describing the other know motion of celestial bodies, rotation around their own axis.
3) ClintR does not understand “tidal locking”. To hid his ignorance his pretends what he can’t understand is a hoax. Norman will link him to real physics showing how a gravity field induces a torque. ClintR is too damn dumb to understand what is given so he may comment with his idiot statemen (“Norman sends another link he can’t understand”) or other stupid comments. Reality is ClintR is very stupid, can’t learn, arrogant, a troll who intentionally likes provoking posters. But for intelligent people who know physics they can see the reality.
https://www.ck12.org/book/physics-from-stargazers-to-starships/section/8.3/
Norman displays his frustration and anger with more insults and false accusations.
And, as usual, he includes another link he can’t understand.
He doesn’t understand “tidal locking”. He doesn’t understand that if Moon were “tidally locked” to Earth, then it could not be “rotating about its axis”.
Norman always gets tangled up in his nonsense. He won’t do the simple experiments, so he can’t learn. If Norman is afraid to hit his hand with a hammer, then that means all of his effort to “prove” momentum does not represent a force, was just his usual trolling.
Norman always gets tangled up in his nonsense.
He’s an idiot.
ClintR
Once again shows total ignorance, he can’t understand the content of a link and requires to project his profound ignorance off himself.
You obviously do not understand, even a little, the concept of tidal locking. No it does not mean the Moon stops rotating. It clearly means it rotates at the same rate it orbits.
You are clearly too stupid to learn.
Here
https://physics.info/newton-first/
This goes through the forces used in physics. You will not find momentum in this list. Momentum is NOT a force. Your endless repetition of this claim makes you look stupid (not that you aren’t)
My hand will exert a force on the hammer to stop it (the momentum is not the force). This will change the momentum of the hammer. A force exerted resulted in a change of momentum. You are too stupid to reason with.
Norman, either do the experiment and learn that you are wrong, or avoid the experiment thereby admitting you’re a troll and a phony.
Your choice….
ClintR
So basically you are saying you don’t know any physics and you are not interested in it at all. You just want to be left alone to post your fantasies and hope a few gullible people will believe them.
Oh, I know you will misrepresent my words, Norman. That’s what trolls do.
Either do the experiment and learn that you are wrong, or avoid the experiment thereby admitting you’re a troll AND a phony.
tim…”The whole unending discussion is about what should be understood when someone says an object like a moon is orbiting without rotating on its axis”.
***
You are good at obfuscating a simple point. Jack up a bike so its front wheel is off the ground. Is the tire rotating on its front wheel axle or not? If it is not, then it is not rotating ABOUT THE AXLE anywhere in the universe or in any imaginary reference frame.
According to you spinners, that same stationary wheel would be rotating ABOUT THAT AXLE relative to something else, which is sheer nonsense wrt to the problem we have been discussing. The question, once again, is this: does the Moon rotate about its local axis, similar to the bike wheel on its axis.
You don’t need obfuscations to answer that question. If the bike wheel is rotating on its axle, the rim of the wheel has a clearly defined angular velocity about the axle. Since the Moon has the same face always pointing at the Earth, it is not possible for it to have the same angular velocity about its local axis. If it did rotate on its axis, the near face would have to be pointing away from the surface by mid-orbit.
There is no way to refute that for a very simple reason. If the near face always points to the Earth it means it is orbiting in an inner orbit. Meantime, the outer face must be orbiting in an outer orbit, and all points between must be orbiting in orbits within those two bounds. Since all points are orbiting in concentric orbits it is impossible for them to be rotating about a local axis.
If you want to use a bike as an analogy … pick up that bike with two hands and give that wheel a spin so it is rotating (at constant rate) about its axis.
Carry the bike forward at a steady speed — keeping the top of the frame up and the front wheel forward.. Is the front wheel still rotating about its axle?
Now rock the bike forward and back while you are holding it. Or up and down. Is the wheel still spinning on its axle?
Now swirl the frame in a big circle — hands on the top of the frame, still keeping the frame in the same orientation the whole time. (Like this person moving both her arms in big circles: https://rallybound.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/woman-holding-a-bike.png) Has the wheel stopped spinning on its axle yet?
The point (in case you missed it) is that this “move the frame in a circle while the wheel is spinning at a constant rate” motion can exactly match the motion of a moon. It can STILL have “all points are orbiting in concentric orbits”. This model satisfies your criterion JUST AS WELL as your model does.
BOTH models can work! You can put the bike on a stand like this, lock the front wheel, and spin the whole bike. (your model for tidally locked moon) The wheel orbits much like our moon. https://niftyy.shop/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/08/Bike-Repair-Stand-Home-Portable-Bicycle-Mechanics-Workstand-for-MTB-Road-Bike-Maintenance-Repair-Tool-Aluminum.jpg
You can hold the bike with two hands, move it in a circle with the front tire spinning and make the wheel move much like the moon. (my model for tidally locked moon).
You need a BETTER, MORE COMPLETE criterion for deciding between the two models. (Or at least realize that either one can match the only criterion you deemed critical.)
TF, you must have forgotten to take your “sanity” pill this morning.
Tim, if you believe that a celestial body has an “orbital axis” and a “rotational axis” then you already tacitly agree that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left” and not the “moon on the right”.
No. If I ‘believed’ the two axes were somehow “locked” together I would believe that. But they are not. There is no “rigid frame” that carries the moon’s axis along and makes that axis turn at the same rate that the COM of the moon is gliding along thru space.
No Tim, you have misunderstood. You think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the right”. A “Spinner” would describe the motion of the “moon on the right” as curvilinear translation, in a circle. In other words…no orbital axis. An axis implies rotation you see, not translation.
Tim the word rigid isn’t really a scientific term as it isn’t quantified in terms of a specified rigidity.
So engineers use the term in a practical way. Namely is a structure rigid enough to get the job done. Aiding engineers in this are countless tables published by producers showing the results of testing so that engineers can build say a bridge that won’t collapse under expected stresses.
So in looking in outer space how many tidal locked objects failed to stay tidal locked? Is tidal locking permanent so to speak?
What are the chances it could fail? Something less than the chances you will get hit on the head by a meteor?
Personally without doing any in depth research on the matter it seems rather up to the job. Perhaps you have a reference to suggest a critical lack of rigidity for the task?
I kind of get this is the argument of last resort since its a condition of Newton, Mahdavi, and who knows else.
tim…”Carry the bike forward at a steady speed keeping the top of the frame up and the front wheel forward.. Is the front wheel still rotating about its axle?”
If it was rotating about its axle when you picked it up it is still rotating at any time until such time as friction causes it to stop rotating about the axle.
You cannot separate physical fact from reality because your distorted mind (all human minds suffer from distortion) thinks reality changes in a different reference frame. It is your mind that creates the reference frames, and if the wheel stops turning in your mind, from a different reference frame, that is due to an illusion produced by your mind.
That distortion is producing the illusion of the Moon rotating about its COG and NASA is not immune from that distortion. When I wrote to them about it they copped a plea about their reference frame being the stars. When I wrote back and pointed out that a body not rotating about its COG is not rotating about its COG in any reference frame they did not reply.
I am not claiming that NASA in general are alienated from reality, but they do have people working their in their PR department who fail to understand basic physics. Those people likely have degrees but having a degree does not exempt you from stupid thinking.
Has Gordon ever recanted his dumbass declaration that the crescent moon is caused by the earth’s shadow??
binny…” Quoniam enim Luna circ axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circ Tellurem periodum suam absolvit
*
Translation in English:
For the Moon uniformly revolves about its own axis in the same time as it completes its period around Earth ”
***
This Latin is likely old Latin and so obscure that Google can’t translate it to make any sense.
Breaking it down, ‘luna circa axem’ translates to ‘the Moon around an axis’, not it’s axis.
‘Luna circ axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circ Tellurem’ translates to ‘Done around the same time that the moon around the axis of the Earth by its own …”
Now they’re talking about the Moon turning around the Earth.
I see nothing in the Google translation that even remotely coincides with the translation you gave.
Bin is being unreasonably criticised for a good job in translation.
Nothing to do with old Latin; remember the Latin students vignette:
Latin is a dead language as dead as can be
It killed the ancient Romans and now its killing me!</i?
You missed the suum, suam which are reflexive pronouns and clearly reflect back to the subject of the clauses (viz. its own).
Bin gets it right; Google gets mixed up.
…should read
… suum, suam which are reflexive possessive adjectives …
Thanks, TonyM…
J.-P. D.
tony…”Bin is being unreasonably criticised for a good job in translation”.
My criticism was not aimed at Binny, it was aimed at the claim that the translation is a verbatim translation of the original Newton. Binny cannot think that deeply, all he can do is appeal to authority and offer the translation of others.
I cannot accept that someone as intelligent as Newton could not figure out that the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed to Earth. Makes no sense. Surely he noticed what that means.
If the same side is always pointed to Earth, it means that face is moving in an inside pseudo-orbit (pseudo- because the Moon is a rigid body whose orbit is defined by its COG). That also means the outside face is moving in an outside concentric orbit and that all points between are moving in concentric orbits within those orbits.
It is not possible for the Moon to rotate 360 degrees about its COG under those constraints. I think Newton knew that and the quote from Binny is not what Newton intended.
In the day of Newton, English would have been incomprehensible to us today. Can’t imagine what Latin of Newton’s era would sound like to a modern Latin student. I think something got mis-translated between Newton’s use of Old Latin, Old English, and whatever.
This is the Old English pre 1000 AD for the Lord’s Prayer:
Fader ure
tu te eart on heofonum,
si tin nama gehalgod
To becume tin rice.
Gewurte din willa on eordan swa swa on heofonum.
***
Middle English…
Oure fadir tat art in heuenes
halwid be ti name;
ti reume or kyngdom come to be.
Be ti wille don
in herte as it is dounin heuene.
yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.
And foryeue to us oure dettis tat is oure synnys
as we foryeuen to oure dettouris tat is to men tat han synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion
but delyuere us from euyl.
****
Modern English…
Our father which art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done
in earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
It’s interesting that ‘thy’ was simply ti. There is a cedilla under t which I omitted in case the interpretation got mangled. So a ‘t’ with the cedilla was likely ‘th’.
Also, heaven = heofonum then heuenes. I know there was an issue between ‘u’ and ‘v’. ‘w’ is pronounced double ‘u’, but it written with two ‘v’s. You can make out herte in Middle English to be Earth.
Even if Newton spoke a modification of Middle English, I’m sure a lot was lost in translating it to Latin.
replied further down… cluttered here anyway for long reply.
Robertson
As usual, an ignorant and arrogant comment.
But today, I have some idle time to educate you.
*
1. You pompously wrote (thanks DREMT, nice word):
” This Latin is likely old Latin and so obscure that Google can’t translate it to make any sense. ”
This IS Latin as it was used in 1726; Latin didn’t change by even a bit since then. Old Latin is ‘BC Latin’.
Regardless of what you write about, you are a totally inexperienced person who endlessly brags about guesswork as if it were reality.
It is clear that your experience with Google Trans is quite near to zero; if you had any, you would know how much time it costs to get even one simple sentence, like that just above, translated correctly.
It took me two days to translate, using Google Trans, the 7 pages long introduction to Lagrange’s work ‘Théorie de la libration de la Lune’ into English.
*
2. You are ready to any dissimulation, even if that is visible to anybody.
Newton did not simply write ‘Luna circa axem’, but YOU did:
” Breaking it down, ‘luna circa axem’ translates to ‘the Moon around an axis’, not it’s axis. ”
Here is Google’s translation for the beginning of the text, without suppressing ‘suum’:
https://tinyurl.com/dsk3fzbw
” The moon uniformly rolled around its own axis ”
But, though reduced to a minimum, the translation still is not correct: Google Trans made out ‘revolvit’, ‘rolled’ instead of ‘rolls’.
When you now feed the translator with the entire sentence, things get even far worse.
*
” I see nothing in the Google translation that even remotely coincides with the translation you gave. ”
Ha ha ha haaah…
Now that you hopefully have understood how quick we can reach Google Trans’ boundaries, feel free to contact Universal Translation Services in Florida:
https://tinyurl.com/dayxf4x8
for an accurate translation of Newton’s Prop XVII in Book III:
https://tinyurl.com/c3a2kbte
including the proposition’s foot notes, of course.
10 cent per word! Peanuts for you…
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, are you still trying to misrepresent Newton?
Your ploy won’t work, no matter how many times you try. Newton was the one that discovered what “pure orbital motion” means. It means an orbiting object always keeps the same side facing the inside of the orbit. It’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-string, a runner on an oval track, or Moon.
…in the accelerated frame.
Newton didn’t discover what pure orbital motion meant, you clowns made that term up.
There is no such thing as impure orbital motion either.
It just means "orbital motion without axial rotation". Everybody here has an idea of how they think an object moves when it is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis. Even you, bob, as we eventually discovered. You think it moves as per the "moon on the right".
Newton discovered what orbital motion means by inventing calculus to determine how gravity would affect an orbiting object. His work has been verified repeatedly. A first year physics student could verify that the “moon on the right” is NOT “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The vectors don’t work out. A jet airplane circumnavigating Earth would be flying backwards!
The idiots have to continue to deny/distort/pervert physics to cling to their false beliefs. They “accelerate” away from reality.
Yeah, and I go with the Newton one.
Not the DREMPTY one.
Yeah, but Clint R
has never been
“A first year physics student could verify that the moon on the right is NOT orbital motion without axial rotation.
bob’s just trolling again.
DREMPTY,
Try using the correct terms.
Use curvilinear translation, rectilinear translation, and rotation instead of pure orbital motion and orbital motion without axial rotation.
The Moon on the right is not rotating as all parts are moving at the same velocity, so it’s curvilinear translation with no axial rotation.
The terms for the two separate motions frequently discussed are “orbiting” and “axial rotation”. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is just a long-winded way of saying “orbiting”, which removes a lot of unnecessary confusion from the discussion.
“Try using the correct terms.”
Okay — The “moon” on the right is rotating clockwise about its axis as it orbits counter-clockwise.
Clint R,
you claim
“Okay The moon on the right is rotating clockwise about its axis as it orbits counter-clockwise.”
No it’s not.
All parts of the Moon on the right are moving with the same velocity, therefore not rotating.
All parts of the Moon on the left are moving with differing velocities, therefore rotating.
Baby steps
If there is some level of knowledge below “clueless”, bob is there.
This is for the clown Clint:
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
Did you see the other aspect of a translating body? Every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. Explanation to a child: that means there can be no rotation of any part of the body.
Follow the science.
So SGW is another one who doesn’t believe there is any such thing as an “orbital axis”.
If the “moon on the right” is his version of “orbital motion without axial rotation” and the “moon on the right” is in curvilinear translation then there is no “orbital axis”. An “axis” is associated with rotation, not translation.
Clint R
” Bindidon, are you still trying to misrepresent Newton? ”
No. I just exactly replicated what everyone (manifestly except you) is able to read in Newton’s work.
Or do you want to pretend that the sentence
” Quoniam enim Luna circa axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circa Tellurem periodum suam absolvit ”
does not exist in Newton’s work, or that my translation of it was wrong?
Maybe you tell tonyM he is wrong too? See his comment above…
J.-P. D.
Taking his words out of context is “misrepresenting” him.
That’s easy to do when you can’t understand the context, and can’t speak any languages correctly.
Clint R
You are at least 100 % right.
J.-P. D.
binny…” The moon uniformly rolled around its own axis ”
As Dremt has pointed out many times, the Moon’s axis is Earth. It appears Newton agrees with us.
The Moon’s external orbital axis is thru Earth; to keep one face pointing at earth our moon rotates once on its internal axis per orbit as Gordon demonstrates rotating the moving coin on its internal axis once per external axis orbit.
From his writing it is certainly wrong that Newton agrees with you.
Even Newton occasionally screws up a pronoun reference as we all do, except a few folks who are dedicated grammar majors.
better yet why not point out which particles in the puck on this table that aren’t influenced by Newton’s 2nd Law of rotation?
You can’t right?
Bill
Newton would not have screwed up.
The reason is simple; Latin construct already embodies the number/person/mood/tense in the one word verb. The reflexive adjective is deliberate to ensure clarity and refers specifically to the subject of the verb. To make a mistake of wrongly clarifying twice would be rather impossible.
eg. John was walking over to James when he saw his wife in the distance.
Whose wife ?
This is where the reflexive adjective gets attached to the “wife” if it is his own (John as the subject) wife. As an added thinking stimulus the ending of “suam” matches the case, gender and number of the noun (ie wife, obj,s,f here).
“The Moon’s external orbital axis is thru Earth”
If you agree that the moon rotates about an external orbital axis then you tacitly agree that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left” and are thus a “Non-Spinner”.
Earlier, Entropic Man wrote –
“The AGW hypothesis predicts the following changes . . . “.
Of course, he can’t actually state the AGW hypothesis. Another alarmist fanatic, unable to face reality.
Even Wikipedia talks about scientific, as opposed to other, hypotheses – “A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.”
Bad luck for Entropic Man and his fellow fantasists.
Climate is just the average of past weather. Good luck with figuring out how CO2 makes temperatures hotter!
No wonder AGW cultists prefer to talk about anything except science.
All right, I’ll address your foolishness one more time.
“he cant actually state the AGW hypothesis. ”
Anthropogenic global warming is the increase in global average temperature due to to the release of CO2 into the atmosphere by human activity.
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.
I listed 17 testable predictions arising from the AGW hypothesis. All have been tested and confirmed.
Yet you continue to reject a hypothesis supported by 170 years of experimental and observational evidence. I wonder why?
Ent, a hypothesis is only a “guess”. If the guess violates the laws of physics, the guess is wrong. Your “tests” are not science, they are correlation. You are saying that daylight follows darkness because the rooster grows. That ain’t science.
It ain’t science to Clint R because Clint R denies the evidence.
DFTT
Correlation does not itself demonstrate causation, but it is evidence that causation is going on somewhere.
Suppose A correlates with B.
This might be caused by one of three relationships.
A causes B.
B causes A.
A and B are caused by C.
You need further study to work out the actual relationship and the mechanism involved.
Behind each of the changes I listed is a mechanism which would cause the correlations if the hypothesis were correct.
“You are saying that daylight follows darkness because the rooster grows. ”
No, you’re saying it.
Silly boy. You have the correlation correct, but the causation backwards. The rooster’s dawn call is caused by day following night, not the other way round.
Do I detect a little anxiety, since your anti-science got busted?
It happens.
I am anxious.
I have taught students like yourself, whose fixed beliefs made them unteachable.
They usually turned out badly. I worry that you may go the same way.
Don’t lay your “fixed beliefs” crap on me, Ent. You’re the one that rejects reality.
And, you’ve obviously “turned out badly”.
” And, youve obviously turned out badly. ”
Haven’t I just!
Who could resist this site? I write a few words of science about climate change or the Moon’s rotation;you and your fellow denizens go into paroxysms of denial.
Meaningless gibberish as most of those ‘predictions’ were already observed since the depths of the LIA as any warming will contribute to most of those. What do you want each way bets all the way to the post?
Some of these same climate clowns were also predicting a coming ice age writing formally to the POTUS for action. Even Hansen was working on cooling models in the 70s so I read. All sorts of other predictions have been made Tuvalu, Maldives to be under water ha the latter has since built at least three new runways. Would you suggest this is to evacuate all their citizens? Wadhams predicted ice free N pole by about 2012. Hansen claimed that 350ppm would be the tipping point, Manhattan roads under water etc.. Guess the GISS office people wasted their money buying fishing lines and waders.
Even the T has to be fiddled. In reality about half the increase is just due to adjustments that follow the CO2 changes with an R^2 of 0.99 what amazing hindsight!
Cant see your claims for Antarctica following the original script. Hot spot; you must jest with the use of Kriging to establish a blush in contrast to the IPCC predicted hot spot. It failed the test! Did radiosondes fail dropped out of the sky so they had to resort to Kriging fiddles? Whats more from memory this was the paper where the they used the acceptance level of 0.90 – (dropped ex post no doubt). Useless crap!
Models fail miserably; so much for science. Have you rebutted G&H yet a physics paper which falsifies this CO2 conjecture? Naah instead we are told about green and blue plates in the sky; watch your head! CO2 cannot behave like a black body at these temperatures.
Ultimately there is nothing that we see which has not been seen on earth before other than fiddlers on the roof pretending they understand climate. As Lindzen has said, defund 90% and start again; it has become a religion. Mannian Hockey pokey sticks dont work – just more useless crap from climate clowns!
BTW in Sience any hypothesis that is not quantified and you may as well be pissing in the wind as wishy washy conjectures remain just that – useless conjectures with built in loopholes.
Ent, see the chart at the top of this blog. It does in no way resemble the AGW hypothesis as predicted by climate models. The observations are outside the 95th percentile of the average of 102 climate models, all based on the false premise that CO2 causes runaway global warming. Your AGW hypothesis is wrong; not just a little bit wrong but profoundly wrong.
Please explain why anyone would expect the average of 102 climate models to accurately predict the present temperature.
The CMIP5 models you refer to use the same physics. They vary in conditions. Some individual runs have more forcing, human CO2 emissions, volcanoes, albedo, El Ninos, etc. It depends on what the researchers wanted to study.
The most optimistic runs project cooling from 2005 onwards. The most pessimistic project considerable warming.
Noone knew what the actual forcings after 2005 would be, so there was no way to know which model would most accurately mimic reality, and no way to design all the runs so that their average would project reality.
16 years later we know that the actual forcings were below the average for the model ensemble and so the actual warming was less than the average for the models.
Entropic
“.why anyone would expect the average of 102 climate models to accurately predict the present temperature.”
If one model was any good we would not need the remainder of the guesses. Proof that it is just wishy washy junk. The Russian model is closest to reality and has the least reliance on CO2 emissions.
Is that INM-CM4 ?
Ken, Tony you miss that the black line through zero recently moved up with the increased atm. opacity from ppm CO2 added by humans. Also, the black line moved up in 2013 the same amount that was predicted by simple climate modeling in 1938 due added ppm CO2 while accounting for all 8 other changes in global median temperature forcing & all natural cycling. You two just need to spend some more time doing your homework to understand earthen climate.
The observations at the top of the page are not the observations that should be compared to the average of 102 climate models.
It’s not an apples to apples comparison.
Correct, UAH reality does not match the nonsense from climate models.
@bobdroege
I have watched a presentation or two made by Spencer and others that are comparing the climate model ~projections~ directly with UAH observations. The 95th percentile claim comes from a paper by McKitrick making exactly that comparison.
Perhaps I’m missing something.
You’ll have to explain why its not an ‘apples to apples’ comparison
Basically it’s surface vs the entire atmosphere.
Yep models say atmosphere is going to warm faster.
Not the whole atmosphere Bill.
Obviously since the plan is to cool the upper atmosphere so that more heat is contained near the surface. Can’t have that nasty upper atmosphere actually radiating more heat one has to dream up at least a plausible argument for internal self heating.
Bill,
That’s what the alarmist believe the evidence shows, the upper atmosphere, above the hotspot that is supposed to be there, is cooling due to more CO2 up there radiating to space.
alarmism is a pretty good characterization of that conclusion Bob. Thanks for that.
Bill,
Alarmist’s believe in cooling, and you like that!
When did I ever agree it was cooling?
Bill,
Did I say you said it was cooling?
I think I did not.
bob, why would I like that. Cooling would be very harmful to society. I don’t think its happening. And I wouldn’t be happy if it did happen. I just think we should work harder preparing for it possibly happening, like preparing for a storm, than we should work preparing for it getting warmer. . . .which in most likelihood be a continuation of the boom we have seen over the past 150 years. But what we have instead is a whole bunch of nutcases that want to drive the bus and don’t know jack about how to do it successfully.
EM,
Your hypothesis is nonsensical on several grounds.
For a start, you can’t even define your silly “global average temperature”, let alone measure it.
Try it, if you wish.
Now measure the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere in a given period of your choosing. Be specific. “Lots” is not specific.
Now explain why you do not take into account CO2 removed from the atmosphere.
Now explain your experimental setup. Too complicated/big/expensive . . . ?
Richard Feynman wrote –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Show the results of your experiment!
Ho, ho, ho!
ENSO has a very large impact on sea ice conditions.
https://osisaf-hl.met.no/archive/osisaf/sea-ice-index/v2p1/glb/en/osisaf_glb_sie_daily-2years.png
Temperature analysis (T319) from Japanese Met Agency (JRA-55 Reanalysis) on a 2-day Delay. Current climatology for data is 1981-2010 but maps were shifted to 1991-2020.
INFORMATION
Dr. Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue)
http://climatlas.com/temperature/jra55/jra55_global_temp_anomaly_YTD.png
I know it will probably not change any minds but … the model should not be a “ball on a string” but rather a “yo-yo on a string”.
A yo-yo held by a string is free to spin independently at the end of the string (other than a bit of friction causing some torque).
A moon held by gravity is also free to spin independently (other than a bit of tidal force causing some torque). A *much* better analogy!
Neither gets ‘wrapped up’ if the object is not spinning at the ‘right’ rate. The spin on the axis of the yo-yo — like the spin on the axis of the moon — can occur at any rate. Yes, friction (from the string or tides) will eventually sync the two rates, but this is due to that bit of friction. It is not some ‘intrinsic property” of circular orbits.
TF, I know this will probably not change your mind but…Moon is free to rotate about its axis IF it had angular momentum about that axis. Then, we would see it rotating, from Earth. But, since it only has one face toward Earth, we know it is not rotating about it axis.
…more or less than once per orbit.
Troll4 always tries to pervert reality.
That’s what trolls do.
Tim Folkerts says:
”I know it will probably not change any minds but the model should not be a ball on a string but rather a yo-yo on a string.”
===============================
that just raises a lot of questions about was, is, not now, and could. Combined of course of the odds of each occurring.
Was – probably, is – not, not now – 100%, and could uh .00000000000000000001% ??
But as DREMT points out if:
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
March 22, 2021 at 6:01 AM
The Moons external orbital axis is thru Earth
If you agree that the moon rotates about an external orbital axis then you tacitly agree that orbital motion without axial rotation is as per the moon on the left and are thus a Non-Spinner.
So where do you sit Tim?
‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”, Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean different things–that’s all.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master–that’s all’
Where I “sit” is much the same as where Alice sits. People are freely using words in this discussion to mean what they want them to mean and often (unknowingly) using them to mean different things in different places. Words like “rotate” or “curvilinear” or “orbit” (or “heat” in other discussions). Like Humpty Dumpty, we can choose to use words however we want. However, we also should acknowledge that:
a) others might use them differently
b) there is probably a reason that scientists settled in on particular definitions.
So in DREMT’s specific question about “Rotate”:
1) In astronomy, the word “revolve” is uses in this context, not “rotate”. No astronomer would claim the a moon “rotates about an external orbital axis”.
2) In math, “rotate” always means a circular motion about some point. The moon moves in an ellipse, not in a circle, so it does not meet this definition of “rotate” either.
So, no, the moon does not “rotate around an external oribtal axis”.
Then it gets hairy. You could say our moon is ‘almost’ rotating about an external axis because the motion is ‘almost’ circular. But then you would have to clarify what you mean by the moon ‘almost’ not rotating on its own axis.
You could certainly say the moon MOVES about an external orbital axis. But then you have to address people’s definitions of “curvilinear”.
Bottom line — scientists smarter than any of us have thought about this for centuries. The bst, most useful, most consistent-with-the-rest-of-physics description they have come up with says:
a) an orbit is simply a path of a point. (No intrinsic orientation)
b) any description of the changing orientation of an object following that path with respect to an inertial, non-rotating frame is in ADDITION to the orbital motion.
People are free to choose a different conclusion. But this method has worked to land spacecraft on other planets while the competing theory has done nothing more than generating 100’s of comments in a blog.
So in DREMTs specific question about ”Rotate”:
1) In astronomy, the word ”revolve” is uses in this context, not ”rotate”. No astronomer would claim the a moon rotates about an external orbital axis.
2) In math, ”rotate” always means a circular motion about some point. The moon moves in an ellipse, not in a circle, so it does not meet this definition of ”rotate” either.
So, no, the moon does not ”rotate around an external oribtal axis”.
—————————-
1) DREMT has produced evidence astronomers use the word rotate to describe orbits.
2) What may be the case if math is fine Tim as long as you realize their are not physical examples of perfect circles, everything rotates in ellipses with variable rates of precession. Thus what you are in effect saying is math isn’t useful for anything. I am sure you didn’t mean to say that but one should be careful of the implication of his words and the ideas around which people build belief systems
Care to make some revisions to your position, like say the moon’s orbit is too elliptical or something like that? If so some rationalization would be in order.
Tim, “revolution” in astronomy simply means “rotation about an external axis”. Do I need to link to the definitions again!?
This point about rotation only applying to strictly circular motion and not elliptical has to be the lamest excuse I’ve ever heard.
1) Why would astronomers define “revolution” as “rotation about an external axis” if most types of “revolution” (elliptical orbits) don’t fit that definition?
2) Ftop_t has already shown using Desmos that you can rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse. The same rotational formulae still apply.
3) Swing a ball around on an elasticated string. You can get rotation in an elliptical shape.
“Do I need to link to the definitions again!?”
You know and I know that was not a “definition”.
1) It was a general article for the general public. Not a scientific definition.
2) The article contradicted itself. The “better definition” within the article disagrees with you.
Furthermore, rather than being “lame”, these are exactly the sorts of details that need to be addressed.
A ball a string shows no libation.
A ball on an elastic cord will NOT in general follow an ellipse.
Ignoring these sorts of errors means that your theory is only half-developed and needs a lot of work to flesh out the details. Details that have been fleshed out for 100’s of years in the ‘standard’ theories.
TF is still confused about definitions. And he still can’t understand the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string.
Idiots can’t learn.
TF is also the one that believes two ice cubes can raise the temperature above the temperature of the ice cubes!
Idiots can’t learn.
TF is also the one that believes a 5000# boulder falling on his head won’t hurt because it then has zero potential energy!
Idiots can’t learn.
(See why this is so much fun?)
Tim is in denial.
“TF is also the one that believes two ice cubes can raise the temperature above the temperature of the ice cubes!”
One ice cube 300 W/m^2 is still the same as 2 ice cubes 600 W/2m^2. Clint R has never understood simple arithmetic. Yes it is fun debunking Clint R’s circle of a 3ring circus.
Tim Folkerts says:
March 22, 2021 at 12:22 PM
Furthermore, rather than being lame, these are exactly the sorts of details that need to be addressed.
——————
1) Why. We are talking about all rotations here, none of which are perfect circles. Why do we need to do it here and everywhere else?
================
”A ball a string shows no libation.”
”A ball on an elastic cord will NOT in general follow an ellipse.”
—————————
LMAO! first all strings are elastic, second what do you want to call what the follow? Its certainly not a circle.
Entropic Man wrote –
“The CMIP5 models you refer to use the same physics. They vary in conditions. Some individual runs have more forcing, human CO2 emissions, volcanoes, albedo, El Ninos, etc. It depends on what the researchers wanted to study.”
The models are completely useless. They were programmed to produce scary results, and then “tuned” to produce even scarier ones.
Who would be stupid enough to average 102 models all producing different results? Who would be stupid enough to believe they could model a useful output from a chaotic system like the Earth’s atmosphere?
Climate “scientists”, that’s who!
“The observations are outside the 95th percentile of the average of 102 climate models, ”
Ken wrote this. I’ve you agree with me that he was in error.
bobd…I think…lost my place…”The Moon on the right is not rotating as all parts are moving at the same velocity, so its curvilinear translation with no axial rotation”.
Bob, old boy, translation is simple motion along a straight line or a curve. If a particle or a rigid body moves from A to B along either path, it is translating. Rectilinear means either is moving on a straight line and curvilinear means either is moving along a curve.
Both the left and the right gif represent translation but in either there is no rotation about a local axis. There appears to be rotation in the left gif and I guess you lack the awareness to recognize the kind of motion. It is translation.
Some textbooks have presented bizarre representations of curvilinear translation. One of them is a bus with the wheels replaced with levers that extend to axes, so the bus can remain up right throughout the 180 degree travel of the levers. In this depiction, lines in the bus, along a horizontal axis, are supposed to remain parallel, which is nonsense. It’s obvious that each point on the bus is moving in concentric semicircles.
Someone has seriously goofed up by misrepresenting curvilinear translation. No one with a serious background in kinematic motion would misrepresent curvilinear translation in that manner. Any particle or rigid body moving on a curve is not represented by horizontal line drawn along the body while it is resting in a horizontal position.
A body moving on a curve is represented by a radial line where the direction of its instantaneous motion at its connection to the body is represented by a tangential line to the curve. You can represent the motion with an x-y coordinate system. That becomes cumbersome since each position of x,y at the body’s COG must be represented by the same radial line as hypotenuse while the angles between it and the x or y axis are calculated.
Actually, I take back what I said about the gif on the right not rotating. We discussed this the other day with Clint and Rob Mitchell, I think. There is a retrograde motion present. In reality, no body could orbit Earth like that without some kind of outside interference.
How could it? If the body starts out at 3 o’clock, it is in the same position at 12 o’clock, then 3 and 6. Something has to be turning it to keep it upright.
In reality, no such device could exist while orbiting under the influence of gravity. The one on the left could, and does. It is the Earth-Moon system.
Gordon,
I don’t believe you.
The Moon rotates on its axis.
Parts of the Moon rotate at different velocities which means its not curvilinear translation because that requires the parts to move at the same velocity and keeping the orientation the same.
So that if you draw a line segment on an object that is translating, as it moves that line segment always remains parallel to its original position.
The textbooks are correct and you are not.
Wrong bob. You make the same mistake as SGW. Parts of Moon do NOT rotate at different velocities. If that happened, Moon would fly apart. Kinematics does NOT apply to orbital motion. All parts of Moon move at the same velocity.
You don’t understand any of this.
Clint R doesn’t understand evidently confusing linear velocity with our moon’s orbital angular velocity and spin angular velocity. Nothing new, Clint R writes imprecisely & always ignores evidence that conflicts with personal views.
Clint R
Your claim is false
“Parts of Moon do NOT rotate at different velocities.”
Yes they do, the far side is farther from the center of rotation than the near side, that’s why they call it the far side.
Path length goes with radius, if the radius to the far side is farther, then the circumference is longer, therefore the far side goes farther in the same amount of time, therefore it’s going at a higher velocity.
I won’t make you do the calculation for an ellipse, that would make my head explode, just do it for a circle.
You make the same mistake as SGW. Parts of Moon do NOT rotate at different velocities
Your fellow non-spinner ftop_t apparently makes the same mistake:
The linear velocity of the closest point of the moon is
v(closest) = (r-r(1)) x w
The linear velocity of the farthest point of the moon is
v(farthest) = (r+r(1)) x w
Where:
r is the radius from the barycenter to the center of the moon
r(1) is the radius of the moon
w is the angular velocity of the moons orbital rotation
Bottom line is the far side of the moon is moving faster by the diameter of the moon (times the same angular velocity) than the near side. This variance in velocity will cause the orbital rotation to convert to axial rotation when you remove the Earth.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-608283
Clint is such a clown. He denies v=rw. How many centuries has this relationship been known? Even a child could figure this out. A simple experiment. Get a baseball bat and fix a screw with a loop on the end of the handle. Tie a 3 foot rope to the loop, and then whirl the bat around in a circle above your head. Poor Clint thinks a point on the far side of the bat is traveling at the same velocity as a point on the near side (handle)! Only a total dumbass would believe that.
StalkerGoneWierd, v=rω works fine for CoM, but not for comparing far and near limbs. All points on Moon are moving at the same velocity, the same velocity as CoM. You don’t understand orbital motion. Moon is instantaneously being steered in its orbit. It’s the same as a train on an oval track. All points of the train move with the same velocity as CoM.
Orbital motion can be confusing to some.
All points on Moon are moving at the same velocity, the same velocity as CoM in the accelerated frame but not in the inertial frame. Clint R and DREMT just don’t understand frames. Orbital angular velocity is different than spin angular velocity. Tesla explained that well inertially with his radii r and R, and centers O and C.
Poor Clint. Even Tesla disagrees with him. Tesla regarding his Figure 5:
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.
Tesla used this Figure to analyze the moon’s motion. You don’t know what you are talking about. Kinematics is able to describe any type of motion. You really should get an education in physics.
I would pity the professor trying to educate poor Clint R in physics. I will imagine Clint R’s answers to a question on an exam:
“Dear Prof.: You don’t understand any of this. Idiots can’t learn. You just pervert reality.”
One of the many things confusing the idiots is the linear speeds of the near and far sides of Moon. The idiots believe the two distant sides of Moon are moving at different speeds. They base this on the equation from kinematics, v = ωr, where “v” is the linear speed, “ω” is the angular speed, and “r” is the radius.
The problem is, orbital motion does NOT fit into kinematics because there are vectors involved. Moon’s path is constantly changing direction, due to the changing resultant of the vectors. Kinematics fails in such situations. Involving the radius “r” works for a complete orbit, that is, the time traveled by both far and near sides is the same. But, it also works for the correct physics, without having to believe different parts of Moon have different speeds.
All points on Moon have the same speed. In the next instant, gravity “vectors” a new direction. But all linear speed remains the same. Only the direction has changed.
The easy-to-understand simple analogy is a ball-on-a-string. All points of the ball are moving at the same speed.
Clint R’s physics professor hangs his head and applies a big red circle with a -10 on that 5:54am exam question answer.
Clint R misses for a ball of diameter d the inside radius for the orbital angular velocity would be r but the outside orbital angular velocity radius is (r+d). So two different distances traveled while orbiting in the same time mean different orbital angular velocities thus properly applied inertial kinematics show the ball on string rotates on its own axis once per orbit with a an inertial nonzero spin angular velocity.
And as Tesla shows in his Fig. 6, the ball on string cannot be rotating on its own axis wrt the spinning string i.e. in the accelerated frame.
Readers here already know poor Clint R must avoid reality to suit his personal views & thus flunks physics and relativity.
“All points on Moon have the same speed.”
Ok I challenge Clint in a quarter mile race. I’ll take the inside lane and he can have the outside lane.
According to his ‘reasoning’ should be a fair race.
Poor Clint. He cannot even agree with Tesla. Tesla declared the translatory velocities on the near side of the balls are moving slower than the far side of the balls in his Figure 5 (which is his model of the moon) when the bearings are being fixt.
Nate every single particle on the deck of a merry-go-round has the same angular speed. Why would you suddenly figure that’s important if all you have is one particle? A rotation on an exterior axis simply inherently involves that. Individual particles of pieces of the moon as well. Bottom line their is no individual F for particle or every side of every particle. All you are doing is confusing the issues that engineers figured out centuries ago.
Plus you need to actually take a position. One minute you are denying a lunar orbit is a rotation, the next you are accepting it but complaining about some particles having longer paths. You need to decide what you believe instead of constantly flip flopping.
“deck of a merry-go-round has the same angular speed. ”
Did I say anything about that? No. So I dont know who you are arguing with? But it aint me.
“denying the lunar orbit is a rotation, the next you are accepting it but complaining about”
Nope not me.
Get a grip, Bill. Take your meds.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-644231
Gordon:
Speculating about Newton’s knowledge without knowledge is pointless. I point out that these were classically trained people and would readily write Latin and likely were far better in writing precisely in Latin than in English which was still a formative language.
Latin has a highly structured logical syntax and developed well before English. One often refers to classical old Roman writers for word or syntax usage. What do you think Latin scholars read? You have the likes of Cicero, Virgil, Horace. Ovid, Cato, Caesar, Varro etc almost all BC and includes the Golden Age of Latin.
To try to suggest that Newton did not understand simple Latin syntax and word usage is bizarre. You may as well believe the fairies got into his head.
Wiki:
During the Renaissance there was a return to the Latin of classical times, called for this reason Neo-Latin. This purified language continued to be used as the lingua franca among the learned throughout Europe, with the great works of Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Baruch Spinoza all being composed in Latin. Among the last important books written primarily in Latin prose were the works of Swedenborg (d. 1772), Linnaeus (d. 1778), Euler (d. 1783), Gauss (d. 1855), and Isaac Newton (d. 1727), and Latin remains a necessary skill for modern readers of great early modern works of linguistics, literature, and philosophy.
Latin is a highly inflected language, with many grammatical forms for various words. As a result, it can be used with a pithiness and brevity unknown in English. It also lends itself to elaboration, because its tight syntax holds even the longest and most complex sentence together as a logical unit. Latin can be used with conciseness …
I don’t particularly want to engage about moon nonsense as there are different reference frames. Yours is a variable frame and means you look at it from inside the orbit. This means you must always compensate when viewing the orbit ie….turn your body or neck 360 deg and means you can never stay in one spot and view in perspective.
If you are happy with that – fine.
A ball on string has to compensate as well for the orbit. The string either starts wrapping around the ball or the fixed string must twist or the string must wrap around the pole holding the string fixed or the end of the string must be free to move in a circle (say a nail in an upright tube or simply string has a free moving loop). Tim proposed a free moving yo-yo string to compensate – same thing..
In practice we see an electric cord twist on itself by continually stepping over it in the same circular direction (ie orbit in one direction while holding it). Same with twists in hoses as one waters the garden or coils it in one direction. Even ordinary trades’ people are aware. Why are fibre optic cables never laid out on the ground in a circular fashion? They use a figure 8 so that the fibre does not twist on itself.
TonyM, you appear to be new here, or at least I have not seen you before. Welcome!
Your comments about climate modeling are very astute. That’s why I take time to respond to your comments about Moon/Newton. The issue is NOT about reference frames. That is a distraction. The ball on a string is NOT rotating about its center-of-mass axis. If it were, the string would wrap about it. That’s reality. We affectionately refer to people that reject reality as “idiots”. You will notice that the same idiots that believe in Moon rotation also believe in the AGW nonsense. That should tell you something….
Newton was the first to prove how gravity affects an orbiting body. If the orbiting body has no axial rotation, then the same side always faces the host. That’s the motion we see with Moon. Bindidon tries to cherry-pick quotes from Newton’s work about libration, hoping to pervert reality. If you get the entire text, Newton used phrases referring to the “fixed stars”, which is the correct terminology in astronomy. Moon appears to rotate relative to the “fixed stars”, but it is not actually rotating about its axis. Its apparent rotation is due to its orbital path, just as indicated by the ball-on-a-string.
Also, when you copy/paste here, apostrophes and quotation marks must be deleted and replaced. The blog editor does not handle some hypertext well. Also, there are some words that will not work — they will result in your entire comment getting deleted. Never use a “D” directly followed by a “C”. You must insert something like “D*C” or “D-C”. The word “absorp*tion” will cause your comment to be rejected, without the “*”.
In reality, the ball on a string is NOT rotating about its center-of-mass axis more or less than once per orbit. If it were, the string would wrap about it. Clint R just ignores evidence when it doesn’t suit Clint R’s personal views.
Troll4 is the first to deny reality.
“Newton was the first to prove how gravity affects an orbiting body. If the orbiting body has no axial rotation, then the same side always faces the host. Thats the motion we see with Moon. ”
Newton was very clear that the Moon is rotating on its axis.
Not sure why Clint believes he can twist Newton’s words to make him say the opposite of what he actually said.
Actually this is what he tried to do with Roy’s words, and that got him banned.
Troll Nate is the second to deny reality. He only offers nonsense.
Here’s some more reality for him to deny, from Newton’s work:
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 Phenomena. 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”
“With respect to the fixed stars” is an apparent motion, clearly identified by Newton. Moon is not actually rotating about its axis.
Idiots love to misinterpret things to pervert reality.
Clint R
“Idiots love to misinterpret things to pervert reality. ”
Know thyself.
Ent, do passengers jets fly backwards?
Know thyself.
Nate continues to bleat out his unsupported claim after failing with the claim that had the grammatical error in it that either indicated that Newton hadn’t given it any thought or whether he was being inspecific about which axis the moon rotated on.
So Nate, if you want to claim that to be the case, where is the quote?
Just faking it? I thought so.
Clint R
“do passengers jets fly backwards? ”
Sometimes.
Relative to your preferred reference frame,the Earth/Moon axis so beloved of non-spinners, the Earth is rotating. At the Equator the surface of the Earth is moving Eastwards at 4000mph.
An aircraft flying Westwards along the Equator at 600mph is therefore flying backwards at 3400mph.
Of course Ent must find some way to pervert reality. He must believe that jets fly backwards to protect his false beliefs. Just like he must believe he can heat his house in winter with only ice cubes.
His false beliefs are more important to him than reality. It’s the same will all the idiots. And, they believe perverting reality makes them smart!
Don’t complain to me.
I’m just pointing out the logical consequences of your theory. If you don’t like them, find a better theory.
Wrong Ent, what you are doing is attempting to pervert reality to match your false beliefs.
And, who’s complaining? I enjoy your futile attempts.
” claim that had the grammatical error”
Nope that werent me.
Take your meds Bill.
The Newton quote
“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;”
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Newton%27s_Principia_(1846).djvu/410
Better link
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_(1846)/BookIII-Prop2
PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
I am agreement in that when you realize the moon’s axis is the COM of earth.
Nope. But nice try.
No bill. The Moon’s own axis is…ya know…it’s own axis which goes through its own COM.
bdgwx says:
”No bill. The Moon’s own axis is…ya know…it’s own axis which goes through its own COM.”
=======================
LOL! Well we are still waiting for you to make a case for that. But it seems you can’t even decide what the motion is that the moon travels, a rotation or is it just translating. And Ball4 isn’t even in the game as he can’t even figure out the positions of the only two references given so far Madhavi and Tesla. So it remains obvious he doesn’t even know what a non-spinner is yet.
Nate has gone so far as to describe the motion as linear and not gotten past the 1st grade in explaining why the motion isn’t linear.
In my mind the moon is rotating around the earth exactly in a way consistent with Madhavi’s figure 2(b).
Its not a translation as a translation might described as a meandering course or if repetitive a course influenced by more than one axis. Neither of which would qualify as a rotation.
That brings us to claims that the moon follows a meandering course. But in the course of one revolution it doesn’t as all the meandering is averaged out and can be characterized as a rotation with an elastic r. And since there seems to exist a lot of problems with words like elastic. I would point out everything in the world is elastic to some degree and beginning courses in physics and engineering tends to ignore that complication and only introduces it in advanced courses.
Meaning of course a ball on a string actually meanders to in the real world. And gravity one of the most elastic strings in the world you can get a good deal of meandering. But in the case of orbiting it adds up to zero to the full extent that astronomy has been able to calculate it. But along the way it has spawned numerous studies of orbits, precessions and the such and have neatly tied the whole bunch of it back to N2LR principles.
Give it up folks its a rotation. And as bdgwx explains here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-644883
”According to Dr. Madhavi’s definition if a body changes its orientation it is not translation.” Apparently something Nate isn’t ready to accept.
So according to Nate N2LR doesn’t apply to the motion of the moon around the earth. Nobody seems to have a name for this motion either, since it not a translation and I think the spinners are hanging their hats on it not being a rotation either. Obviously!!
Because if you accept its a rotation then you have to recognize N2LR, Madhavi, and Tesla all making cases for that and everything that implies, which DREMT has pointed out there is no room for 2 axes in a rotation.
Further DREMT has claimed and I agree with. An orbit has its own energy as defined in long accept physics. And if you want to add a motion, in either direction, on the moons COM axis the moon will then present all sides of itself to earth.
Now Nate has come close saying here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-644761.
then L = Lorb + Lspin
Aha! Progress!!!! Now I think all we need from the spinners is a formula to calculate Lorb since they seem to be clinging to the idea its fundamentally different than a typical calculation of L for for any other rotation known to mankind.
Of course I should point out that bdgwx has yet jumped in the same vat of boiling oil that Nate has joyfully leapt into. Bdgwx does Nate’s vat of oil look refreshing to you?
bdgwx said: The Moons own axis isya knowits own axis which goes through its own COM.
bill said: Well we are still waiting for you to make a case for that.
Seriously? Do I also need to make case that a person’s own nose is the nose attached to their own face? What am I missing here bill?
bdgwx says:
Seriously? Do I also need to make case that a person’s own nose is the nose attached to their own face? What am I missing here bill?
===============================
Come on bdgwx side stepping isn’t the only thing one does in a game of dodge ball! We all know that an axis is nothing but an imaginary line that is supposed to be place at the middle of a real rotation.
Being imaginary its just too easy to put it in the middle of an imaginary rotation. One that looks at a rotation and perceives the rotation to exist some place else primarily by employing frames that block out the view of the actual place of rotation.
I have pointed out that one could follow your line of reasoning can create a frame around a particle located on the surface of the moon, plant an imaginary line in the middle of its perceived rotation and claim the real rotation was occurring here.
So if thats not absurd enough to convince you and it seems obvious you are through your silence accepting of Nates formula for the angular moment of the moon as being L=Lorb + Lspin could you please tell me how you would calculate Lorb?
You have already given us the formula for Lspin. But you used a rotation formula for the entire mass of the moon attached by a string derived off the N2LR diagram for Lorb. If you want to stick with that then you need to realize that you just made the case for DREMT that Lspin would in fact cause the moon to expose all its sides to the motionless axis in the middle of the orbit.
Seems clear to me. If you want to fix it though you will actually need to stand in front of the ball and catch it rather than sidestep it.
My point is where else would “own axis” even be? Earth’s own axis goes through its COM. The Sun’s own axis goes through its COM. Mars’ own axis goes through its COM. Why would the Moon’s own axis be anywhere else than its COM as well?
Here are the calculations for angular momentum.
Orbital…
m = 7.35e22 kg
r = 384e6 m
w = 2.66e-6 rad/s
I = mr^2 = 7.35e22 kg * (384e6 m)^2 = 1.08e40 kg.m^2
Lorb = 1.08e40 kg.m^2 * 2.66e-6 rad/s = 2.88e34 kg.m^2/s
Lspin…
m = 7.35e22 kg
r = 1.74e6 m
w = 2.66e-6 rad/s
I = 2/5mr^2 = 0.4 * 7.35e22 kg * (1.74e6 m)^2 m = 8.90e34 kg.m^2
Lspin = 8.90 kg.m^2 * 2.66e-6 rad/s = 2.36e29 kg.m^2/s
bdgwx says:
Lorb = 1.08e40 kg.m^2 * 2.66e-6 rad/s = 2.88e34 kg.m^2/s
Lspin = 8.90 kg.m^2 * 2.66e-6 rad/s = 2.36e29 kg.m^2/s
correct to: Lspin = 8.90e34 kg.m^2 * 2.66e-6 rad/s = 2.36e29 kg.m^2/s
===========================
didn’t check your values or your math but form looks like so I will give my tentative OK with the values you computed as I suspect you are probably proficient at looking them up and running through standard rigid body formulas derived from Newton. You did leave the e34 off the I factor which I take to be a typo.
However, you aren’t done.
You need to plug those values into a formula for system wide angular momentum for a orbiting planet/moon system.
You can do that here after you select which formula you want to use:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-645185
Doh…yes…type. I did leave off the e part on one value. Nice catch. The calculation is correct though.
I’m not sure why I need to add those. Lspin is 2.36e29 kg.m^2/s and yet the Moon still keeps one face pointed at the Earth. That seems to contradict DREMTs argument.
BTW…notice how much more Lorb there is. Lspin is but a tiny fraction of Lorb.
bdgwx, I’ve been through this many times with you. You simply do not get where I’m coming from, and you never will.
Can you please all stop going on about how "DREMT says this" and "that seems to contradict DREMT’s argument" because with all due respect to some of you, none of you speak for me, and the "Spinners" do not even understand my argument.
Have your own discussion, of course, but please stop bringing my name into it.
“through your silence accepting of Nates formula for the angular moment of the moon as being L=Lorb + Lspin”
Hilarious!
Not my formula Bill. I didnt invent it. Just standard physics.
https://www.astronomynotes.com/angmom/s2.htm#:~:text=To%20calculate%20the%20orbital%20angular,and%20vt)%20must%20increase!
“2) Earth-Moon system
The total angular momentum = spin angular momentum + orbital angular momentum. The total angular momentum is CONSTANT.”
Fair enough.
And just for the record I was responding to this…
bill said: If you want to stick with that then you need to realize that you just made the case for DREMT that Lspin would in fact cause the moon to expose all its sides to the motionless axis in the middle of the orbit.
“Nate has gone so far as to describe the motion as linear and not gotten past the 1st grade in explaining why the motion isnt linear.”
Bill says very odd things…
And in case anyone unaware:
BDGWX formula for
Lorb = I*omega = mr^2* v/r = mvr.
And, also just for the record, I have explained why you calculate a value other than zero for the angular velocity about the moon’s own axis and why that is wrong, about twenty times now. You just don’t listen.
“I have explained why you calculate a value other than zero for the angular velocity about the moons own axis and why that is wrong, about twenty times now. You just dont listen.”
And DREMT is deeply concerned about people not listening to him when he declares they are wrong, but NEVER EVER listens when he is shown evidence that proves him wrong.
He is quite a sore LOSER.
Nate says:
And in case anyone unaware:
BDGWX formula for
Lorb = I*omega = mr^2* v/r = mvr.
================================
If I am not mistaken that the the formula for orbital angular momentum with rigid globes.
bdgwx says:
Im not sure why I need to add those. Lspin is 2.36e29 kg.m^2/s and yet the Moon still keeps one face pointed at the Earth. That seems to contradict DREMTs argument.
============================
You only think that because your logic is flawed. See my reply to Nate above.
Nate says:
”2) Earth-Moon system
The total angular momentum = spin angular momentum + orbital angular momentum. The total angular momentum is CONSTANT.”
Nate you need to read your source more closely. Here the section you are quoting is adding earth’s spin angular momentum to the moon’s orbital angular momentum for total system angular momentum.
”2) Earth-Moon system
The total angular momentum = spin angular momentum + orbital angular momentum. The total angular momentum is CONSTANT. To find the spin angular momentum, subdivide the object into small pieces of mass and find the angular momentum for each of the small pieces. Then add up the angular momentum for all of the pieces. The Earth’s spin speed is decreasing so its spin angular momentum is DEcreasing. Therefore, the Moon’s orbital angular momentum must compensate by INcreasing. It does this by increasing the Earth-Moon distance.”
A big Oops for you Nate! The earth’s spin is not included in the formula for the moon’s orbital angular momentum but one turn on the moon is included. The formula you are using for Lorb completely accounts for the moons angular momentum, lock, stock, and barrel.
Since this stuff is conserved from body to body and orbit to release it is somewhat academic to argue where it resides when one cannot actually inspect its location. All you can do is observe behaviors. In the case N2LR its a rigid system. Madhavi is also. The F provided by the earths gravity provides everything the moon needs to behave the way it does in perfect compliance with kinematics and Madhavi’s definitions.
the only argument really here is if the moon is part of a rigid earth-moon system. What is the definition of rigid? Well engineers and myself define it as rigid enough to reliably get the job done.
Astronomers may choose not to. However they need a formula like:
Lsys = Lorb + Lspinmoon*(siderealspins-1)+Lspinplanet to sum up the system angular momentum.
DREMT said: I have explained why you calculate a value other than zero for the angular velocity about the moon’s own axis and why that is wrong, about twenty times now.
Well that is a new twist. I’ve not seen anyone challenge the fact that the Moon’s angular velocity about its own COM in an inertial frame is anything other than 2.66e-6 rad/s.
bill,
What does “Lspinmoon*(siderealspins-1)” even mean and where did you find that?
"Well that is a new twist. I’ve not seen anyone challenge the fact…"
You are definitely not a genuine commenter. No way anybody could be that blind. I have challenged it so many times, and I have explained exactly why every single time.
No oops.
The Earth moon system has total angular momentum Lorbital +Lspin. Lspin incudes that from the EARTH and the Moon.
In any case this is the proper eqn used for centuries. It works. No need to change it.
DREMT,
Let me get this straight. In the frame where radius r=0 goes through the Moon’s COM and angle a=0 radial line points to a distant star you think the angular velocity of points on the Moon is 0 rad/s?
I genuinely had no idea. I honestly thought the biggest issue was with your definitions. But if this is really your position then that’s a whole new ball game.
Here is a link to one of the twenty times I tried to explain it to you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-642660
bdgwx says:
”What does ”Lspinmoon*(siderealspins-1)” even mean and where did you find that?”
Its simple bdgwx. What you have to look at is what is included in your Lorb angular momentum. It is a single motion as defined by N2LR of a rigid system around an axis. You aren’t calculating Lorb correctly if you are eliminating part of the rigid motion.
Because of the location of the pivot point planet’s COM and the force you can still argue the moon would not rotate. But thats false because gravitational friction is what makes the system rigid.
The way you want to do it is calculate the angular momentum of a merry-go-round disk then go back and add angular momentum for as many chalked circles you can draw on the mgr deck.
So siderealspins is the sidereal spin count per orbit. Subtract one and you have your added independently invoked spins.
In the case of the moon siderealspins-1 = 0. Lspinmoon is the same as your lspin but here its being multiplied by zero so you can toss the entire Lspin parameter and the angular momentum of the moon equals Lorb.
Now before your head explodes the math says nothing about whether the earth/moon is a rigid system, its just rigid enough for what its doing right now and in the foreseeable future.
W is clear is its a poor argument that the perceived spin is something left over from an existing spin any previous spin angular momentum currently resides in Lorb as it doesn’t matter if the earth loses spin angular momentum or it it was ancient moon spin angular momentum. It still all exists in Lorb.
Other reasons its a poor argument is 1) that argument would only apply for moons that rotated in the same direction as the orbit and moon’s that rotate the other way could not have their spin result from a slowing of spin the wrong way. and 2) the chances that an independent spin put on the moon by some historic traumatic event would be on the same axis is about 1 in 18,000
To change the rigid system into a non-rigid one you would need a new external polar vector to override gravitational friction and put additional spin on the moon. That can only increase the sum of angular momentum because angular momentum is a pseudovector and thus can never be negative.
This is the basis of why I agree with DREMT.
DREMT said: For the eighteenth time, you are calculating angular velocity here because you are observing that the same point on the surface of the object (moon) starts and returns to the a=0 radial line.
That’s exactly right.
DREMT said: But it does so because the object (moon) is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
Patently False. It has 2.66e-6 rad/s of spin angular velocity because its orbital angular velocity is 2.66e-6 rad/s AND because the Moon is tidally locked. That is an undisputed fact. Furthermore, he reasoning behind the Moon’s 2.66e-6 rad/s spin angular velocity is completely irrelevant to the fact that it is what it is.
I had no idea your position was that the Moon’s spin angular velocity was 0 rad/s.
bill said: You arent calculating Lorb correctly if you are eliminating part of the rigid motion.
I’m going to stop you right there. I’m using L=Iw for angular momentum and I=mr^2 for moment of inertia. Are you challenging this?
I refer you again to my linked comment, in its entirety, which refutes your response and settles the issue. Taking a couple of sentences out of their full context and writing a response to each is not a rebuttal. There is so much you ignored, like the entire point of the comment, for instance.
Pretending you were unaware that people were arguing the moon had a spin angular velocity of zero when the argument has always been that the moon does not rotate on its own axis is pretty stupid. Wake up.
That’s definitely a wake up moment for me. I honestly thought the confusion was only semantic in nature. I had no idea how deeply your position was rooted on total abject rejection of facts.
It is an undisputed fact that the Moon’s day/night period is 29.5 days and sidereal period is 27.3 days which yields an angular velocity wrt to the Sun of 2.46e-6 rad/s and wrt to distant stars of 2.66e-6 rad/s respectively.
It is an undisputed fact that the Moon’s 2.66e-6 rad/s angular velocity wrt to the distant stars is because of tidal locking.
bdgwx says:
bill said: You arent calculating Lorb correctly if you are eliminating part of the rigid motion.
I’m going to stop you right there. I’m using L=Iw for angular momentum and I=mr^2 for moment of inertia. Are you challenging this?
=================================
Actually bdgwx I don’t think your calculation eliminated any motion. Instead I think you believe what you calculated doesn’t include part of the motion so you did a second one to make up for it.
So know I am not challenging your equation for Lorb. I am challenging your thinking you need to add Lspin for the moon. You only need to add Lspin for the earth if you are adding in earth’s spin. . . .as in Nates source. Nate claims you need to add in Lspin for both the moon and earth, but as typical with a lot of Nate’s claims he has nothing to back him up.
I will call your attention here to Figure 1 N2LR: https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
and here to Figure 2(b) Madhavi: https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Both of these figures represent a rigid system of rotation on an external axis.
As DREMT has been constantly saying for months rigid objects change their orientation as part of the rotating motion.
Its one motion its the moment of inertia of that object to move it around the axis and change its orientation. Unless you want to dispute your Lspin equation not including the spin of chalked circles and individual particles. Which of course is so far out there it makes me curious about what you are smoking.
Bottom line is both N2LR figure 1 example and the Madhavi Figure 2b example use the same equation which includes the changing of orientation.
We had arguments about if globes on a mgr were on frictionless bearings would they spin up with the mgr. If they don’t then the globes would not be rigid and some adjustments would be needed.
But you are using a formula here that assumes rigidity thus the orientation of the moon will change as the orbit goes around.
If what you want to call synchronous rotation is not occurring, then you have a non-rigid situation. You would need to craft a non-rigid L equation.
That formula could be simply 1) Lorbrigid – Lspinrigid + Lspinactual. then when the globes catch up would have
2) Lspinrigid = Lspinactual and the result of the equation 1 would reduce to Lorb. Further if there is no actual spin of the globes it works also.
You need to comprehend the inclusiveness of a calculation of L in a rigid orbit system to be in compliance with N2LR and Madhavi.
You also need to comprehend that a non-rigid system may become rigid.
So if you assume a system is not rigid you can’t use Madhavi or Figure 1 N2LR to calculate angular momentum because they assume the object will change its orientation in time with the orbit period.
“In the case of the moon siderealspins-1 = 0. Lspinmoon is the same as your lspin but here its being multiplied by zero so you can toss the entire Lspin parameter and the angular momentum of the moon equals Lorb.”
Bill is constantly telling us our standard textbook science is unproven.
But here he pulls an equation out of thin air, that miraculously confirms his belief that the Moon cannot be spinning.
Ask him where the eqn comes from, and his answer seems to be that it confirms his belief that the Moon is not spinning.
He is quite the spinner of yarns.
Nate says:
In the case of the moon siderealspins-1 = 0. Lspinmoon is the same as your lspin but here its being multiplied by zero so you can toss the entire Lspin parameter and the angular momentum of the moon equals Lorb.
Bill is constantly telling us our standard textbook science is unproven.
But here he pulls an equation out of thin air, that miraculously confirms his belief that the Moon cannot be spinning.
Ask him where the eqn comes from, and his answer seems to be that it confirms his belief that the Moon is not spinning.
He is quite the spinner of yarns.
==========================
Nate,
1) I am not saying your textbook science is unproven with regards to rotation. In fact I think I am more accurately describing the science than you are.
2) mathematics describes reality but doesn’t create reality.
A hierarchical description of rotation in kinematics became necessary to override the natural tendency to elevate form over substance. I had disclaimed on the mathematics because of being rusty there. So after a brief review I can see I have made a mistake with regards to mathematical conventions, but no mistake regarding reality.
Mathematical convections defines Lorb as something less than a rotation. But it is an error to extrapolate mathematical conventions as reality. When that occurs one must resort to observations and definitions to better define reality.
I can clearly see the issue here. Angular momentum itself is a pseudovector not unlike centrifugal forces being a pseudoforce. Thus one must take great care in using frames of reference in determining reality as DREMT is absolutely correct when he said ”So the difference between the Spinners and the Non-Spinners positions transcends reference frames.”
Its clear many of us are so married to our maths we can’t see beyond the tip of our nose. Transcend is a cool word meaning to surpass. An essential element of discovery.
A person of no vision clearly is incapable of criticizing Tesla.
Rigidity?
Again when one has a belief that the Moon and Earth are simply rotating like a Rigid Body rotator, one is able to imagine that there exists some sort of ‘rigidity’ in space.
But this is sheer fantasy presented as science. There is no ‘rigidity’ in space.
Real science is about following the evidence to arrive at a proper conclusion.
It is not about starting from a desired conclusion, and concocting the evidence to confirm it.
“In fact I think I am more accurately describing the science than you are.”
Sure. In actual science, when a new equation is presented, it must be derived from known equations and empirical facts. And the steps to derive it should be logically explained.
Did you do that? Show us.
And we’ve had > 300 y for mathematicians and astrophysicists to derive equations for the Moon-Earth system. Surely yours can be found among them?
LOL! Astronomers see the world differently than physicists?
Nope. Didnt say that.
“So if you assume a system is not rigid you cant use Madhavi or Figure 1 N2LR to calculate angular momentum because they assume the object will change its orientation in time with the orbit period.”
You keep tossing out N2LR, but I have yet to see specifically HOW you think it applies to the Moon?
Can you show us that?
Actually thats a good point Nate. One goes too far when one assumes everybody in a certain class of individuals are believe the same things.
I suppose its just the large number you run into that lack any vestige of the visionary capabilities of Nikola Tesla along with the descriptions of rotation by Madhavi and the physicist who drew the figures here as a representations of N2LR
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
Its good to see that physics and astronomy isn’t as cut and dried as so many with education but clearly lacking in real world experience tends to think. One can see clearly that any rigid body or rigid system moving about more than one axis simply cannot be rotating at all.
“the visionary capabilities of Nikola Tesla”
Again with the: I dont understand his arguments, but he must be right! Cuz hes Tesla!
He never uses N2LR.
How do you think it specifically applies to the Moon?
Show us.
“Its good to see that physics and astronomy isnt as cut and dried as so many with education but clearly lacking in ”
Where do we see that? Certainly not in this discussion.
Again Madhavi doesnt help your cause. She would describe the Moon as General Plane Motion, not a rotation around the barycenter.
Newtons laws dont help your cause. Newtons own words describe a spinning Moon.
“in earths spin. . . .as in Nates source. Nate claims you need to add in Lspin for both the moon and earth, but as typical with a lot of Nates claims he has nothing to back him up.”
Using standard definition of Orbit as path of CM, consistent w Madhavis general plane motion model, we find that the Moon orbits (translates) and has axial rotation, as Newton, and Astronomy agree.
Well if the L is total ang momentum for Earth-Moon system, then by definition it must SUM all components, inclu Lspin of Moon and Earth, if any.
Ive not seen any real justification for altering this SUM.
Nate says:
Again with the: I dont understand his arguments, but he must be right! Cuz hes Tesla!
==================================
You are right you don’t understand Tesla’s argument, thus obviously it can’t appear any other way to you as you are incapable of seeing beyond the veil of your own ignorance.
Science is great but it just picks away at the mysteries of life in a rather crude and incomplete way. Science moves ploddingly slow. Interpretation of science though is mostly politically influenced. That’s the difference between science and scientists.
Take N2LR for example. Apparently you are too much of rote learner to identify that Tesla continually and successfully reached beyond the bounds of science. Even the author of the N2LR document on close inspection provided a puck and string rotation. You though are so non-observant you didn’t notice that.
Thats because in describing N2LR it has been well established that solid bodies rotating on offcenter axes are in fact rotating on that axis and not their COM axis.
Well the puck and string in figure 1 can hardly be seen has being rigid except through the tension of the centrifugal force (a fictional force) arising out of the speed of the rotation and the tensile strength of the string applying a centripetal force.
Hmmmmmmmmm, says Nate. Thats in a N2LR physics demonstration!!!
Wow go figure!!!
Yes indeed it is. Despite not being a solid body it is rigid like a solid body under specific conditions. Golly Gee Nate! How can that be!
So Nate I don’t think you are stupid. So what is it? Just a desire to be an anonymous first class jerk troller on the internet?
========
=======
======
Nate says: Newtons laws dont help your cause. Newtons own words describe a spinning Moon.
================
Newton had a number of failures on lunar calculations none of which are inconsistent with N2LR. If you want to make a case for Newton believing his law did not apply to orbits, produce a Newton paper that actually has some scientific thought about that.
In the meantime I will rely upon Figure 1 here:
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
and Figure 2(b) here: https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Still waiting for you to come up with something besides your imagination.
“How do you think it specifically applies to the Moon?
Show us.”
Bill offers up tons of hand waving and yada yada politics, yada yada evasion, yada yada distraction, yada yada hooey. but still nothing specific..
It is quite simple. N2LR is an equation. For the Moon what specificaly is on the right and left sides of this equation?
In your diagram, which btw is a point mass, not a puck, there is a sideways force applied to the point mass, and as a result it accelerates and attains an angular momentum.
And that is all Lorbital = mvr, because a point cannot spin.
For our Moon, there is no sideways force that can be identified, so what is N2LR doing for the Moon?
Nate says:
In your diagram, which btw is a point mass, not a puck, there is a sideways force applied to the point mass, and as a result it accelerates and attains an angular momentum.
And that is all Lorbital = mvr, because a point cannot spin.
For our Moon, there is no sideways force that can be identified, so what is N2LR doing for the Moon?
==========================
to answer your question first there is a sideways force on the puck that you think its a point mass
A point mass is actually an oxymoron invention solely for the purpose of breaking down a mathematical problem and doesn’t exist in nature. So Lorb alone only exists in the mind not in nature.
So once your realize this 3-dimensional puck is circling an external axis and you have calculated an imaginary translation portion of a calculation leading to the eventual solution for rotation around an external axis the next step is to calculate the energy associated with the change in orientation this orbital rotation imparts on the puck. Artificial frames of reference that separates a non-physical and nonexistent object from a real object. . .an apparition IS. . . .UH. . . .STUPID!
This pseudovector cannot be understood in an artificial frame of reference and pseudo forces and vectors should not be analyzed by them. Yet like a robot you do it.
Thats just bad programming as if you were a trust fund baby and your parents bought you an expensive education but by the time you were done you thought you knew everything and then realized you actually didn’t need to work at all so that explains you handing out around here everyday. Am I right? Sometimes appearances can be deceiving.
Did you realize there was no such thing as a point mass in nature? If you did then why would you consider it to have value to anything in nature as a complete calculation? You got me on that one!
But I always leave the benefit of the doubt as I realize I am but a lowly human who really knows very little. So I will leave up to you to find a nice peer reviewed paper that can explain to me the reality of angular momentum of point mass as something one can observe. LMAO!!!
“It is quite simple. N2LR is an equation. For the Moon what specificaly is on the right and left sides of this equation?”
Again, lots of evasion, yada yada, no answer.
If you think N2LR is relevant here, I would think you could answer this.
And in your opinion “So Lorb alone only exists in the mind not in nature.”
Well only in the sense that ALL calculated quantities like energy, momentum, torque etc are mathematical constructs. But useful.
Lorb is also a useful one.
Nate says:
”And in your opinion So Lorb alone only exists in the mind not in nature.
Well only in the sense that ALL calculated quantities like energy, momentum, torque etc are mathematical constructs. But useful.
Lorb is also a useful one.”
——————————-
I never said it wasn’t a useful concept. I said it has no real world analog.
From that you should catch a clue that it therefore must be incomplete. And of course what does make it complete is Lspin. So in the real world there is no Lorb without an Lspin as part and parcel.
And the only reason there is an Lorb concept is because of an orbital rotation of the moon. Thus Lspin is inseparable from Lorb.
Further according to many sources a single rigid orbiting object can have but on axis.
And the only axis Lorb can have for the moon is the earth’s COM. that specifies the axis for Lspin in reality to be also the earth’s COM, despite that from its shape its calculated internally.
So what so many students transitioning from school to jobs have to learn is while you can divvy up concepts you often cannot not divvy up the physical reality bonding the concepts together in unity forever. And don’t confuse that with independent Lspin not arising from an orbital rotation. There will never be an Lspin associated with an orbital rotation that isn’t in perfect time with it. And there will never be a Lorb without a perfectly timed Lspin. there can only be the appearances of these things by establishing single frames of reference or viewpoint.
Therefore logic dictates that the reel spin axis must be there also but due to the external limits of the real mass an Lspin calculation would be approximately the same as an Lspin calculation without orbit.
I say approximately because it isn’t the same.
I realize you are ignorant of that difference as revealed by this comment of yours just a couple of comments above:
”For our Moon, there is no sideways force that can be identified”
Yes the sideways force can be identified. It is part and parcel to the gravitational bulge created by earth’s gravity which also messes with how to apply N2LR Lspin. In fact looking at Madhavi we can see this rotation on an external axis can take an infinite number of shapes for the rotating body all of which mess with Lspin because it affects COM of the spinning object.
So bottom line is artificial conceptual division used to simplify mathematical computations don’t rise to the level of a physical division. If you had anywhere near the world experience I have you would identify that in a split second. But on the other hand I suppose you could be in here like Barry merely expressing a poltico/religious viewpoint rather than science and facts and it just suits your purpose to not identify it.
Which is it?
Here you go Nate. An article on that sideways force you couldn’t find generated from the Earth’s COM that provides both the Lorb and Lspin for the moon.
I try as I can as time permits to not expect you take my word for it. Enjoy!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-just-a-coincidence/
Bill,
You have flair writing a lot without actually saying anything…except nonsense.
Again no answers.
If you accept the tidal locking mechanism described,
then you you must accept standard Astronomy, that the Moon is spinning and orbiting synchronously.
“The moon keeps the same face pointing towards the Earth because its rate of spin is tidally locked so that it is synchronized with its rate of revolution”
Gotcha Inspector Clouseau.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1a/b1/be/1ab1be6831affb574ef15ef557543e46.gif
Nate says:
“the visionary capabilities of Nikola Tesla”
Again with the: I dont understand his arguments, but he must be right! Cuz hes Tesla!
=========================
Actually it doesn’t matter if Tesla is right or not. The issue still stands if Tesla’s ideas fall.
I invoked Tesla not because he is always right. I mentioned him because he has addressed this issue and he has a fabulous track record of seeing the entire picture. He is able to see outside of the traditional thinking box we are inculcated into. I know a lot of scientists but just a few that demonstrably possess that talent. The funny thing is often when a smart scientist figures out the experiment that solves a puzzle you find yourself, if you have been thinking about the problem, that his or her solution was something so easy you think you should have thought of it.
such is the nature of the corners we paint ourselves into.
Bill your source sez
“Moons intrinsic form is somewhat egg-shaped. If the tip of the football/egg does not point toward the Earth, then gravitational forces exert a torque that makes the tip point back toward the Earth (in reality, the moon oscillates a small amount around perfect alignment, a motion called the lunar libration).”
The torque exerted is clearly able to change the Moons orientation because it is acting AROUND the Moons COM.
And this source makes clear that the Moon must be spinning.
Oh well!
“Tesla addressed this issue and he has a fabulous track record of seeing the entire picture. He is able to see outside of the traditional thinking box we are inculcated into.”
Yes Bill, you will always choose the ‘outside the box’ guy, whether or not he is correct.
Tesla also thought he could send radio waves thru the Earth and wasted a lot of investor money on that.
He thought he could wirelessly power cities, but he failed to go thru the calculations, that would have shown that could not work. It didnt work.
Sometimes his ‘outside the box’ thinking was simply wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wireless_System
Teslas system described
To build a thing that is both amazing and works, you need both ‘outside the box’ and ‘inside the box’ thinking.
Newton’s ideas on planetary motion were originally ‘outside the box’ though he built on lots of previously established knowledge.
Then his ‘outside the box’ ideas, Calculus, law of gravity, Laws of motion, became ‘inside the box’ ideas that physicists and engineers need to learn and use.
Because they proved useful.
Nate says:
The torque exerted is clearly able to change the Moons orientation because it is acting AROUND the Moons COM.
And this source makes clear that the Moon must be spinning.
Oh well!
——————————
A conclusion that seems lacking and dissatisfying.
It is sort of like saying the gravitational pull of the moon’s COM pulling the surface of the moon toward its center exerts a torque on the moon by virtue of the spin momentum of its particles around that COM. LMAO!!!
“It is sort of like saying the gravitational pull of the moons COM pulling the surface of the moon toward its center exerts a torque on the moon by virtue of the spin momentum of its particles around that COM.”
Not even ‘sort of like’ that. Confusion makes you ‘LMAO!!’. Ok then.
“A conclusion that seems lacking and dissatisfying.”
Finding out your beliefs are wrong must be quite dissatisfying.
Nature does not aim to please. It just is.
Nate says:
It is sort of like saying the gravitational pull of the moons COM pulling the surface of the moon toward its center exerts a torque on the moon by virtue of the spin momentum of its particles around that COM.
Not even sort of like that. Confusion makes you LMAO!!. Ok then.
A conclusion that seems lacking and dissatisfying.
Finding out your beliefs are wrong must be quite dissatisfying.
Nature does not aim to please. It just is.
===========================
Sorry Nate. The ‘dissatisfying’ comment I ripped off from Lord Kelvin. And no Lord Kelvin wasn’t expressing frustration about nature not aiming to please. He was expressing frustration with wannabee scientists building theories without adequate evidence and quantification.
If you have a beef with that take it up with his legacy.
Bill,
” He was expressing frustration with wannabee scientists building theories without adequate evidence and quantification.”
I knew Lord Kelvin, he was a friend of mine. And believe me, you’re no Lord Kelvin.
Well, ok, I didnt actually know him.
But he was qualified to make that sort of judgement, and you are not.
Far from it.
You reject well established science when you dont understand it, as in this case.
Nate says:
You reject well established science when you dont understand it, as in this case.
========================
Nate! . . . .Please stop trolling!
Bill!
When you have no rebuttal, you have lost the argument. Stop arguing!
Oh there are plenty of huge gaping holes in your arguments you won’t touch with a ten foot pole Nate.
How about providing an argument for the moon rotating on its own COM that amounts to anything more than your daddy told you it did?
And while at it since you want to define the orbit as a transitional element with the moon rotating around its own COM explain the following.
1) why a point mass rotating in orbit does not provide a complete mathematical description of a mass of some dimensions rotating in an orbit.
2) Since you want to divvy the moon’s single motion into two different buckets. Please provide a description of at what point as the point mass in Figure 1 grows in dimensions does it become Figure 2 in the N2LR diagrams?
I mean Nate your theory is a patch work of contradictions and misrepresentations.
Bill you have no rebuttals for a number of points in this thread. Now you pretend they never happened.
Thats how you guys keep the argument going indefinitely.
“I mean Nate your theory is a patch work of contradictions and misrepresentations.”
You mean Newton’s theory? Astronomy’s theory? The theory in your link?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-just-a-coincidence/
“And while at it since you want to define the orbit as a transitional element with the moon rotating around its own COM explain the following.
1) why a point mass rotating in orbit does not provide a complete mathematical description of a mass of some dimensions rotating in an orbit.”
You really don’t understand that a point mass can have translation but cannot have any rotation? Seriously?
“2) Since you want to divvy the moons single motion into two different buckets.”
Astronomy has done this for 300 years since Newton. Yet you seem to want to pin this all on me?
“Please provide a description of at what point as the point mass in Figure 1 grows in dimensions does it become Figure 2 in the N2LR diagrams?”
I dont understand the question. Fig 1 Fig 2? WTF are you talking about?
AGAIN, a point mass cannot rotate, only translate. Do you really not understand that?
A body like a sphere can translate and rotate. Do you really not understand that?
bill said: How about providing an argument for the moon rotating on its own COM that amounts to anything more than your daddy told you it did?
It’s angular velocity about its COM is 2.66e-6 rad/s.
bdgwx: he just doesn’t listen.
DREMT: just keeps lying.
bdgwx says:
”bill said: How about providing an argument for the moon rotating on its own COM that amounts to anything more than your daddy told you it did?
Its angular velocity about its COM is 2.66e-6 rad/s.”
===================================
bdgwx you are truly turning into a bore.
I asked for an ‘argument’, not a fact that is consistent with both sides of the argument.
Bill,
The Moon is moving on an elliptical Orbit. Thus it CANNOT BE doing a Pure Rotation.
It is thus a General Plane Motion.
Its COM is undergoing Curvilinear Translation. and it has Rotation around the COM. Thats all.
No ambiguity here according to Madhavi, and other similar textbooks.
You can deny, diminish, demur, distract, delay all you want, but it won’t change these facts.
No Nate. Madhavi makes it perfectly clear the movement is a ROTATION not a curvilinear translation. Learn your kinematics!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, bill Madhavi makes it perfectly clear the movement is a ROTATION about rectangle cg once per orbit of O in Fig. 2(b) not a curvilinear translation as in Fig. 2(a) wherein rectangle does not rotate about its own axis cg (see the arc.s she draws).
Who is going to correct Ball4? Any volunteers from the "Spinner" side of the debate?
“Madhavi makes it perfectly clear the movement is a ROTATION not a curvilinear translation”
BS, Bill. Show me the direct quote and identify the section.
The Moon’s elliptical orbit and libration make it abundantly clear that its parts are NOT all moving in circles around a single external point, as in figure 2b.
The Moon’s motion is not a pure rotation.
Nate, its not a ‘perfect’ rotation but it is a ‘pure’ rotation. Study and understand the difference!
Its like saying who needs elliptical orbits, when a circular model is plenty good enough?
Kepler, Newton, finding orbits are elliptical, who cares?
Its the difference between correct and not correct. Study and understand the difference.
Its the difference between landing on the Moon or missing it by 50,000 km.
Clint R
The issue is very much about reference frames. The original proponent of this non rotation was G*r*n who backed himself into a corner declaring he was using a one dimensional frame of reference. Absurd but so the game proceeded.
You will need to show where none of those compensating conditions I stated hold for you to persuade me that the string/ball idea has any merit.
You will also need to show that you are not compensating, in any way, as I indicated when you observe the moon. I doubt you can as your only observational position is from within the moon orbit (to only see one side always).
Your later reference to a distant star that Newton suggested is clearly a reference frame. What is your point? Newton is simply stating the obvious that by the time the sunspot appears again where the earth HAD been the earth has moved along its orbit and needs longer to show itself to the new earth position.
I still am not sure what your gripe is. Bindidon has simply quoted from Newtons work and translated correctly about rotation and orbit. You have shown nothing about it being out of context.
Observations from outside the moon orbit makes the moon appear to rotate. So what? Thats totally normal in much the same way that from a platform I see a ball being bounced in a moving train quite distinctly different to the observer on the train. When the whole universe has a multitude of moving parts does anyone really believe there are absolutes in position?
You missed the point about the string NOT wrapping around the ball. But, that’s okay. I’m used to folks ignoring reality.
Ball4
Ken, Tony you miss that the black line through zero recently moved up with the increased atm. opacity from ppm CO2 added by humans.
Nonsense. It matters very little whether your black line had not been changed. If you are suggesting that avg T increased with the cause being higher CO2 that is a conjecture.
The line move up simply reflects the actual data that there has been an increase in avg T. The long 2000s hiatus followed by strong El Nino events since 2015 have little to do with CO2. The last 30 years are slightly warmer than the 30 years to 2010. So is absurd to claim it is due to CO2 effect.
The early 1940’s to mid/late 1970s avg T reduction also had little to do with CO2 (nor the great PDO shift from then). Your black line would have moved down! The 1910 to 1940s increase had peanuts increase in CO2 but your black line would have moved up too.
If we are to talk heat effects, water dominates everything from sensible latent heat transfer into the atmosphere to back radiation and clouds. Add the sun and CO2 is a non starter.
Our avg T has been increasing since the depths of the LIA more than 300 years ago; what a wonderful outcome! If it was CO2 then please more CO2 is beneficial in making it more comfortable and greening/feeding the population and fauna. Proof …from deaths due to climate/weather and starvation (20 to 30% of Scottish and Irish population perished some 300 years ago) to a massive expansion of food production able to feed over 7.5 billion people today.
Whats there not to like?
“If you are suggesting that avg T increased with the cause being higher CO2 that is a conjecture.”
TonyM, you are discussing weather. For earthen climate, there is enough theory and instrumental evidence of added ppm CO2 increasing atm. opacity that is well known as far back as 1938 & predictions based on the evidence have been reasonably realized in nature.
Ignoring the evidence (as many do around here) will not help your writing achieve credibility. You have a lot of work to do to catch up on atm. science basics.
Ball4
“TonyM, you are discussing weather.”
Thirty year statements of weather is the accepted period for climate. All the periods I commented on related to 30 year periods or more. Are you suggesting otherwise?
B4
“You have a lot of work to do to catch up on atm. science basics.”
It seems you have a lot to learn about what constitutes Science – orthodox Science following the Scientific Method not wishy washy garbage which puts the cart before the horse or other contrivances like biasing the data to form conclusions like Hockey Sticks. You assume CO2 is the cause; you can’t show it.
Science is about controlled hypothesis testing. Without that there is no science. End of story! One failure is sufficient to rebut a falsifiable hypothesis or conjecture. I gave you ample rebuttal evidence over the various climate periods. You are clearly in denial. Your conjecture is dead!
“The long 2000s hiatus” isn’t climate, it is weather so you are discussing weather.
“The last 30 years are slightly warmer than the 30 years to 2010.”
“We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010.” for which periods the black line moved up. And afaik useful hockey sticks cost upwards of $200 or more.
There is no need to assume added ppm CO2 is the cause because the scientific method shows the black line moved up between 1938 and 2013 reasonably equal to the increased atm. IR opacity from added CO2 ppm in the period controlling for all 8 other global climate temperature forcing variables.
“I gave you ample rebuttal evidence over the various climate periods.”
You did not do so using the scientific method as you showed no theory, did not discuss measured data or uncontrolled variables, and your periods selected are very imprecise. Other writers have done a much better job.
Here:
1)Calculate the black line ending 1938 with data available
2)Inspect the value for 1981-2010 black line in 2013 when natural weather cycles were near enough zero i.e. at that black line.
3)Find the global temperature increase predicted using simple methods available in 1938 and adjust for the actual added ppm CO2 (this is hard, be careful to do the required research).
4)Find the actual measured global temperature increase in 1) and
2) reasonably equal to 1938 prediction.
That will show it using your “Science is about controlled hypothesis testing.” I confidently predict TonyM won’t do the work, or even research it, you would rather comment imprecisely without substantiating your writing with theory and measured data.
Ball4
“..you are discussing weather”
Clearly you have never been taught that content within the same paragraph is related. The context was the 30 year period to 2020 as clearly stated. The subset in that period was for a hiatus to 2014 from about 1994 which showed a linear regression line with virtually zero slope followed by substantial El Nino events.
According to you we are not permitted to talk about these events even though climate is just the average of individual years which you emphasize by the black line. Only rattling pachinko balls in head would suggest that such events or Pinatubo or the ENSO subsets could not be discussed in the context of climate for that period.
On Scientific Method, let us get it very clear that the onus is on you as the proponent, not me, to show you are following the scientific method.
You can start by clearly stating your falsifiable, quantified hypothesis. Then show replicable empirical evidence which supports that conjecture. Hand waves and pretense at having shown such evidence doesn’t do it. Mickey Mann claimed the same thing with ex post data – useless.
What is the chance of you doing this? Zero, I suggest
I have already falsified the conjecture that CO2 causes an increase in T in accord with the Hansen/Charney formula for CO2 changes where I commented on the failure for the early 1940s to early 1970 period, 1910 to early 1940s. The conjecture fails. Caput. Dead duck even when it is no shooting season.
If emissions follow a Business-as-usual pattern
Under the IPCC Business as Usual emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C – 0.5C)” [IPCC FAR summary]
That conjecture is one big FAT FAIL. Note the word “emissions.”
Similarly with Hansen’s business as usual predictions – Fat Fail! They want to pretend scenario B happened – more horse manure as is Tamino’s analysis where he even uses Mauna Loa actual concentrations of other GHG’s rather than emissions.
In Science I only needs show one such failure. End of story. It is junk science of Mickey Mann proportions.
TonyM 5:55 am, the context may have been clear to you in your own mind as the writer but not the reader. You are discussing weather from 1994 thru 2014, El Nino/ENSO, Pinatubo. The black line was influenced by these events as they are part of the data but the black line has moved up regardless as Dr. Spencer shows in the two periods he notes.
“You can start by clearly stating your falsifiable, quantified hypothesis. Then show replicable empirical evidence which supports that conjecture.”
I’ve already done so but clearly TonyM has missed it. My 1) is the starting black line data & the falsifiable hypothesis is added CO2 ppm will increase the black line in the climate future of 75 years by a predicted amount in 3). My 2) data shows that prediction came true as natural cycles ebbed and the other 8 climate forcing variables were reasonably measured and controlled for.
“I have already falsified the conjecture that CO2 causes an increase in T”
You have simply asserted such, you have not shown the data properly controlled for the other 8 variables in the periods as I have showed you has been done 1938 to 2013 black line. Show your other variables 1940 to 1970, and 1910 to 1940s with real data that the natural cycles have ebbed. If you can, you will add to the literature but I already know you cannot.
You have asserted certain failure without using your own scientific method. YOU need to up your game TonyM.
Too Popperian. The Kuhnian approach works better in the field.
Even Kuhn had expectations that the conjecture works until an issue arises and the mechanism is there to allow for new discovery. That just fails in this field.
Problem arises when a field gets highjacked and all sorts of nonsense is tolerated including gatekeeping. Just look at Manns crap. Totally unscientific yet he is feted. This would never pass in the hard sciences.
Economics would warrant the status of Science well ahead of this field, at least the way it is being run.
Lindzen doesn’t mince his words: ‘From good science starting to be done in the early 90’s to now becoming a religion. Defund the lot and start again.’ He since stated he wants 90% defunded.
” a massive expansion of food production able to feed over 7.5 billion people today.”
You mean fertlizer, pesticides, genetic engineering, mechanized farming, are all irrelevant?
Its all about temperature?
Nate?
“It’s all about T?”
No! Do you think even with the innovations we would be anywhere near the productive capability given the same miserable conditions under which those deaths occurred?
It is readily acknowledged that the north west of France would not be as productive a food basket without its current warmth + CO2.
The 25%+ greening of the earth in the recent past has little to do with modern innovations in marginal arid areas.
What problem do you have with the current climate conditions?
“What problem do you have with the current climate conditions? ”
Our civilization’s infrastructure, economies, politics and national boundaries are optimised for conditions about fifty years ago, call it 14C. We’re now 1C warmer and starting to have problems with rising sea levels and extreme weather.
We’ve coped so far, but this will get harder as conditions move further off our sweet spot.
Entropic
Hard to know whether to take you seriously. This hankering for the good ol’ days has got to you; change has always happened. Change, SSSSTOP!!
From yearning for the LIA to now declaring 50 or so years ago was optimal for the world. I guess you have some guide or good reference to judge these things.
A couple of thoughts…Pol Pot’s massacres were around then, Mao presided over the death of about 30 million people, Vietnam War still going, first oil shock to economies, Cold War at its peak with nuclear engagement barely avoided under Kennedy (the Russians actually thought for a long time they could take out the USA), the continuing demise of the UK as a real power, segregation of blacks in the US, apartheid in S.Africa, Pinochet in Chile, battle of Keynsian/Friedman economics and the list could go on and on.
Even if you were right I suggest you are deluded if you believe the CO2 story of salvation. Firstly reducing CO2 will achieve little if anything just go do some theoretical numbers on Modtran. Most importantly neither China nor India nor Russia give a damn about any reduction of CO2 (other oxides and particulates is a different story). They will nod their heads as long as it is to their advantage. Else they ignore it. The penalties to economies in terms of inefficiencies and costs fall most heavily on the Western countries and on the poorest in those communities just look at the breakdowns in power and the cost of power. Texas is a recent reminder.
The West is doomed to becoming relatively insignificant under this scenario going forward beyond our lifetime. Welcome to your religion.
“Most importantly neither China nor Russia nor India give a damn about any reduction of CO2”
Dont know bout that.
Water for major rivers in China and India supplied by Himmalayan glaciers, which are receding.
India is not happy about getting broiled, dried out, or any change to monsoon weather patterns.
Nate says:
”Most importantly neither China nor Russia nor India give a damn about any reduction of CO2”
Dont know bout that.
Water for major rivers in China and India supplied by Himmalayan glaciers, which are receding.
==================================
You mean they were depending upon the glaciers melting forever? LMAO!! Where were you Nate when God passed out the brains?
Nate
Dont know bout that.
Those Asians and Russians arent daft like Westerners.
Do you really believe the Indians are not aware of the lost rivers in their history? I guess you believe they swallow this daft idea of Thermageddon and Western Gaia worship.
Maybe you should look at the planned number and output of coal fired plants for China and India. You will update us on the numbers; very kind of you.
As an aside the Adani mine (in Galilee Basin AUS) which has taken a decade to overcome Greenie resistance incl St Greta is going ahead and Oz wont see a tonne of it used here. It is Indian ownership so guess where the output will go? Though not huge (scaled back due to resistance and hence self funding) guess what will happen in the future no it wont be downsizing. LOL!
“You mean they were depending upon the glaciers melting forever”
Have you heard about snow falling in the mountains? What a moron!
Nate says:
You mean they were depending upon the glaciers melting forever
Have you heard about snow falling in the mountains? What a moron!
===========================
Nate runs and desperately changes the goal posts. Uh, where is your source then that glaciers induce snow fall Nate?
“No! Do you think even with the innovations we would be anywhere near the productive capability given the same miserable conditions”
Humans have thrived for millenia under these ‘miserable conditions’.
Your claims that average global temperature was the key variable in the most recent agricultural revolution, without considering all the other variables that we know were important, makes no sense.
“north west of France” is hardly the world.
The temperate zone of the N. hemisphere has a gradient of average temperature from South to North that is much larger than the 1 degree C increase that has occurred in the most recent century.
And different crops prefer different climates.
Nate
Tony : “No! Do you think even with the innovations we would be anywhere near the productive capability given the same miserable conditions”
Nate:
Humans have thrived for millenia under these ‘miserable conditions’.
.
Really? Given that I specifically noted the 20% to 30% loss of life in Ireland and Scotland in the miserable conditions of climate/weather and starvation are you suggesting that the population thrived in similar conditions before? Perhaps you can show me when those conditions held and population thrived. That devastation certainly has not happened since.
I also specifically asked: “Do you think even with the innovations we would be anywhere near the productive capability given the same miserable conditions”
The conditional component is totally relevant!!
You seem to be suggesting that that irrespective of those specific conditions it would be no problem. Perhaps you should try your hand at some farming before you make such silly comments. I do know what even relatively mild adverse conditions can do. No, it does not help the crops!! We are not talking glass houses for major crops!!
Perhaps you are thinking I meant it was constant miserable conditions and world wide which is not what I intended nor stated.
Of course the tropical zones where most people lived would not have experienced those same conditions. Still the total world population showed a reduction in growth in that interval. The world growth rate went up quite dramatically in the two centuries to the end of the 19th century at close to 0.5% pa compound from under 0.11% p.a. in the 16th century, so it is likely to have affected the susceptible areas quite badly. I am ignoring the small -ve world growth ( ie popn decline) of the 200 yrs to end 14th cent where plague was likely a contributor (major it would seem). From memory most of the Vikings left Greenland at the end of the 14th century.
Data source:
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/
PS late 20th century popn growth is much higher still peaking at around 1.94% for 20 years to 1980 (I took 20 yr intervals – just interesting but our hotter climate is certainly not holding us back).
“Given that I specifically noted the 20% to 30% loss of life in Ireland and Scotland in the miserable conditions of climate/weather and starvation are you suggesting that the population thrived in similar conditions before? Perhaps you can show me when those conditions held and population thrived”
Yes humanity thrived. And there were always local, brief, episodes of crop failures and famine.
You are not showing a trend caused by climate change.
The Rennaisance, the Age of Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the UK Agricultural Revolution, all occurred during your so-called ‘miserable’ conditions.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/the-agricultural-revolution/
Nate says:
Yes humanity thrived. And there were always local, brief, episodes of crop failures and famine.
You are not showing a trend caused by climate change.
The Rennaisance, the Age of Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the UK Agricultural Revolution, all occurred during your so-called miserable conditions.
=========================
Nate claims everybody in the world was thriving during the age of Empire and massive slavery. LMAO! Must have been ”regional” warming right Nate?
???
Nate don’t pretend you are a dunce.
Simple question: Is mankind, on average, better off or worse off since before the beginning of the industrial revolution. . . .keeping in mind that where we were in 1860 was a result of The Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment, and was only applicable to European society and that the Europeans had invaded and gained control of nearly the entire world before the beginning of the industrial revolution. An invasion that probably began with the first Crusade in 1095.
Not interested in following you down that diversionary rabbit hole.
as weak as your argument is thats a safe choice.
In fact all arguments based solely on my daddy told me so, whether he didn’t know, did know and slipped up in communicating clearly to you or whatever always makes for a weak-assed argument
So if I dont want to follow you way off topic it means Im all wrong about that off-topic?
Ok whatever you dream, Bill.
Nate I didn’t say your lack of argument was evidence you were wrong. I merely said it was a safe choice for you when you come into an argument with nothing more than what your Daddy told you.
Nate says:
” a massive expansion of food production able to feed over 7.5 billion people today.”
You mean fertlizer, pesticides, genetic engineering, mechanized farming, are all irrelevant?
Its all about temperature?
=============================
Of course its not all about temperature. Thats a strawman argument. I don’t know a single farmer that isn’t aware its all those things including temperature.
Tony was making the correlation-causation argument that Temp and CO2 were the key factors in the recent agricultural revolution, and that before this last century conditions for agriculture were ‘miserable’.
Sounds like you dont agree.
But this is a common meme pushed by skeptics. Where is the evidence?
Nate there are many ”key” factors the reversal of such would have material impact on food production. That’s how I would define a key factor. We have a pretty good handle that the emission of CO2 and what ever has caused temperature rise during the satellite era has accounted for about a 15% (as I recall)increase in food production, a statistic that can be taken from the wild where fertilizer, pesticides, genetic engineering, and mechanized farming are not factors.
Nate:
…and that before this last century conditions for agriculture were ‘‘miserable’.
Guess I covered this above and you can’t stop your BS. Show me where I said that. I have been very specific about when and where those “miserable conditions” occurred.
But I guess as a high priest and defender of the Thermageddon you believe you have licence to BS.
Yep Nate gets an idea in his head and its all about blaming everybody else if they don’t believe him. It doesn’t matter the topic. What a religious man would say about the how the climate has aided civilization as its populations grew would be “God Provides”. That has as much scientific foundation as climate models building predictions on future climate based upon a completely untested theory (beyond ”God Provides”) when they say its been getting warmer and offer that as evidence of the scientific merit of multi-layered greenhouse effects.
Is our current warmth due to a multi-layered effect (Modtran)? Some might argue that their calculations such it is needed. But being needed and actually being the cause is about a day late and a dollar short.
“I have been very specific about when and where those ‘miserable conditions’ occurred.”
Ok so you are no longer trying to claim those were tied to climatic conditions and low CO2?
“gets an idea in his head and its all about blaming everybody else”
that is your specialty, Bill.
Nate says:
”Ok so you are no longer trying to claim those were tied to climatic conditions and low CO2?”
Don’t be ridiculous Nate. Grawers growing crops in sufficient demand such that the economics justify the investment, use CO2 supplementation and greenhouses to extend growing seasons routinely.
many facts point to cO2 being still at less than optimum levels and population distribution pattern more than strongly suggest we live in a world of less than optimum temperatures. the greenhouse effect is the reason that temperature ranges on earth has a smaller range of extremes than worlds lacking in greenhouse gas influences
Dejavu! Here we go again!
Nate distorts my specific miserable conditions some 300 years ago and claims that means before last century. Why worry about a few hundred years? Makes no attempt to correct this disingenuous manoeuvre.
Nate says: Humans have thrived for millenia under these ‘miserable conditions’.
Yet, when asked, he cant show anywhere they thrived under these specific conditions. His millennia have been reduced to what? Nothing!
He understands little of plant or human biochemistry.
Nate:
Furthermore he tries to conflate the elite classes of sunny Italy Renaissance, of Scientific development, of Industrial revolution etc with the plebs of limited means and options in Ireland and Scotland under those extreme conditions. No doubt he thinks the privileged classes and artists, scholars, researchers invariably under patronage joined those plebs as they desperately scrounged for food and warmth. They all had a love in and mused over the destruction and misery vowing to innovate as they lay dying cos it was Renaissance time or suchlike. No doubt the Pope knew them all by name, too! Lucky Newton, the only apple to be found dropped on his head!
Nate as usual is a waste of time reminiscent of his long, convoluted, fervid defense of Mann stating that Mann stands on the shoulders of the greats like Newton and is a pioneer in Science.
It did not dawn on this high priest that by biasing his data Mann had actually created the conditions for self falsification of his work. Yet, Mann is feted in the field as surely it is not science but ‘seance’ with Nate fully endorsing him.
As I said then, so now: Nate should go to his vespers.
Oh I remember tonyM, he’s that very odd ‘vespers’ guy, who makes unsupportable claims based on correlation-causation fallacies, then spends days backing away from and denying he ever said them.
“many facts point to cO2 being still at less than optimum levels and population distribution pattern more than strongly suggest we live in a world of less than optimum temperatures.”
many made-up facts…
It is quite strange that all our plant species and ecosystems managed to evolve and thrive while starved of CO2!
It is odd that all of our agricultural belts have been developed over centuries in locations with less than optimal temperatures!
Also strange that humans have migrated over centuries to live and prosper in so many places with less-than optimal temperatures!
Nate says:
Also strange that humans have migrated over centuries to live and prosper in so many places with less-than optimal temperatures!
====================================
LOL! An unintelligible comment without a definition of optimal temperatures.
Uh without the need to define optimum one can surmise that global mean temperature is somewhat less than optimum for humans. One would do that by plotting the human population on ARC GIS or something like that and determining if we live more in hot regions or cold regions. the answer is very very clear. I shouldn’t even have to go to the trouble plotting it or telling you how it comes out.
And of course if you want to confirm it. . . .warm up the globe some and see what results. You know experiment. Experimentation is what humans do best in determining what to do next.
But there are a lot of people out there sitting mighty pretty that don’t want people experimenting.
Amusing with more dishonesty from this troll Nate. Obfuscating, conflating and direct lies are his hallmarks. LOL.
I challenge him to show where I have made statements attributed to me with his latest one put in quotes. I am more than happy to acknowledge if he can show those attributions; he cant, silly troll!
Hard to believe this fellow is not a paid troll as a high priest of this climate religion. Just look, he was second cab off the rank in this article. A laugh as it reflects his own character; oblivious to the Socrates’ aphorism “know thyself.”
This is Nate above at his best – absent mirror:
“Do not feed Liar Trolls seeking attention, folks.”
His Mann god must be standing on his own unscientific shoulders; helping his godlike ‘pioneer in Science!’ Wow, high priest support for this great pioneer!
Dr Curry had an apt conclusion re his god Manns latest paper. I must look it up. I did:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/03/06/canceling-the-amo/
“..Brilliant! Almost as ‘brilliant’ as the Hockey Stick.
Relying on global climate models, which dont adequately simulate the multi-decadal internal variability, to ‘prove’ that such multi-decadal internal variability doesn’t exist, is circular reasoning (at best). How does this stuff get published in a journal like Science? Peer review is sooooo broken.”
Nate, vespers always beckon you! Dont disappoint!
I’ve never seen a climate skeptic website article, like this one, with over 2,600 comments.
It’s nice that the last comment displayed so much wisdom, compared with the usual comment, and I think it should be repeated:
“Our average temperature has been increasing since the depths of the LIA more than 300 years ago;
what a wonderful outcome!
If it was CO2 then please more CO2 is beneficial in making it more comfortable and greening/feeding the population and fauna.
… Whats there not to like?”
” Whats there not to like?
Flooded coastlines, extreme weather, unstable jetstreams, drought, flooding, shifting biomes, spreading disease, crop failures, local populations killing each other over inadequate food supplies or trying to migrate to countries that won’t let them in.
The Four Horsemen.
Wow, it’s hard to believe that the increase in pizza ovens can do all that.
Maybe it was the anchovies, and not the pepperoni….
EM expresses his dismay over the entire lives of himself and all his ancestors.
Or perhaps I’m telling you what you need to know instead of what you want to hear.
Entropic,
Most everything you listed is provided in the Old Testament except for the Four Horsemen which is in the New Testament. So basically, nothing new. These items have all happened (except for the Four Horseman of course) before the internal combustion engine was even imagined.
We know from proxy data when earth temperatures peak CO2 continues to increase even though temperature subsequently drop. This suggests that CO2 at high levels is not likely to override the cooling effect of the planets natural cycles. It is also consistent with the logarithmic decrease in CO2 suggested greenhouse effect. We know from proxy data that we are currently below projected pre-Holocene trends for temperature and sea level. We have theories on why the Holocene temperatures stayed relatively flat given Earths temperature variation for the past billion years. We know the Sun fuses Hydrogen atoms into Helium and will slowly get hotter over the next several billion years until the Earth is torched to a cinder.
We also know Tmax Moon is higher than Tmax Earth Deserts and that Tmax Earth Deserts are higher than Tmax urbanized areas. This suggests if you put something between a heat source and thermometer you get a lower temperature (Does this sound familiar?). Urban Area GHG’s > Desert GHG > Moon GHG’s. So Tavg Earth is mostly a narrowing of temperature extremes as average Tmin is going up more then average Tmax in the data which of course raises Tavg.
However, what we don’t know (or is not discussed much here) is the comprehensive look at the benefit/cost to converting our fossil fuel infrastructure to a non-fossil fuel infrastructure. Including
1) Decrease/Increase in cold/warm weather deaths
2) Poverty levels
3) Ocean/Farm Productivity (Food Supply)
4) Return on investment on coastal property
5) Rare metals supply
6) Disposal of batteries
7) Health benefits
I am sure there is a lot more to consider. But I would be interested in your thoughts(or others) on this list. I think it would be interesting.
Billy Bob: There’s always something in the details:
“Tmax Earth Deserts are higher than Tmax urbanized areas.”
Not earthen cold deserts like the arctic.
“This suggests if you put something between a heat source and thermometer you get a lower temperature”
Not if the something is observed clear like CO2 gas at lab STP. And the global lunar albedo & regolith emissivity does have something to do with your comparing differences in earth thermometer & moon brightness temperatures.
BillyBob
The first serious economic analysis of climate change was the Stern Review.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-economics-of-climate-change-the-stern-review/
This was its conclusion.
This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.
Ball4
My understanding is the Tmax deserts occur in lower latitudes where more direct sunlight occurs. Higher latitudes would not be comparable to Tmax moon.
Luckily we don’t live in a lab. Real life data is what I am referring too. Sun energy is full spectrum and CO2 does screen some of that energy out. Thus areas with more CO2 will see lower maximum temperature, despite what the laboratory may say. Again, I am talking about areas that receive direct sunlight.
However, my interest is more in the cost/benefit analysis discussion.
Entropic,
Read the executive summary and will get into the details later when I have time. Appreciate the link. What I will be looking for is related to the list I provided.
Based on data I have reviewed, we will maximize average temperature within the next 10,000 years. And we are currently about 1.5C below where we should be if we had continued pre-Holocene trends.
I will want to see if they considered the sustainability of the solution and the reasonableness of their assumptions. It may take a while.
One thing is for sure, we can disable every vehicle, shut down every factory and kill every human being and it won’t stop the natural cycles evident in the proxy’s for the past billing years. So when evidence is presented that says we can stop or even reverse temperature increase, I have to really get into the details, that would be amazing.
Yes, added CO2 does “screen out” (Billy Bob term) some of the solar SW increasing global upper troposphere global median temperatures (thus LW down) but the main effect is the “screen out” of earthshine LW where humans live near the surface increasing near surface global median temperature over climate timeframes. The more common terms are increase in atm. opacity and reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at TOA.
There are no local areas that maintain increased CO2 ppm on climate timeframes as added CO2 is quickly well mixed in the windy atm.
Also, economies constantly change a lot over climate timeframes so any interest you have in the economics has to include those non-CO2, non-climate changes like added construction along the shore, natural subsidence & due ground water use, inflation, so forth.
Ball4 says:
Not if the something is observed clear like CO2 gas at lab STP. And the global lunar albedo & regolith emissivity does have something to do with your comparing differences in earth thermometer & moon brightness temperatures.
=====================
LOL!
Link to a study please Ball4. 14 years experience building stuff tells me that if you put something diffusive between a ceiling and a floor the best you can do is make Tmax cooler and Tmin higher.
Your closed bulding experience should have taught you with your usual building furnace & A/C set to 72F, then Tmin and Tmax will remain the same.
Who said it was all closed building experience? Making stuff up again?
In the 70’s I was building custom greenhouses in Oregon for cannabis cultivation. They always included venting so as to control the temperature in the greenhouse. They weren’t closed structures they had the ability to be closed.
Then the ventilation & windiness will determine Tmin Tmax daily not your diffusive device. Come up with a test for something which is observed clear like CO2 gas at lab STP in a closed container with steady IR source shining through it and a thermometer in the gas.
Ball4 says:
”Then the ventilation & windiness will determine Tmin Tmax daily not your diffusive device. ”
The wind isn’t necessary at all. Wind can play with you or against you so generally you design for no wind and design it in a way to to minimize or control the effect of wind.
“Based on data I have reviewed, we will maximize average temperature within the next 10,000 years. And we are currently about 1.5C below where we should be if we had continued pre-Holocene trends.”
Huh? What pre-Holocene trends you talkin bout?
Nate you asked about what trends. Links are below.
Ice core data and sediment both show approximately 10C change for previous lows to peaks over approximately 20,000 year time frame, followed by cooling. 10,000 year before Holocene matches previous trends, but Holocene itself is different, we flatten out before reaching peak.
We have not reached previous peaks and we should expect temperatures to continue to rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#/media/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Billy Bob,
Your graphs are too coarse in time to see the millennial trends in.
We have already reached the Holocene temperature peak (Climate Optimum) several thousand years ago. We have since been on a long slow cooling trend, interrupted by the warming of the last century or so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
“The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP.”
Those plots are also only for Vostok. We know from Greenland ice cores that the NH and SH temperatures often see-saw.
BTW it is this sleight of hand that is employed to say that CO2 lagged temperature during the Quaternary Period. In reality CO2 lags temperature in the SH and leads temperature in the NH. During the last glacial cycle CO2 actually lead temperature on a global scale. See Shakun et al 2012 for details.
In truth about the only thing compelling about the ice core record is the fact that natural variation is extremely robust and 2 degree shifts in temperature are very common, 4 degree shifts less common, and 6 degree shifts even less common.
Nate on my graphs being course.
These are not my graphs, but proxy reconstructions using sediment cores and ice cores. Yes they are course, I would estimate plus/minus 1C would be conservative based on comparing proxy to more resent instrument data. So maybe I should have said we are 0.5C to 2.5C below where we should be given the proxy record of the past.
Also, given that sea level is a good proxy for global average temperature your suggestion that we hit peak temperatures does not make sense. We have adequate geological evidence suggesting much higher sea level in the past than current levels.
bdgwx says BTW it is this sleight of hand that is employed to say that CO2 lagged temperature during the Quaternary Period.
Actually, it is sleight of hand to say I said that. What I said was CO2 increased at the peak even though temperatures were decreasing. I never had any issue with CO2 having the effect of raising Tmin, especially in higher latitudes causing Tavg to increase. My point has always been it does little to Tmax in lower latitudes and this is very important in instrument records that date back to 1900.
Billy Bod, Sorry, I wasn’t trying to say that you said that CO2 lags temperature. I was only saying as a separate line of thought that in general the blogosphere tells their audience that CO2 always lags temperature, but they don’t tell their audience about the nuances between NH and SH differences.
Entropic
Oh for the good old days of the depths of the LIA.
All these dreadful things that afflict us today just did not happen in the past. It’s all that CO2 you know. The high priests tell us to drop CO2 and we get rid of fires, the dams will fill just to the right level, no more tornadoes/cyclones, food will be in abundance, crops never fail, never an adverse weather event, dust bowls never to be seen.
Why there were even nice ice skating Fairs on the Thames – all free.
Dictators, revolutions, massacres and Black Deaths never happened.
Yeah we could even dismiss the starvation of millions under Mao or Marie Antoinettes cake eating edict or Irish famines. Why there will be lots of manna from heaven.
Such indescribable bliss!
Where is that Milton? A new epic poem awaits to be told. Never mind, Entropic Man drunk with entropy pills will lead us to Paradiso.
“Entropic Man drunk with entropy pills will lead us to Paradiso.”
I don’t know what it is about this site. The climate change sceptics are so quick to insult their debating opponents.
Back when I judged debates it was usual to downpoint anyone resorting to insult on the grounds that it meant that they had run out of valid arguments.
Probably not a bad strategy if you have hard time identifying a valid argument.
Look to what you wrote before you add another complaint to your list.
Yep there is no doubt these are the good times. When I think of what my grandfather’s and my father went through we really have it sweet.
When I hear proponents lamenting CO2 and blaming it for being the control knob it has merely increased my appreciation for the gas.
Ent, your list: “Flooded coastlines, extreme weather, unstable jetstreams, drought, flooding, shifting biomes, spreading disease, crop failures, local populations killing each other over inadequate food supplies or trying to migrate to countries that won’t let them in.” sounds exactly like a book I recently read about the mini ice age.
Title: ‘The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300 – 1850’ Brian Fagan
It would seem warmer temperatures leads to fewer, not more, climate catastrophes.
Not fewer catastrophes, just different ones.
Ent says: Not fewer catastrophes, just different ones.
Up to you to show data that indicates that there are different catastrophes, and that they are worse or more intense than have occurred in the recent geological record.
Good luck; that data doesn’t exist.
Keep in mind ice core data shows it was warmer than it is now for most of the past 10000 years.
The only looming climate crisis is that some evidence suggests we are in for another cool cycle with attendant problems that occurred during mini ice age such as wild weather and shorter growing season leading to unreliable crops.
It’s a bit early to point to climate catastrophes, though those who have recently experienced extreme weather may disagree.
There are harbingers. For example, the creeping sea level change which will eventually make southern Florida uninhabitable.
https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/florida-flooding-miami/
EM, sealevel has been creeping up for 15 thousand years most of the time faster than today.
I live on the shore and have all my life. You are just an unfortunate victim of propaganda and in fact missing out on all the benefits of living at the shore.
Florida is sinking because of the weight of the condos.
It already was a brackish swamp before anyone invented air conditioning and made it possible to live there.
People are still building condos on the waterfront so they must know something about sea levels rising at 1.8 mm per year isn’t really a crisis.
About 6000 years ago sea levels were as much as a meter higher.
See Battle of Thermopylae. The battle was fought over a strip of land 100 meters wide. That strip of land is now over a kilometer wide and its mostly due to sea level dropping. Where did all the water go?
Stands to reason that if the continents are rebounding from the weight of the ice so too must the sea bottom be pushed down from the added weight of the water.
Ken says:
Florida is sinking because of the weight of the condos.
It already was a brackish swamp before anyone invented air conditioning and made it possible to live there.
People are still building condos on the waterfront so they must know something about sea levels rising at 1.8 mm per year isnt really a crisis.
===============================
Exactly! And thats not likely to change anytime soon. Look at New Orleans. Experts have measured the rate its actually sinking at 10mm per year. Its already 3 meters below sea level. And what are they doing there? Building new stuff like crazy.
No bdgwx I am not confusing you with somebody else. I may be confused about your position though. So to clarify:
1)DREMTS test: If you agree that the moon rotates about an external orbital axis then you tacitly agree that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left” and are thus a “Non-Spinner”.
Most folks are trying to characterize an orbit as a translation without rotation. If you accept an orbit as a rotation then you need to recognize that the model is in compliance with Newton’s 2nd Law on rotation.
So if you are not a non-spinner per DREMTS test, then what I asked you to do was roughly explain the possible sources of F for the rotation around the moon’s COM. Found it Newtons 2nd Law of Rotation:
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
By roughly I mean classes of sources, like a pre-orbit rotation. . . .and while I understand you might not be sure of the answer perhaps you could provide the answer you lean towards that forms the basis of your spinner position and a little rationalization of why you think that might be the most likely answer.
I just find the argument that Newton once committed a common grammatical error as a substitute for a physics argument to be totally without merit. One can admire and adore Newton but to do so to that degree sort of is a fallacy don’t you think, like in an appeal to authority?
I responded above. But if you want to continue the conservation here that’s fine.
bill said: bdgwx a rather vanilla explanation that reeks of being arbitrary.
I can do my best to fill in details. Do you have specific questions?
bill said: The most direct way to calculate angular momentum in the earth/moon relationship is to do it essentially the same way as you would do a ring rotating around the earth and reducing it down to a sphere that represents the moon.
Hmm…I think it is best to treat the Moon like a point mass and use the formula I = m*r^2 for moment of inertia. This yields I = 7.35e22 kg * (3.85e8 m)^2 = 1.09e40 kg.m^2. Then for angular momentum we have L = I*w = 1.09e40 kg.m^2 * 2.66e-6 rad/s = 2.90e34 kg.m^2/s. This is the angular momentum in the reference frame where radius r=0 goes the COG of the Earth-Moon system and angle a=0 radial line points at a distant star. Scientists call this is the “orbital angular momentum”.
bill said: This calculation would incorporate all the existing angular momentum for the moon on the left.
No. The moon on the left in the gif (https://tinyurl.com/xepae3ds) also has “rotational angular momentum”. The best way to calculate this is to use I = 0.4*m*r^2 for the momentum of inertia for a sphere. This yields I = 0.4 * 7.35e22 * (1.74e6 m)^2 = 8.90e34 kg.m^2. Then for angular momentum we have L = I*w = 8.90e34 kg.m^2 * 2.66e-6 rad/s = 2.38e29 kg.m^2/s. Scientists call this the “rotational angular momentum”.
bill said: You desire then to calculate angular momentum in the moon on the left in the frame where you are not looking at the orbit.
No, sorry. That is not correct. As you can see I quite explicitly calculated “orbital angular momentum” above for the Moon on the left.
bill said: So in effect this angular momentum doesnt exist independent of the orbit. Its an issue of dependent and independent motions as I have pointed out many times over the course of these threads.
Nobody is challenging the fact that if one of these angular momentum values change then the other will as well. The reason is because they are physically constrained by the configuration of the Earth-Moon system.
bill said: There are real differences here as I pointed out they almost always entail 2 non-parallel axes. It would only be by extraordinary coincidence that they would always be parallel from any view.
I’m not sure what you mean here. The Moon’s tilt on its own axis is 6.7 degress. The orbital axis and the rotational axis are obviously not parallel.
bill said: Such a calculation might be useful but I am not sure why. Of course it seems more likely that one would want to calculate the force necessary to overcome the rigidity of the system.
Both calculations are useful.
bill said: Seems to me that the non-spinner point of view is far more practical conceptually.
No. That point of view does not help you explain the day/night cycle or the reason why the stars return to the same spot in the sky on a cycle.
bill said: Generally speaking it seems creating other frames of reference are for the purpose of making calculations easier while ignoring total system complexity.
Quite the contrary. The calculations are harder and better represent the complexity of the motions involved.
bill said: Thus it certainly seems a more practical way to look at the system
I don’t think a viewpoint that is incapable of explaining simple properties of orbiting bodies like the day/night cycle is going to be as practical as one that can explain that fact.
You misunderstand, bdgwx. You think that the “moon on the right” represents “orbital motion without axial rotation”, and that this motion is best described as curvilinear translation in a circle. Both of these things you have agreed elsewhere, so there is no backing away from it now. Thus, you do not think the moon is rotating about an external axis. You think it is translating in a circle/ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis. You do not get to have it both ways.
Sorry bdgwx. Like most of your nonsense, you may have the math correct (I didn’t check your figures), but your physics is screwed up.
Moon has zero rotational angular momentum and zero orbital angular momentum. If gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would go off into space, without any rotation. Gravity does NOT provide a link for angular momentum.
Has your only exposure to orbital motions been from your astrologist? You might want to switch to an ouija board….
If gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would go off into space, without any rotation in the accelerated frame. Another miss by Clint R.
I hope Troll4 never gets tired of sniffing up my butt. His nonsense always encourages me that I’m right on target.
ClintR said: If gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would go off into space, without any rotation.
Not according to the law of conservation of angular momentum which is valid for all inertial frames. It’s angular momentum about its own axis in the inertial frame is 2.38e29 kg.m^2/s. Let’s assume the gravity from the Sun and Moon are turned off such that Moon begins the straight inertial trajectory off into space. The Moon will still be cohesive and most conserve its angular momentum. Since there is no obvious reason why the Moon’s mass would spread out we hold it’s moment of inertia (I) constant. So if angular momentum (L) and moment of inertia (I) are constant then it follows that angular velocity (w) most remain unchanged at 2.66e-6 rad/s as well. Therefore the Moon will continue to rotate on its own axis wrt to the stars. That’s just the way the math works out.
If gravity were turned off, the Earth-Moon total angular momentum would remain the same. Earth still has its, and Moon still has zero. Just as before gravity was turned off. Conservation of momentum is maintained.
Again, you don’t understand the physics involved, bdgwx. You know how to use a keyboard, but that’s it.
What do you think the Earth-Moon total angular momentum is?
It’s whatever Earth’s is. Moon has zero angular momentum.
Can you show your work? I’d like to review it.
bdgwx fervently believes in an angular momentum on the moon’s COM that he has no description for how it arose. Sort of like a belief in unidentified flying saucers filled with alien life forms.
Moon’s orbital and spin angular momentum is primordial bill, or perhaps you were around then to fill us in.
bill said: bdgwx fervently believes in an angular momentum on the moons COM that he has no description for how it arose.
The cool thing about L=Iw is that it does not require me to have knowledge about how I and w came to be. The only thing required is to be able to measure them now.
And I agree with Ball4. Both its rotational angular momentum and its orbital angular momentum have primordial roots.
Ball4 says:
Moons orbital and spin angular momentum is primordial bill, or perhaps you were around then to fill us in.
==============================
the moon only has orbital angular momentum. If it had spin angular momentum odds are astronomical that it would be on an axis pointed at a different star.
bill, there is no lunar spin angular momentum observed in the accelerated frame becasue the frame itself is spinning; the lunar day/night cycle shows the moon has spin angular momentum in the inertial frame in addition to orbital angular momentum.
bill,
The Moon has spin or rotational angular momentum about its own axis. Here is how you calculate it.
The reference frame is rotational with polar coordinates where radius r=0 goes the COM and angle a=0 radial line points to a distant star.
In this frame observations show that points on the surface of the Moon return their same orientation wrt to the distant stars every 655.728 hours. This is an angular velocity of w = 2pi / (655.728 * 3600) = 2.66e-6 rad/s.
The Moon’s mass is 7.35e22 kg.
The Moon’s radius is 1.737e6 m.
The Moon is spherical in shape (mostly). Therefore we can use I = 2/5*M*R^2 for the moment of inertia and get I = 0.4 * 7.35e22 kg * (1.737e6 m)^2 = 8.87e34 kg.m^2.
And now that we have angular velocity (w) and moment of inertia (I) we can calculate angular momentum as L = I * w = 8.87e34 kg * 2.66e-6 rad/s = 2.35 kg.m^2/s.
What specifically are you challenging here?
I have explained, about twenty times now, exactly what is being challenged. The problem is, you do not listen to what anyone else has to say.
“In this frame observations show that points on the surface of the Moon return their same orientation wrt to the distant stars every 655.728 hours”
…because the moon is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, regardless of reference frame. You are mistaking the change in orientation that the moon makes due to its orbital motion, for axial rotation.
How does that change the calculation DREMT?
Sigh.
The challenge by bill is that the Moon does not have angular momentum on its own axis. My calculation shows that it does. If you disagree with me, NASA, and scientists around the world and agree with bill then just show the calculation in which you get 0 kg.m^2/s. What is wrong with doing so now?
There is nothing wrong with your math. It is the physics that is wrong. This is the simplest debate that there has ever been on this blog, so nobody needs to be calculating anything.
A ball on a string has one axis of rotation, at the center of revolution. Do you understand that?
If there is nothing wrong with my math then the Moon’s angular momentum on its own axis is 2.35e29 kg.m^2/s. That is a lot more than zero and makes bill’s argument wrong.
And note that the Moon’s angular momentum on the Earth-Moon barycenter axis or in any other frame is irrelevant as is questions relating to a ball on a string.
Errata…My post at 8:28 had L = 2.35 kg.m^2/s. That should have said 2.35e29 kg.m^2/s.
See? You do not listen.
My math includes the physics. The physics being that of angular momentum which is stated mathematically as L=Iw which is valid for any rotationally inertial reference frame. And for momentum of inertia I used I = 2/5MR^2.
A ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, at the center of revolution. Your math and physics doesn’t pay any attention to that fact. You mistake the change in orientation the ball makes due to its orbital motion, for axial rotation. I can’t make it any simpler. You can’t try to obfuscate any more than you are already.
A ball on a string is completely irrelevant. We’re talking about the Moon’s angular momentum on its own axis here. If you want to analyze a ball on a string that is fine. Start a new line of discussion. I’ll be happy to calculate the angular momentum or any other quantity in any frame you want. The Moon still has 2.35e39 kg.m^2/s of angular momentum about its own axis. That means bill’s statement that it is zero is wrong.
You’re wrong. I’m right.
Tesla proved you are wrong DREMT, go argue with Tesla’s formulas for E and spinning E.
A ball on a string has one axis of rotation, at the center of revolution because the ball is attached to the spinning string while the ball has spin and orbital angular momentum as shown by Tesla’s formula for inertial rotational E with two radii.
I’m right.
Just so I’m clear…you’re still insisting that the Moon has zero angular momentum in an inertial frame about its own axis?
Shut up.
What DREMT said and:
bdgwx says:
Im not sure what you mean here. The Moons tilt on its own axis is 6.7 degress. The orbital axis and the rotational axis are obviously not parallel.
======================
Thats because the angle of an orbital axis is determined by gravity (the string) in a two body problem, sun and earth, rather than simply the earth. The sun exerts 2.25 times the gravitational pull on the moon than the earth and the moon’s orbit pulls the moon out of alignment with the ecliptic (a straight line through the sun and earth).
bdgwx says:
bill said: Seems to me that the non-spinner point of view is far more practical conceptually.
No. That point of view does not help you explain the day/night cycle or the reason why the stars return to the same spot in the sky on a cycle.
——————
BS. Take some lessons in navigation.
bill said: Generally speaking it seems creating other frames of reference are for the purpose of making calculations easier while ignoring total system complexity.
Ignoring much of reality for shortcutting computations in navigation is a common practice. Today satellites are most often used for navigation as opposed to observations of the Sun and Polaris.
bill said: Thus it certainly seems a more practical way to look at the system
I dont think a viewpoint that is incapable of explaining simple properties of orbiting bodies like the day/night cycle is going to be as practical as one that can explain that fact.
——————
Still BS. Take some lessons in plotting and navigation. Probably has only one unique use like I said. A way to calculate the forces to put a spin on the moon.
I suspect a navigator though would elect your viewpoint for performing simplified calculations for just about everything related to independent lunar surface navigation. But establishing artificial baselines to simplify navigation has been done forever. Thats the purpose of longitude and latitude lines on a navigational chart. Today its becoming a lost art among sailors who switch on the electronic plotter and a blip shows up on a map. Click on the map where you want to go and it plots your course, monitors your speed and gives you an ETA. For pinpoint accuracy somebody might give you some coordinates to input or if you are already sitting on a spot and want to be able to get back to it you simply click it in as a favorite, give it name and your done.
DREMT said: Thus, you do not think our moon is rotating about an external axis.
I never said. In fact, I’ve said the opposite. I even calculated the angular momentum of the Moon about the external axis centered on the COG of the Earth-Moon system above. It is 2.90e34 kg.m^2/s. And it’s angular velocity about that axis is 2.66e-6 rad/s.
As I explained, you have already effectively argued that the moon is translating in a circle/ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis. You cannot then also say that the moon is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on its own axis.
DREMT said: you have already effectively argued that the moon is translating in a circle/ellipse
Well…yes and no. Though I’m not sure it is fair to say I’ve argued either way on that point…yet; mainly because I’ve been focused on rotational motions in reference frames with polar coordinates which is different from translation. The translational motion is actually kind of complicated and depends on reference frame. Normally you would you would use the (x,y) coordinate system for translational motion. The question is where you want anchor it. If anchored to the Earth it is circular (mostly). If anchored to the Sun it is cycloidal. If anchored to the Milky Way it is double periodic cycloidal. And so on. But yeah, in the Earth anchored frame it is circular (mostly) with a mean linear velocity 1.02 km/s tangent to its orbit.
DREMT said: whilst rotating on its own axis.
It is doing that too.
DREMT said: You cannot then also say that the moon is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on its own axis.
Sure I can. My justification for doing so is that the angular velocity in both reference frames or axis is non-zero.
You misunderstand, bdgwx. You think that the “moon on the right” represents “orbital motion without axial rotation”, and that this motion is best described as curvilinear translation in a circle. Both of these things you have agreed elsewhere, so there is no backing away from it now. I can provide the links to your comments, if necessary.
Since you have already effectively argued that the moon is translating in a circle/ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis, you cannot then also say that the moon is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on its own axis. The two are different motions! Translation is different to rotation.
Nah…I think I understand my own position. It’s probably better to let me explain it. Instead of making up a position I do not hold you should start with what I said first and then ask follow-up questions to fill in missing details or to clarify something.
Here is where you stated that the “moon on the right” is how you see “orbital motion without axial rotation”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-640163
…and here is where you agreed that “Spinners” would describe the motion of the “moon on the right” as curvilinear translation in a circle:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-636517
I don’t see any inconsistencies in either of those posts and what I just posted.
The Moon is translating. Every parcel on the Moon etches out a circle shape in a frame anchored to the Earth. Those parcels have velocities in that frame…different velocities for different parcels depending on how far from the center of the frame in fact.
The Moon is rotating about its own axis. Every parcel on the Moon returns to the same (r,a) coordinate after a period of time. It has angular velocity in that frame…the same angular velocity for all parcels in fact.
The Moon is rotating about the external axis that goes through the COG of the Earth-Moon system. Every parcel on the Moon returns to the same (r,a) coordinate after a period of time. It has angular velocity in that frame…the same angular velocity for all parcels in fact.
I don’t see any inconsistencies in either of those posts and what I just posted.
The Moon is translating. Every parcel on the Moon etches out a circle shape in a frame anchored to the Earth. Those parcels have velocities in that frame…different velocities for different parcels depending on how far from the center of the frame in fact.
The Moon is rotating about its own axis. Every parcel on the Moon returns to the same r,a coordinate after a period of time. It has angular velocity in that frame…the same angular velocity for all parcels in fact.
The Moon is rotating about the external axis that goes through the COG of the Earth-Moon system. Every parcel on the Moon returns to the same r,a coordinate after a period of time. It has angular velocity in that frame…the same angular velocity for all parcels in fact.
The inconsistency is as follows.
In the comment I linked to at 3:32 PM, you stated that the “moon on the right” is how you see “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
In the comment I linked to at 3:36 PM, you stated agreement that “Spinners” would describe the motion of the “moon on the right” as curvilinear translation in a circle.
Since you have thus already effectively argued that the moon is translating in a circle/ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis, you cannot then also say that the moon is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on its own axis. The two are different motions! Translation is different to rotation.
And yet…
The mean translational velocity of parcels on the Moon in an Earth anchored from is 1.02 km/s.
The angular velocity of parcels on the Moon on wrt to its own axis is 2.66e-6 rad/s.
The angular velocity of parcels on the Moon on wrt to the shared Earth-Moon barycenter is 2.66e-6 rad/s.
You cannot have angular velocity in a rotational frame without also having linear velocity in a translation frame for the same motion as vice-versa.
You can convert between the two via v = r*w. Watch what happens when we convert orbital angular velocity to orbital linear velocity. v = 3.85e6 m * 2.66e-6 rad/s = 1.02 km/s.
All 3 motions are clearly occurring. So yes, I can say that the Moon is rotating about both an internal and external axis while also translating in frame anchored to the Earth.
bdgwx…translation plus axial rotation does not equal rotation about an external axis plus axial rotation…because translation does not equal rotation. You have completely lost the plot.
I never said translation was equal to rotation.
What I said was You cannot have angular velocity in a rotational frame without also having linear velocity in a translation frame for the same motion as vice-versa. And that is a true statement because v = w*r.
“Curvilinear translation, in a circle/ellipse”, is a completely different and separate motion to “rotation about an external axis”.
bdgwx says:
”The Moon is translating. . . .
The Moon is rotating about the external axis that goes through the COG of the Earth-Moon system.”
Your argument is turning into a soup sandwich bdgwx
Yes bill. The Moon is translating in a translational reference frame and rotating in a rotational reference frame. There is nothing mysterious about this. If you want to switch between the two use L=r*p for angular/linear momentum and w=v/r for angular/linear velocity.
bdgwx, “Curvilinear translation, in a circle/ellipse”, is a completely different and separate motion to “rotation about an external axis”. Regardless of reference frame.
bdgwx says:
The Moon is translating.
=============================
bdgwx calls bunk on Newton’s 2nd Law of Rotation!
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
bill said: bdgwx calls bunk on Newtons 2nd Law of Rotation!
I’ve done no such that thing. Your own article agrees with me. The whole point of that article is converting the translational perspective into a rotational perspective. It even starts with the translation formulation of F=ma and shows you step by step how to convert that into the rotational formulation of T=Ia.
Since you have already effectively argued that the moon is translating in a circle/ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis, you cannot then also say that the moon is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on its own axis. The two are completely different motions! Curvilinear translation in a circle/ellipse is a completely different and separate motion to rotation about an external axis. In fact if you read Madhavi, it warns you specifically not to conflate the two.
I will keep repeating this for as long as is necessary, since I know I am correct.
Yep bdgwx is being evasive. he both believes it rotating and translating at the same time. Dr. Madhavi specifically cautions against such errors.
Sure. If you use Dr. Madhavi’s strict definition the Moon is NOT exhibiting curvilinear translation in its orbit because straight lines inside the Moon are changing directions. I will definitely concede that point.
What I’m saying is that you cannot have angular momentum without also having linear momentum. If I have used terminology that has confused the discussion then shame on me. But that in no way takes away from the fact that the Moon definitely has a linear momentum value AND an angular momentum value which can describe its motion in an inertial frame anchored to the Earth-Moon barycenter.
So how about this…instead of me saying the Moon is translating in its orbit in the declared frame I say it has linear velocity and momentum in this frame. Is that agreeable?
No, bdgwx. You do not get it.
Since you have already effectively argued that the moon is translating in a circle/ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis, you cannot then also say that the moon is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on its own axis. The two are completely different motions! Curvilinear translation in a circle/ellipse is a completely different and separate motion to rotation about an external axis. In fact if you read Madhavi, it warns you specifically not to conflate the two.
I will keep repeating this for as long as is necessary, since I know I am correct.
Oh, and don’t hear what I didn’t say. I didn’t say that the Moon has zero spin angular momentum on its own axis. It still does.
What I am conceding is the misuse of common jargon to explain motion. Shame on me for sure. I should be more careful. Let it be known that I am more than willing to admit my mistakes and take special care that I do not repeat. Again…curvilinear translation is strictly defined as motion in which straight lines within a body do not change direction. Therefore the Moon’s motion in its orbit is NOT curvilinear translation per Dr. Madhavi’s definition which I am more than willing to accept because it is adopted widely.
No, bdgwx. You still do not get it.
Since you have already effectively argued that the moon is translating in a circle/ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis, you cannot then also say that the moon is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on its own axis. The two are completely different motions! Curvilinear translation in a circle/ellipse is a completely different and separate motion to rotation about an external axis. In fact if you read Madhavi, it warns you specifically not to conflate the two.
I will keep repeating this for as long as is necessary, since I know I am correct.
DREMT said: Since you have already effectively argued that the moon is translating in a circle/ellipse,
I think I made a bad argument there. Dr. Madhavi defines translation as motion in which any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion. So using that definition my argument is wrong.
What I should have said instead was the Moon has linear velocity and momentum in its circular orbit.
DREMT said: you cannot then also say that the moon is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on its own axis.
Yes I can. The Moon as angular velocity/momentum about both of these axis. Therefore the Moon is rotating about both of them. Now if you can show that the angular velocity/momentum about its own axis in an inertial frame is zero then I will concede. Can you post your calculation?
No, bdgwx. You still do not get it. Stop quote-mining.
Since you have already effectively argued that the moon is translating in a circle/ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis, you cannot then also say that the moon is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on its own axis. The two are completely different motions! Curvilinear translation in a circle/ellipse is a completely different and separate motion to rotation about an external axis. In fact if you read Madhavi, it warns you specifically not to conflate the two.
I will keep repeating this for as long as is necessary, since I know I am correct.
DREMT said: Since you have already effectively argued that the moon is translating in a circle/ellipse
I did originally agree to question of whether the Moon had curvilinear translation. I was wrong about that…100%. That is totally and entirely a mistake on my part. I am owning that one…100%. I’ll repeat the Moon does NOT exhibit curvilinear translation in its orbit. My bad. I definitely concede that I was wrong to agree to that.
What I should have said is that Moon has linear velocity/momentum in its orbit. I should not have tried to imply that linear velocity/momentum is the same thing as translation. I just hope that I have not confused any lurker with my misuse of terms. If I could go back and fix it I would, but I can’t. So the next best thing for me to do is to admit that I was wrong on that point, correct it, and never repeat that mistake.
Is there something more that you think I should do here to resolve this mistake?
DREMT said: Curvilinear translation in a circle/ellipse is a completely different and separate motion to rotation about an external axis.
Agreed. Curvilinear translation is a completely separate kind of motion that is not the same as rotation about an external axis. The Moon has rotation about an external axis, but not curvilinear translation or translation of any kind per the definition from Dr. Madhavi.
DREMT said: you cannot then also say that the moon is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on its own axis.
Not only can I, but I still am. And I’m doing so by showing that Moon has angular velocity/momentum wrt to BOTH axis in an inertial reference frame. And if a body has angular velocity/momentum on an axis then it is rotating on that axis. NASA, JAXA, ESA, every scientist, physicist, and educator in the world all accept this definition and accept the results of it. The Moon is rotating on its own axis. You can keep saying the same thing over and over again all you want. That won’t change the fact that Moon does, in fact, have angular velocity/momentum and rotates in BOTH frames. You are NOT right about this.
DREMT: “Curvilinear translation in a circle/ellipse is a completely different and separate motion to rotation about an external axis. In fact if you read Madhavi, it warns you specifically not to conflate the two.”
Wonder of wonders.
Now if only DREMT could stop conflating ORBITING with Rotation about an external axis.
“Agreed. Curvilinear translation is a completely separate kind of motion that is not the same as rotation about an external axis. The Moon has rotation about an external axis, but not curvilinear translation or translation of any kind per the definition from Dr. Madhavi.”
For the record, BDGWX, Curvilinear translation on an elliptical path is the definition of an ORBIT.
The Moon is in an Orbit. It ALSO has rotation around its COM.
Thus it is best described as Orbiting (Translating) and Rotating on its axis. That is how Astronomy describes it.
I think the confusion arises from tracking the trajectory of an object in orbit. The trajectory is the path of its COM.
If an object is in a circular orbit, then the path of its COM could be described as a ROTATION around the center of the Orbit. But the Body is not in a rotation around the orbit center.
Nate,
I didn’t know until yesterday that curvilinear translation has a specific meaning. Specifically it means curved motion without a change in orientation of the body. That definition has wide acceptance. And since the Moon is rotating on its own axis and changing orientation it does not technically exhibit curvilinear translation.
“since the Moon is rotating on its own axis and changing orientation it does not technically exhibit curvilinear translation.”
Sure.
But if we want to describe it as ‘Orbiting and rotating on its own axis’, then the ‘Orbiting’ portion is curvilinear translation.
bdgwx says:
March 25, 2021 at 8:40 AM
”Nate,
I didn’t know until yesterday that curvilinear translation has a specific meaning. Specifically it means curved motion without a change in orientation of the body. That definition has wide acceptance. And since the Moon is rotating on its own axis and changing orientation it does not technically exhibit curvilinear translation.”
Yikes. 3 hours later you said that the moon was in curvilinear translation around the earth; presumably to DREMT whom you were exchanging comments with and you realized the day before that was wrong?
What are you doing? Changing your mind every few minutes?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-644721
DREMT asked me if the Moon exhibits curvilinear translation. I answer NO to that question. I’m not sure what you think the discrepancy is there.
Now I will say that when asked previously I answered yes. That was before I realized that the definition strictly forbids changes in orientation of the body. I didn’t realization that clause was in the definition before. But I do now. And since the definition is widely accepted I am more than amenable to accepting as-is too. I recommend else here do as well because that is the best way to avoid confusion.
bdgwx says:
DREMT asked me if the Moon exhibits curvilinear translation. I answer NO to that question. I’m not sure what you think the discrepancy is there.
Now I will say that when asked previously I answered yes. That was before I realized that the definition strictly forbids changes in orientation of the body. I didn’t realization that clause was in the definition before. But I do now. And since the definition is widely accepted I am more than amenable to accepting as-is too. I recommend else here do as well because that is the best way to avoid confusion.
=======================================
I am fine with how you might want to divvy things up. I am mostly interested in the physical/mathematical implications.
So if you can focus on Nate’s L = Lorb + Lspin.
I would suggest modifying it by specifying L as Lsys to account for all angular momentum in a planet/moon system.
And then I would suggest the correct equations is Lsys = Lorb + Lspin*(Siderealspins-1)
that should be clear. If you object to that then you need to identify what Lorb is.
“And then I would suggest the correct equations is Lsys = Lorb + Lspin*(Siderealspins-1)”
Dare we ask why?
Sure Nate. Very easy.
The formula for Lorb that you and others have been tossing around is derived from N2LR which is the rotation of a rigid object on any axis. that would include all the rotational motions of a tidal locked moon.
If you want to change the L calculated from that. . . .one cannot just subtract angular momentum. Thats because angular momentum is a pseudovector.
You must find a polar vector in the opposite direction that works off the same axis to overcome the polar vector of F(gravitational friction) to put the moon into the zone where you and others consider it as having no spin.
this scheme was originally invented by Newton in N2LR a rotation of a rigid form on an axis (internal or external).
an interesting factoid consistent with the above is that it doesn’t make a difference which direction spinangular momentum exists. Any such Lspin existing in the either the earth or the moon that an effective F value from gravitational resistance reduces the Lspin that Lspin will become incorporated as part of Lorb, increasing it by increasing the r value.
Thus the only way you can justify an Lspin value in a tidal locked moon is via a non-conventional calculation of Lorb. And the only way you can create Lspin is by finding a polar vector of F to counteract gravitational friction.
If I didn’t screw up any of the logic above I think I am in compliance with DREMT’s position which is the official non-spinner position.
Bill, this makes little sense to me. How does any of that get you your proposed new L equation?
As you saw the L =Lorb + Lspin is widely accepted as the correct eqn, and used.
I still think you are missing the boat on N2LR.
Again, the Moon has angular momentum, spin and orbital. It has had the same amount since modern humans appeared on Earth. It requires no force to keep that going, to keep angular momentum constant. Thus N2LR doesnt need to assist.
Now its precession is a different story. The sun’s gravity provides torque that causes precession of the spin, and orbit, via N2LR.
No, bdgwx. You still do not get it. Stop quote-mining. You keep cutting out part of my sentence. I am not saying that you have argued the moon is just translating. You have argued that the moon is translating plus rotating on its own axis.
Since you have already effectively argued that the moon is translating in a circle/ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis, you cannot then also say that the moon is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on its own axis. The two are completely different motions! Curvilinear translation in a circle/ellipse is a completely different and separate motion to rotation about an external axis. In fact if you read Madhavi, it warns you specifically not to conflate the two.
I will keep repeating this for as long as is necessary, since I know I am correct.
To prove DREMT wrong, Tesla actually wrote out the formulas for inertial rotational E and spinning frame E. Go argue with those physics formulas; DREMT will lose that debate too.
I’m right.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-644450
Global warming farce
https://youtu.be/pW16LGVPfIc
Cool fronts from the south along with La Nina bring heavy downpours to eastern Australia.
https://www.accuweather.com/pl/au/sydney/22889/weather-radar/22889
This moon issue seems very simple to me. The primary effect causing the moon to rotate is the centripetal force caused by the acceleration of gravity from the earth. If the earth’s gravity is suddenly turned off, the moon’s inertia will send it off in a rotation about the sun, not in a straight line. Then, you people will have to argue whether that circular motion is a rotation or not.
Earth’s gravitational interaction with the Moon is actually causing it to slow down both in terms of its orbital angular velocity about the shared Earth-Moon barycenter and its rotational angular velocity about its own axis.
You are right about it continuing around the Sun. It would certainly do that. I doubt you’ll get many challengers there.
The question though…what will the Moon’s angular velocity be on its own axis wrt to the Sun or the distant stars in such a scenario?
I realize now that the problem can be further simplified. If all gravity in the solar system is suddenly and simultaneously turned off, then the moon does go into a straight-line motion with zero rotation barring some kind of outside influence from space aliens or something such as that.
Not according to the law of conservation of angular momentum which states that L = I*w in all inertial frames where L is angular momentum, I is moment of inertia, and w is angular velocity. If all gravity in the solar system except for that which keeps the Moon cohesive turns off then L and I will remain unchanged which means that w=2.66e-6 rad/s must remain unchanged as well. Now if you want to turn off the gravity holding the Moon together than we’ll have to analyze that separately.
BTW…this is a good video that shows the law of conservation of angular momentum in action. Each piece of the record has its own corresponding angular momentum about its center of mass. As the record dissociates each piece conserves that angular momentum and continue to rotate as it flies off in a straight line.
https://youtu.be/n-DTjpde9-0?t=360
That’s right, folks…bdgwx believes that the pieces of the record are rotating on their own axes before disintegration!
bdgwx, that video proves you don’t understand orbital motion OR angular momentum.
You better get a new ouija board. It’s not working any better than your astrologist.
DREMT, That’s right. I make that assessment because “rotation about its own axis” for me , scientists all over the world, and pretty much everyone else is the state in which angular velocity is non-zero in a frame where radius r=0 goes the object’s center of mass and angle a=0 radial line points to a distant object/feature.
ClintR, the video proves that angular momentum is conserved in inertial frames. If a body has angular momentum about its center of mass when it is confined/constrained to an larger body then it will continue to conserve its angular momentum when it is no longer confined/constrained to the larger body. And just like the record in the video if you break the constrain between the Moon and Earth the Moon will continue to conserve its angular momentum and thus its angular velocity and rotation about its own axis since its moment of inertia is static.
Tim S, you can either believe the laws of physics as adopted by scientists at NASA, JAXA, ESA, college and high school educators, and pretty much everyone else in the world or the misguided opinions of a few contrarians on this blog. Which one do you think is closer to the truth?
That’s right, folks…DREMT and Clint R believe that the pieces of the record are not rotating on their own axes before disintegration so that after disintegration the record pieces are now observed rotating on their own axes with energy created out of…nothing!
Pity the professor trying to teach poor DREMT and Clint R about orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum. Oh, and conservation of energy along with reference frames in field of relativity.
You know as an incoming college freshman gathered at orientation and the speaker saying the people on your right and your left will not be there on graduation day. Well, now I know they were Clint R and DREMT.
bdgwx, since you seem to like algebra, here’s one for you:
A moon, mass = m, is traveling through space with no axial rotation. It has the perfect speed, v, to go into orbit about a large planet, at a distance r.
What is the moon’s angular momentum around the planet?
"DREMT, That’s right. I make that assessment because “rotation about its own axis” for me , scientists all over the world, and pretty much everyone else is the state in which angular velocity is non-zero in a frame where radius r=0 goes the object’s center of mass and angle a=0 radial line points to a distant object/feature."
For the seventeenth time, you are calculating angular velocity here because you are observing that the same point on the surface of the object (piece of record) starts and returns to the a=0 radial line. But it does so because the object (piece of record) is rotating about the center of the record, not on its own axis. Prior to disintegration, all pieces of the record are simply rotating about an axis in the center of the record, and not on their own axes.
ClintR, The planets orbital angular momentum is L = m * r^2 * (v/r). Note that it does not matter if the planet is rotating on its own axis or not.
DREMT, it doesn’t matter why the angular velocity is what it is. The only thing that matters is that it has angular velocity. If it has non-zero angular velocity then it is rotating. It is that simple.
It is not rotating on its own axis, as I just explained. All pieces of the record, prior to disintegration, are rotating about an axis in the center of the record, not on their own axes. So simple, yet apparently so impossible for you to understand.
bdgwx, the moon had zero angular momentum before. But your “algebra” created angular momentum from nothing.
That ain’t physics, or science, or reality.
A moon, mass = m, is traveling through space with no axial rotation. It has the perfect speed, v, to go into orbit about a large planet, at a distance r.
What is the moons angular momentum around the planet?
Angular momentum is given by the cross product.
L = r x p
where p = mv = the linear momentum and r is the vector from the chosen origin to the object. From the nature of the cross product, the magnitude of the angular momentum is m times v times the distance of closest approach.
Based on standard physics and your defined coordinates, the moon in question DID have an initial angular momentum of
L = mvr
Don’t ‘shoot the messenger’. Got read a physics textbook.
TF, you sound like Norman and bob. Telling me to learn physics when none of you idiots can never get it right. You’re crushed under a 5000# boulder, Norman smashed his had with a hammer, and bob believes 3 vectors make an orbit.
And now you don’t understand “conservation of momentum”.
This keeps getting funnier and funnier.
“your “algebra” created angular momentum from nothing.”
No, you gave the moon the perfect linear momentum with which to become the perfect orbital angular momentum to go into circular orbit around the planet at distance r. The moon never has any spin angular momentum so shows all sides to the planet but only one side to the planet’s sun for no day/night cycles since you started the problem with your moon having no spin angular momentum.
It is DREMT that creates spin angular momentum out of nothing humorously and falsely writing a claim the record pieces have no spin angular momentum before disintegration.
And notice that my formula above of L = m * r^2 * (v/r) reduces to L = m * v * r which itself reduces to L = r * p. In other words angular momentum is linear momentum times the radius. Like Tim said, the moon always had that amount of angular momentum and linear momentum.
The idiots believe rp = p.
That’s only true if r is unity.
But, at least they can use a keyboard.
Seriously? rp = p? That doesn’t even make any sense.
Correct bdgwx, your “physics” doesn’t make since. Seriously.
Angular momentum is not linear momentum. Your calculation creates angular momentum from nothing. Your algebra is correct, but your physics is wrong. The captured moon has no angular momentum. It only has the original linear momentum.
Our moon, only has linear momentum. It has neither orbital angular momentum nor spin angular momentum.
Now see if you can fully understand, and then explain it to the other idiots.
rp = p is yours and yours alone ClintR.
Yes, “rp = p” is my way of showing how wrong you are, bdgwx. As here: “The idiots believe rp = p.”
Linear momentum can not be converted to angular momentum, just because of algebra. You must understand the physics.
Because “rp = p is yours and yours alone Clint R” it is Clint R that believes rp always = p
After achieving escape velocity to moon Apollo 11 had mostly linear velocity which upon entering moon orbit most of that linear momentum converted to orbital angular momentum something that Clint R writes can’t be converted. Big red circle and -10 on that answer too Clint R, now along with an added note “See me” from your physics prof.
Thanks for that nonsense, Troll4.
It’s always nice to get the confirmation that I’m right on target.
bdgwx says:
”ClintR, the video proves that angular momentum is conserved in inertial frames.”
================================
the law of conservation does not specify where it has to exist before its conserved bdgwx. Newton’s 2nd Law of rotation clearly shows the rotation to be around the earth’s COM. You cannot describe the forces that explain your view of lunar spin. Nate tried and failed miserably. You must use the Newton diagram and show the unique force that exists off center on the moon to cause the moon to spin on its COM.
You can’t argue that because angular momentum might be conserved if gravity was switched off about where it existed before it was switched off.
Clearly objects can transfer represent forces that transfers movement to other objects. Your argument has only an emotional appeal to you and others but zero scientific validity.
If gravity was switched off I suspect would result in stuff you haven’t even imagined yet.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-642300
ClintR said: Yes, “rp = p” is my way of showing how wrong you are, bdgwx.
Neither I, Tim F, or Ball4 wrote “rp = p” or anything like it. That came entirely from you. And it is plain wrong. The units don’t even match.
ClintR said: Linear momentum can not be converted to angular momentum, just because of algebra.
Of course it can. The formula is L = rp = rmv. A body that has angular momentum in a rotational reference frame must have linear momentum in a translational reference frame and vice-versa.
Likewise a body A moving in a straight trajectory with linear momentum of Pa which hits another body B that is constrained such that it rotates when hit will acquire part of that Pa linear momentum such that dPa = dPb. And to see how much Lb changed you simply do dLb = dPb*r. In this manner momentum is conserved. Body A will slow down and body B will begin rotating faster. You can use L = rp to figure out how much faster body B will rotate.
bill said: the law of conservation does not specify where it has to exist before its conserved
Patently False. Conservations of momentum is conserved only in inertial reference frames.
bill said: Newtons 2nd Law of rotation clearly shows the rotation to be around the earths COM.
Yes, it does.
It also clearly shows rotation around the Moon’s COM as well.
bill said: You cannot describe the forces that explain your view of lunar spin.
Scientists already have a very good understanding of the forces in play. These wikipedia should help you get you started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
bill said: You must use the Newton diagram and show the unique force that exists off center on the moon to cause the moon to spin on its COM.
There is no force currently causing it to spin. In fact, the force in play is actually causing it to slow down.
bill said: You cant argue that because angular momentum might be conserved if gravity was switched off about where it existed before it was switched off.
The laws of physics say that you have to consider that dP = 0 for linear momentum or dL = 0 for angular momentum must be true for the entire system in inertial reference frames. That is not optional.
bill said: Clearly objects can transfer represent forces that transfers movement to other objects. Your argument has only an emotional appeal to you and others but zero scientific validity.
Emotions have nothing to do with it. Momentum is a conserved quantity in inertial reference frames. End of story.
bill said: If gravity was switched off I suspect would result in stuff you havent even imagined yet.
For sure. It is only a thought experiment.
Before the gravity turns off the surface of the Moon furthest from the Earth is moving faster relative to the inertial frame than the nearest surface.
When the gravity turns off, the Moon is no longer accelerated by the Earth and continues in a straight line.
What was the outer and inner surfaces retain their different velocities so the Moon continues to rotate once every 28 days relative to the rest of the universe.
Wrong Ent.
“If all gravity in the solar system is suddenly and simultaneously turned off, then the moon does go into a straight-line motion with zero rotation”
Nope. It still rotates once per month (27.3 days to be more precise). Any change in angular velocity (about any axis!) requires a torque. If you turn off all gravity, you turn off all force, and hence all torque. So it keeps rotating at its present rate.
People seem to think this idea can be decided by “debate” here. It can’t. It can only be decided by experiment. And no, it doesn’t have to involve the actual moon. Go do an actual experiment.
Either 400 years of scientists are right, or DREMT, Clint, etc are in line for a Nobel Prize for overturning established physics. Those are really the only two options.
“So it keeps rotating at its present rate.”
Moon’s present axial rotation rate is zero, units of your choice.
TF, your knowledge of physics is also zero.
Did you idiots all go to the same typing school?
The whole world’s knowledge of physics is zero, and we have Clint to explain it to us. Got it! Still waiting to hear the announcement from the Nobel Committee.
Too bad they don’t give out Nobels for typing, huh?
Tim, you have to realize Clint R really means the Moon’s present axial rotation rate is zero, units of your choice in the accelerated frame attached to our moon from which Clint R is observing no rotation on moon’s own axis. Note Clint R doesn’t ever mention the location of the observation.
He’s also careful to avoid including any calculations so that we can deduce his location of observation.
tim…”People seem to think this idea can be decided by debate here. It cant. It can only be decided by experiment. And no, it doesnt have to involve the actual moon. Go do an actual experiment”.
***
It’s been done Tim, the experiment, using two coins. Norman seems to be the only spinner who has tried it but he reached an erroneous conclusion.
You claimed the Moon is rotating once every 27+ days, so demonstrate that to yourself using two coins. Prove that you can keep the same side of one coin (marked for identification) pointed to the centre of a stationary coin while you move the marked coin around its perimeter, and, at the same time, rotate it once through 360 degrees about its own centre per orbit of the stationary coin.
You should be able to see the obvious immediately. In order for that mark to rotate through the 360 degrees required for one rotation, the mark on the coin must leave the surface of the stationary coin. It is not possible to do that while keeping the marked face pointed to the other coin.
Try it on a horizontal surface first. Hold the coin on edge with the mark against the surface. Try to move it on the surface while rotating the mark through 360 degrees. You have to roll it, right? The only way to keep the mark on the surface is to slide it. If you rotate it, the mark MUST eave the surface. If you slide it, the coin translates with rectilinear translation. If you roll it, the coin performs translation with rotation.
If that surface was flexible, and you rolled it into a cylinder, the same would apply. You would have to slide the coin around the cylindrical surface. Norman noted that you must also adjust the coin as you go, therefore he ruled that out. However, that’s how gravity acts on the Moon. It adjusts the Moon’s linear momentum into an orbit.
ball4 …”units of your choice in the accelerated frame”
You sound like a parrot…’accelerated frame’, ‘accelerated frame’, ‘accelerated frame’….squawk!!!
Either 400 years of scientists are right, or DREMT, Clint, etc are in line for a Nobel Prize for overturning established physics.
Tim,
You give them too much credit. They are just recycling century old Tesla hypotheses regarding the moon’s rotation (or lack thereof). None of their ideas are original. That’s why their physics is so poor.
StalkerGoneWeird, is the ball-on-a-string rotating about its axis?
No is isn’t! You must BELIEVE it is, to protect your false beliefs. You must find some way to pervert reality. So you come up with nonsense upon nonsense, trying to protect your cult.
But that simple analogy destroys all your nonsense.
Get a clue.
bdgwx says: “He’s also careful to avoid including any calculations so that we can deduce his location of observation.”
This is another example of them throwing something against the wall, hoping it will stick.
You want some “calculations”, bdgwx?
Okay, 2 + 2 = 4.
Happy? No, you’re not happy because you don’t like reality. In your world, 2 + 2 = anything you need it to equal to support your false beliefs.
One day, it’s 2 +2 = 759.32. The next day it’s 2 + 2 = 312.
One day it’s “two ice cubes make it warmer than one ice cube”. The next day it’s “jet airplanes fly backwards”.
You live in a cult mentality where you believe you can pervert reality to fit your cult beliefs.
Have you figured out v=rw yet, dumbass?
Troll SGW resorts to juvenile insults.
That, of course, amounts to his concession.
Gordon says things like:
must leave the surface …
move it on the surface …
against the surface…
There is no “surface”! The moon is not touching a ‘surface’. It is not ‘resting on a platform’. It is not rolling in contact with some other ‘coin’. All of these analogies are flawed.
Gravity supplies no torque on a uniform sphere. The proper analogy would be something more like this levitating globe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuMKwY1EZpk. (Idealized with no friction so it supplies no torque.)
Now imagine how THAT sphere will behave as you gently move the base various ways around the table top. Move it side to side. Or forward and back. Or around in circles. Or simply rotate the base underneath the globe. Or put it on a merry-go-round and start to turn the merry-go-round. If the globe is no rotating to begin with, then the side of the globe facing “north” will continue to face north. In all of these situations.
Now contemplate.
Calm down, Tim. There’s no need to start ranting and raving just because you lost an argument. The correct analogy for “orbital motion without axial rotation” is a ball on a string.
TF is unable to understand simple analogies. That’s why more complicated concepts are WAY beyond him.
But, he’s learning to use a keyboard….
….is a ball on a string observed from the spinning string frame as Tesla’s physics from Fig. 6 show.
OK, I am getting bored of being continuously misrepresented. No more comments from me today.
Yes, take a break DREMT. These idiots will still be here when you return. They can’t learn, and can’t accept reality.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“The correct analogy …”
You will have to forgive me for not accepting an “appeal to authority” to settle this.
Especially when 99.99% of authorities disagree with this self-proclaimed authority.
Especially when real orbits are not circular.
Especially when the force of gravity does not act at s single spot on the front of the moon.
I forgive you for being an idiot, TF.
You don’t have a clue about pure orbital motion, and can’t come up with a model that explains one side of the object faces the inside of the orbit.
You’re all bafflegab and no substance.
tonym…”The issue is very much about reference frames. The original proponent of this non rotation was G*r*n who backed himself into a corner declaring he was using a one dimensional frame of reference. Absurd but so the game proceeded.
You will need to show where none of those compensating conditions I stated hold for you to persuade me that the string/ball idea has any merit”.
*******
Tony…reference frames have no existence in physical reality, they are mental constructs created by the human mind, hence imaginary. One thing I learned in my engineering studies was not to use complicated analysis if a simpler one is available. In engineering drawing classes we often had to view objects from different perspectives, both to draw them accurately and to calculate the true length of a line on a curved object viewed from an arbitrary angle.
There is no reason to approach this problem using reference frames. As an engineering problem, I would approach it using a freebody diagram, which I have done, and laid it out for anyone who wants to look. In other words, remove all forces, velocities, etc., from the Moon and replace them with vectors. In the following analysis I used only velocities.
I drew a radial line from Earth’s centre through the lunar centre. I am presuming a circular orbit, which is not that far off the reality. Where the radial line meets the near face, which always points toward the Earth, I have drawn a vector along a tangential line to the radial line, which represents the instantaneous motion of that point in its pseudo-orbit. I call it a pseudo-orbit because that point is part of a rigid body and not free to move on it s own.
Next, I have gone to the far side and drawn a similar vector to represent the instantaneous velocity of the point, which represents the instantaneous change of position of that point around an external pseudo-orbit. If you do the same for each point on the radial line that intercepts the Moon, you will get a series of parallel tangent lines which MUST always remain parallel throughout the orbit.
The proves conclusively that the Moon cannot be turning about its COG since all points along a radial line, including the COG, are moving parallel to each other at all times. What you are seeing is translation of all points on the Moon. The orbit is a resultant path produced by the linear momentum of the Moon being bent gradually into an orbit.
With regard to your reference frames, if the Moon is not rotating about its COG in the current reference frame it is not possible for it to rotate about its COG in any reference frame. There is nothing you can do from another reference frame to start it rotating about its COG.
If you are not careful with reference frames, the distortion in the mind that created them, due to conditioning, will tend to see what is not there.
Gordon,
“I have drawn a vector along a tangential line to the radial line, which represents the instantaneous motion of that point in its pseudo-orbit. I call it a pseudo-orbit because that point is part of a rigid body and not free to move on it s own.
Next, I have gone to the far side and drawn a similar vector to represent the instantaneous velocity of the point, which represents the instantaneous change of position of that point around an external pseudo-orbit.”
Are all these vectors the same length?
Yes, all those vectors are the same, both in magnitude and direction.
Well no dear Clint R, that’s not exactly correct.
Anyway, I was asking Gordon.
It’s correct bob.
But thanks for the flak. Your nonsense confirms I’m over the target.
I write it so you won’t understand it at all.
Your argument amount to the following equation, and it’s wrong.
w * (R + r) = w * (R-r)
Where w is the angular velocity of the Moon.
R is the radius of the Moon’s orbit, calling it circular for simples.
r is the radius of the body that is the Moon.
Wrong bob. That’s relative to Earth. You must use “relative to Moon’s center of mass”. You don’t get to use any frame of reference. “Relative to Earth” gives you wrong results, just as if you used “reference to Venus”, or “reference to Pluto”.
All parts of Moon move with the same velocity.
If I center it on the Moon, then the Earth revolves around the Moon, surely you don’t mean that.
Center on the Moon, draw a line segment through the Moon’s center, pointing at the star Sirius.
The point where the line segment intersects with the surface of the Moon closest to Sirius is moving in the opposite direction from the point where the line segment intersects with the surface of the Moon farthest from Sirius.
Half an orbit later the two points have switched positions.
Different directions mean different velocities, you need a better flak jacket. Yours is full of holes.
Sirius is another one that will give you invalid results. There are an infinite number of things that will give you invalid results.
Moon’s center of mass gives the correct results.
It’s your choice — Reality or Idiocy.
Flak from idiots can’t touch me. It just embellishes my words.
Center on the Moon’s center of gravity, that gives the result that the Universe is rotating around the Moon.
OK got it.
How could I have been so confused?
bob, you’re confused because you don’t understand any of this, and you reject reality..
Moon’s center of mass is the “reference frame” for the points on Moon. All points have the same velocity as its center of mass.
No, sorry, but they don’t.
Go take a class in something, anything.
GR said: I drew a radial line from Earths centre through the lunar centre.
You just declared a reference frame. It also happens to be non-inertial since that same radial line is changing its orientation wrt to the universe.
GR said: The proves conclusively that the Moon cannot be turning about its COG
…in a non-inertial frame. And keep in mind that non-inertial frames require the invocation of fictitious forces to explain motion. So you tell us…is the motion in a non-inertial frame more real or less real than in an inertial frame?
GR said: if the Moon is not rotating about its COG in the current reference frame it is not possible for it to rotate about its COG in any reference frame.
Patently False. The inertial frame is radius r=0 going through the COM of the Moon and the angle a=0 radial line pointing to a distant star. Plot the parcels in this polar coordinate system and do the calculation. You will get 2.66e-6 rad/s even though you got 0 rad/s in your non-inertial frame.
bdgwx, you can’t pervert reality, no matter how much nonsense you throw out.
Gordon’s free-body diagram destroys your nonsense. The simple analogy of the ball-on-a-string destroys your nonsense.
But, I predict you will continue spewing your nonsense.
“The inertial frame is radius r=0 going through the COM of the Moon and the angle a=0 radial line pointing to a distant star. Plot the parcels in this polar coordinate system and do the calculation…”
For the eighteenth time, you are calculating angular velocity here because you are observing that the same point on the surface of the object (moon) starts and returns to the a=0 radial line. But it does so because the object (moon) is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. The motion “rotating about an external axis” involves the object changing its orientation whilst it moves.
An object that “rotates about an external axis”, without rotating about its own center of mass, always keeps the same (inside) face pointing towards that external axis, whilst it moves. Hence the outer face will point through e.g. N, W, S and E, and back to N as each rotation is completed. This is why when you put the origin of your inertial reference frame through the COM of the object it appears as though it is rotating on its own axis.
How many times do you need this explained!?
But it does so because the object (moon) is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis in the accelerated frame as Tesla showed with Fig. 6 ball on string.
How many times do you need this explained!? Just go through Tesla’s formula for inertial E and rotating frame E and learn to understand relativity.
Yes, Ball4 is still misrepresenting Tesla. What a troll.
Yes I guess when one doesn’t have a single qualified proponent who has actually discussed the issues discussed here diligently like instructors in kinematics and Tesla, and Newton’s 2nd law of rotation. They have to make stuff up and start flip flopping like calling out rotations = translations.
We can see how angular momentum energy can be transferred from objects to an orbit radius (and not increase the angular velocity). So there is no need to invent anything else.
In the end the moon rotates on its own axis draws from the concept of the inner path being shorter than the outer path. I have to admit to a tiny bit of mystery there, but its an argument that destroys their own argument every bit as readily.
If you can just make it up that the moon rotates on its own axis because it appears to do so, you can equally argue the moon does not rotate on its own axis because each individual particle in the moon is rotating on their own axes and all the moon is doing is translating all those particles around in a circle. And of course that is just an endless process of making particles ever smaller and soon you have no rotation at all, everything translating instead. Ridiculous of course, nice stuff to ruminate on just don’t try to sell it to anybody. You will probably look like a fool.
If these guys remained consistent they would have engineers installing tiny motors on every atom to make the merry-go-round go around. And if they demanded that just think of all the fun kids would miss out on.
I far prefer Madhavi.
bill, how many times do you need this explained!? Just go through Tesla’s formulas for inertial E and rotating frame E, then learn to understand relativity. The ball on string can’t rotate relative to the spinning string because the ball is attached to the string!
Yes, Ball4 is still misrepresenting Tesla. What a troll..
Tim is right. You can check by experiment.
Take a ball on a string, the hammer thrown in athletics. The athlete whirls the ball several times around himself in a circle and then lets go.
If you watch the videos you see that the ball continues to rotate after release at the same rate it rotated before release.
One rotation per revolution.
The physics of the hammer throw and the physics of the Moon are identical. As the hammer rotates, so does the Moon.
Prior to release, the hammer is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an external axis.
No Ent, the rotation rate is different.
This has been explained before. The rotation after release is due to Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion. The tension in the attached “string” acts on the “hammer”, after release.
The physics of the hammer throw and the physics of Moon are NOT identical.
There is no tension in the chain after release Clint R. The same physics of the moon and hammer are used to show their motion. You’ve already flunked the physics exam above and need to go see your professor during office hours in order to pass the next one or, hey, I hear McDonald’s is hiring.
Thanks for the confirmation that I’m right.
The more of your nonsense, the more I know I’m on target.
Here’s some sample video.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/hammer-rotation-mystery.291199/
If you analyse the video, the hammer revolves and rotates at the same rate during the throw and continues to rotate after release, completing 10-12 anticlockwise rotations in flight.
(It also precesses 180 degrees in flight, but that’s a separate problem)
Come to think of it, the 180 degree precession is not a separate problem. It indicates that the hammer is rotating because you can’t have precession without rotation.
If you analyse the video, you can see that the hammer is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis, prior to release. Regardless of reference frame.
If you analyse the video, you can see that the hammer is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis in the accelerated frame because it is attached, prior to release. While taking proper regard of reference frames.
Ball4 you are not taking proper regard of the reference frames for the individual atoms in the hammer dude! The hammer is just translating the atoms around. Its the atoms that are rotating.
The atoms are not rotating wrt to the spinning hammer, bill. If you think they are, go argue with Tesla.
…but he thinks the atoms are all rotating on their own axes wrt the inertial frame. What a moron.
That’s what (he) Tesla showed DREMT, the hammer atoms spin up on their own axes as the hammer spins up about its center. It’s an elegant proof with a freely rotating mass becoming “fixt” as Tesla’s wheel spins up. See Tesla’s formula E for the total inertial rotational energy in each atom.
Lol.
It’s not rotating about its axis before release, Ent. It’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-string. You need to understand the simple concepts.
Then, you can move on to things like Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion.
It’s not rotating about its axis in the accelerated frame before release…
This is also a pretty convincing experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-DTjpde9-0&t=360s
There is only one axis of rotation, in the center of the record, prior to disintegration.
…in the accelerated frame of the record.
There is only one axis of rotation, in the center of the record, prior to disintegration. Period. Not just “…in the accelerated frame of the record”. Also in the reference frame where r=0 goes through the center of the record, and a=0 is pointed towards some distant star. And all other reference frames. The reality of a spinning record is that it has one axis of rotation, in the center of the record, regardless of how it may appear, from a specific frame. Really, really, simple.
There is only one axis of rotation prior to disintegration if you are observing from the record. DREMT simply reveals the location of the observation.
Wrong. There is only one axis of rotation, no matter where I observe from. You are as delusional as you are relentless and boring.
There is only one axis of rotation for our moon, no matter where DREMT observes from on the moon.
A spinning record has only one axis of rotation, in the center of the record. No matter where you observe from.
No matter where you observe from in the frame attached to the record.
Spinners calling the moon spinning on its own axis but only. . . .in the accelerated frame of the moon.
There is no end to this game.
No, Ball4. No matter where you observe from. Period.
Tesla has proven DREMT wrong but DREMT is just too inept to discuss Tesla’s two formulas for rotational energy E showing the moon does inertially rotate on its own axis but isn’t observed to rotate on its own axis in the accelerated frame.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, and Tesla never mentioned reference frames.
Tesla: “the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-644504
DREMT, ClintR
You are now arguing different things.
DREMT
You describe the hammer as rotating around an external axis during the throw. If the angular momentum of that rotation is the same as the hammer’s angular momentum as it rotates on its axis after release, angular momentum is conserved.
I describe the hammer as rotating on its own axis during the throw, but in energy terms there is no difference between our interpretations. Since we are describing identical behaviour using different reference frames I am happy to agree to differ.
Clint R
You describe the hammer as not rotating during the throw, so its angular momentum is zero.
It then instantly starts rotating on its axis on release. It has angular momentum which did not exist before release. That angular momentum cannot have come out of nowhere ( 1st law of thermodynamics violation) so your interpretation is physically impossible.
Perhaps the two of you can get together and agree on a version of the non-spinner theory which makes thermodynamic sense.
As far as I can tell we both just said exactly the same thing to you. Prior to release, the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.
Then you’ve committed the same error as ClintR.
Under your interpretation angular momentum is created at the moment of release as the hammer instantaneously begins to rotate on its axis. Angular momentum is not conserved and the 1st law is broken.
No physicist will accept your theory until you can show that angular momentum is conserved. Please do so.
Ent, your problem is you don’t understand the physics, even though it has been explained over and over.
Before release, the object (hammer or ball) has ZERO angular momentum. It has orbital motion. Orbital motion means LINEAR momentum. The object (hammer or ball) has LINEAR momentum. The object has ZERO angular momentum. The object has ZERO orbital angular momentum and the object has ZERO spin angular momentum.
After release, the object (hammer or ball) experiences the released tension from the string/cord/rope/lanyard/chain. It will then have spin angular momentum due to the applied torque. That’s Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion. The released tension produces a torque, in this case. The tension release that causes a spin angular momentum of the object would result in a decrease in spin angular momentum of the thrower.
You won’t accept any of this because your mind is closed. You believe passenger jets fly backwards.
EM won’t accept most of that because the physics is wrong. For instance the string tension goes through cg so can’t apply a torque about the cg. Remember the note your physics prof. gave you: “see me”. Have you seen your prof. yet?
Thanks for confirming i’m right, Troll4. You’re making me look good.
“Orbital motion means LINEAR momentum… “
It is amazing how spectacularly wrong people can be.
Try googling: orbital motion angular momentum
You will get over 6 million hits from people who actually understand this.
Tesla got some things right in his moon articles. This is one of them:
If a metal ball, attached to a string, is whirled around and the latter breaks, an axial rotation of the missile results which is definitely related in magnitude and direction to the motion preceding. By way of illustration — if the ball is whirled on the string clockwise ten times per second, then when it flies off, it will rotate on its axis ten times per second, likewise in the direction of a clock
After release the ball is spinning, and has rotational kinetic energy, as well as translational kinetic energy. The fact that the ball has rotational KE after release means it had rotational KE prior to release. (Newtons 3rd law of motion) The rotational kinetic energy cannot suddenly appear and disappear on its own.
Well TF, it shouldn’t be hard for you to pick out the one the best supports your false beliefs. Link to it, and I’ll explain where they have it wrong.
Maybe find one that has passenger jets flying backwards?
SGW says: “The fact that the ball has rotational KE after release means it had rotational KE prior to release.”
Obviously StalkerGoneWeird has never played pool.
Here ya go, Clint. Let’s start with the two first hits as representative of all the rest. What is “wrong” with these? What do these professional scientists need to learn from the likes of you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
https://www.astronomynotes.com/angmom/s2.htm
Won’t work TF. You implied you found 6 million links that proved me wrong. I asked for just one example. You provided two, but neither comes close to even dealing with the issue, “Orbital motion means LINEAR momentum”, much less proving me wrong.
Keep searching. There must be something substantive that supports your false beliefs. Maybe contact some airline companies and find out how many passenger jets fly backwards.
Do you feel like an idiot sometimes?
“Before release, the object (hammer or ball) has ZERO angular momentum…. The object has ZERO orbital angular momentum and the object has ZERO spin angular momentum.”
Maybe you gave up before actually looking at the link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#Orbital_angular_momentum_in_two_dimensions
As a concrete example, consider a uniform ball
m = 1 kg
R = 0.1 m
spinning around on a string
r= 1.0 m
omega = 6 rad/s (about 1 rev/sec)
v = 6 m/s
The orbital angular momentum is
L(o) = rmv = 1m * 1kg * 6m/s = 6 kg m^2/s
The spin angular momentum is
L(s) = I(omega) = (2/5 mR^2)(omega) = 0.024 kg m^2/s
So you gave up on the 6 million links, huh?
That was a stupid effort anyway, TF. People that want to believe Elvis is still alive can find links supporting that nonsense. A bunch of Internet links means NOTHING. This is about physics, science, and reality. Passenger jets don’t fly backwards. A ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating about its axis.
Rejecting reality is why you’re an idiot.
So you admit you were wrong here?
Tim Folkerts
Excellent.
It quantifies the orbital and spin angular motion.
It also makes clear what happens when you let go of the string.
The orbital angular momentum of 6 kg m^2/s becomes 6 kg m^2/s of linear momentum.
The 0.024 kg m^2/s spin angular momentum due to the rotation of the ball is present as it rotates on the string and is conserved as the ball spins after release.
DREMT and ClintR describe a system in which orbital angular momentum becomes linear momentum and is conserved, which agrees with conventional physics.
Unfortunately they insist that while the ball is “orbiting” on the string it has zero spin angular momentum which miraculously appears from nowhere when the string is released.
The onus is now on DREMT and Clint R to show quantitatively where that 0.024 kg m^2/s of spin angular momentum comes from.
This is just another example of the idiots not understanding physics.
If the ball were actually rotating about its axis, as they believe, you would see the rotation from inside the orbit. But, you don’t. Only one side of the ball faces the inside of orbit. The ball is only orbiting, not rotating.
If they knew any physics at all, they could do vector rotations to verify. Or, just use an actual ball on a flat surface. But, that would require the ability to think logically.
It’s easier to just be an idiot.
Entropic Man, I have not said anything about angular or linear momentum, so don’t go putting words in my mouth. What I said was, the hammer/ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis prior to release. It is rotating about an external axis (orbiting). There is only one axis for the ball on a string, and that is at the central point that the string and ball rotate around. Of that I am absolutely certain. What happens on release, there appears to be a few schools of thought. Tesla argued that the axial rotation that occurs on release is: “…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.” Makes sense to me.
DREMT says: “What happens on release, there appears to be a few schools of thought.”
Exactly.
The keyword is “release”. With the ball, or hammer, on a restraint there is a mechanical attachment. So the “release” becomes a factor in whether or not the ball/hammer will have axial rotation, and how much. The mechanical attachment means some axial rotation may occur, just from how the ball is released. A perfectly “slung” ball (no restrain) may have no angular momentum transferred, even if slung from a swinging (rotating) arm.
The types of pitches in baseball are examples of the “release”. The pitcher’s arm supplies the energy, but the release determines how much spin the baseball will have. His arm obviously has “angular momentum”, but it may not be transferred to the baseball, depending on the release. What gets transferred to the baseball is the kinetic energy.
The video of the record breaking apart confuses some. In that situation, the record is solid at the start. All future fragments are “attached”. The entire spinning record has a spin momentum. When it breaks apart, the sum of all the pieces would have the same spin momentum, neglecting losses.
With the concept of turning off gravity, Moon will travel off will zero angular momentum, because it has none to start with.
…the hammer/ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis prior to release as observed by DREMT in the accelerated frame.
All future record fragments are “attached” to the spinning record so do not rotate wrt to that spinning frame as Tesla shows with his ball M. When the record disintegrates, each piece is seen with spin angular momentum that each piece possessed wrt to the inertial frame prior to beak up.
the hammer/ball on a string/record has only one axis of rotation as observed by DREMT in any reference frame, not just the accelerated frame but also the reference frame where r=0 goes through the center of revolution and a=0 remains pointed at some distant star, and in all other reference frames. Regardless of how it may appear to be moving, from a specific reference frame, the hammer/ball on a string/record has only one axis of rotation, at the center of revolution.
Tesla proved you are wrong DREMT. Go argue with Tesla and Fig. 6 physics wherein the ball with mass M does not rotate wrt to the spinning string becasue it is attached to the string. Same in Fig. 5 for ball M not spinning wrt to the spinning spokes so Tesla proved DREMT wrong twice!
1) I know I am right.
2) Stop misrepresenting Tesla.
No misrepresentation DREMT; to prove you are wrong, Tesla actually wrote out the formulas for a mass with inertial rotational E and spinning frame E. Go argue with those physics formulas, you will lose that debate too.
1) I’m right.
2) Stop misrepresenting Tesla.
Entropic Mans says: “The orbital angular momentum of 6 kg m^2/s becomes 6 kg m^2/s of linear momentum.
No! Angular momentum cannot become linear momentum. They are different quantities with different units.
The ball had linear momentum before release. The ball had linear momentum after release.
Before release, the linear momentum was constantly changing direction due to centripetal force from the string (but maintaining a constant magnitude, mv). After release, the sideways force disappeared, the velocity stopped changing, and the momentum was constant (both magnitude and direction).
The ball had angular momentum before release. The ball had angular momentum after release.
Indeed, the value for angular momentum was constant, both before and after release! There was never any torque, so never any change in angular momentum. (Many of you may be familiar with Δp = F Δt. There is a similar rule for rotation: ΔL = τ Δt. No torque; no change in angular momentum.)
Those funky characters should have been Deltas.
Delta(L) = (tau) Delta(t)
Tim, inertially the ball had orbital angular momentum on one radius and different spin angular momentum on another radius, you really need to be specific with the three ring circus entertainers.
If you look up Tesla’s writing on our moon rotations, find he has written those two inertial energies correctly in his formula for E. Tesla also wrote the rotational energy correctly for the ball M in the spinning frame of his wheel spokes; just one term in his formula
for E of ball M in that case.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
…in the accelerated frame with Tesla’s ball M “fixt” to the spinning wheel spokes.
No, he never mentioned reference frames.
Tesla did write about reference frames (relativity) in his article DREMT can’t learn from being so inept in physics; so take note, DREMT, you have missed Tesla’s use of the word “relatively”:
“the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion relatively to their axes becomes physically impossible”
Ball M can not rotate on its own axis wrt to the spinnning spokes Fig. 5 and also the spinning string Fig. 6 since it is attached to them repectively. Tesla used that notion to prove physically the moon is not observed to rotate on its own axis for observers such as DREMT in the accelerated frame.
If he had said “relatively to the spokes” you might have had a point. He didn’t, so you don’t.
So DREMT now admits to an accurate quote in my comment so DREMT agrees Tesla did mention reference frames. Good, that’s a start. Now DREMT can work on realizing by “their” Tesla means “relatively to the spokes”.
No, he never mentioned reference frames. “Their” is in reference to the balls.
Is the moon really made out of so much cheese? If it is then there is proof there is no rotational energy … the cheese would get squeezed out and there would be a ring around the earth … kinda like a bathtub ring but soundless because its in a vacuum.
bdg…”The translational motion is actually kind of complicated and depends on reference frame. Normally you would you would use the (x,y) coordinate system for translational motion. The question is where you want anchor it. If anchored to the Earth it is circular (mostly)”.
It’s not complicated at all unless you have difficulty separating fantasy from reality. Translation does not take place on an x=y plane it takes place in real space or on a real surface. It is simply the motion of a mass from A to B, along a straight line or a curve.
Your anchors don’t exist and I have no idea why you persist in using that model. And what do you mean by circular translation? We already have a term for that: curvilinear translation.
The Moon, in trying to go from A to B in a straight line, has its path diverted by gravity. That’s all there is to it, rectilinear translation converted to curvilinear translation. Before Skeptic arrives on the scene with his text book definitions, which bore me, let me re-state that translation is simply motion from A to B.
I don’t give a hoot how some hillbilly author describes it mistakenly, comparing parallel motion in straight line to motion on a curve. You cannot apply parallelism along a straight line to parallelism on a curve.
GR said: It’s not complicated at all unless you have difficulty separating fantasy from reality.
It’s pretty complicated. In the CMB rest frame a parcel on the Moon etches out a complicated 3D multi periodic cycloidal-spiral shape as it moves.
GR said: It’s not complicated at all unless you have difficulty separating fantasy from reality. Translation does not take place on an x=y plane it takes place in real space or on a real surface. It is simply the motion of a mass from A to B, along a straight line or a curve.
We usually use Cartesian coordinates for quantifying and analyzing the motion.
GR said: Your anchors don’t exist and I have no idea why you persist in using that model.
Motions are relative. They are always wrt to another body, a benchmark, or reference frame.
GR said: And what do you mean by circular translation? We already have a term for that: curvilinear translation.
I just mean a translation in which the motion etches out a circle. These are motions are ideal for analyzing on a rotational frame with polar coordinates using concepts of angular velocity and momentum.
bdg…”Motions are relative. They are always wrt to another body, a benchmark, or reference frame”.
Only to a human observer.
Einstein made the same mistake. His relativity theory is based on the experience of a human observer and he forgot that the human also created time by basing the day, then the second, on one rotation of the Earth. The human defined time as a constant yet Einstein felt justified in making it a variable. He also made length a variable based on the velocity of the unit with the length.
In real, physical reality (call it actuality) there are no reference frames, no time, no dimensions, no temperatures, no density, etc., which are all inventions of the human mind based on natural phenomena like the Earth’s angular velocity, the distance from the Equator to a Pole, the properties of water as related to heat, and the amount of matter in a human created volume.
Suppose for one ridiculous moment that you are the Moon and you are orbiting the Earth. Your left shoulder always points toward the Earth and you want to move straight ahead. However, this mysterious force continually turns you to the left and you find yourself orbiting the Earth.
If your left shoulder always points toward the Earth, are you rotating about an axis from your head through your body to your feet? If so, you’d be looking backwards halfway through the orbit. Would you be trying to calculate which reference frame you are in to see if you are rotating? Could you not sense that for yourself?
“If your left shoulder always points toward the Earth, are you rotating about an axis from your head through your body to your feet?”
You would have to have had that one complete spin per orbit primordially since there is no ground to react your feet. So, in the inertial frame yes. In the accelerated frame attached to you no, since the accelerated frame is itself spinning and has to be accounted for inertially to conserve your momentum and energy.
The non-spinners simply obnserve from the accelerated frame and the spinners observe from the inertial frame realizing momentum and energy are to be conserved.
Ball4 is very convinced that it is all about reference frames. I think we get the message.
The non-spinners do simply observe from the accelerated frame and the spinners observe from the inertial frame realizing momentum and energy are to be conserved.
I think we get the message.
GR said: Only to a human observer.
It’s true for all observers.
GR said: If your left shoulder always points toward the Earth, are you rotating about an axis from your head through your body to your feet?
In the inertial frame…yes.
In the non-inertial frame pointed to the Earth…no.
GR said: If so, youd be looking backwards halfway through the orbit.
Yeah, wrt to the universe you are, in fact, looking in the opposite direction half way through the orbit.
GR said: Would you be trying to calculate which reference frame you are in to see if you are rotating?
You don’t calculate a reference frame. You use a reference frame to make calculations and draw conclusions. The reference frame is usually dictated by the question you are trying to answer. You exist in multiple reference frames; infinitely many in fact.
GR said: Could you not sense that for yourself?
I don’t know about you, but I can’t “sense” that I’m moving 30 km/s wrt to the Sun or 370 km/s wrt to the CMB.
I think we get the message.
bdg…”GR said: I drew a radial line from Earths centre through the lunar centre.
You just declared a reference frame. It also happens to be non-inertial since that same radial line is changing its orientation wrt to the universe”.
***
It’s obvious what you’re doing. You cannot disprove my claim that all points on the Moon are turning in concentric orbits so you are using a red-herring argument to obfuscate the issue.
I said nothing about a reference frame nor is one required. The radial line is a simple device to track the motion of the Moon in its orbit, presuming a circular orbit. It simply demonstrates that every point it intercepts on the Moon is moving along concentric circles and at the same angular velocity, the definition for curvilinear translation.
I have never encountered a problem in engineering, which is APPLIED science, that required the declaration of a reference frame. We leave that to theoretical weenies who love getting themselves lost in convoluted theories referencing a pseudo-reality that exists nowhere.
Every problem in physics I have ever done has assumed a fixed inertial reference frame, except where is specifies otherwise, such as the fly, flying from one train to another, where the trains are on a collision course on the same track.
With respect to the Moon, we are saying the parts of the Moon are moving at different velocities, not angular velocities.
Get that straight, instantaneous linear velocity, not angular velocity.
GR said: You cannot disprove my claim that all points on the Moon are turning in concentric orbits so you are using a red-herring argument to obfuscate the issue.
Let’s be precise here. Points on the Moon are etching out circles in two different frames. The first is the one where radius r=0 goes though the COG of the Earth-Moon system with angle a=0 radial line pointed at a distant star. The second is the one where radius r=0 goes through the COM of the Moon with angle a=0 radial line pointed at a distant star.
But if you choose a Sun anchored frame, Mars anchored frame, Lagrange anchored frame, etc. you won’t see concentric circles. It is a testament to the fact that motions are highly dependent upon the observational perspective.
GR said: I have never encountered a problem in engineering, which is APPLIED science, that required the declaration of a reference frame.
I find that hard to believe. If you’ve measured or analyzed motion you were doing so in a reference frame. You just probably weren’t aware of it at the time.
Even something as trivial as internal combustion engine RPM is wrt to the the frame with radius r=0 through the longitudinal axis of the crankshart and angle a=0 radial line pointing up.
Or the velocity of a car in km/h being wrt to the frame anchored to the surface of the Earth.
Even the lat-lon system is anchored to the Earth and spins with it such that latitude 0 goes around the equator and longitude 0 goes through the prime meridian.
So are you are sure you have never had to deal with reference frames?
“Let’s be precise here. Points on the Moon are etching out circles in two different frames. The first is the one where radius r=0 goes though the COG of the Earth-Moon system with angle a=0 radial line pointed at a distant star. The second is the one where radius r=0 goes through the COM of the Moon with angle a=0 radial line pointed at a distant star.”
No, the circles are only being etched out in the first of those two frames, where the moon is rotating about the COG of the Earth/moon system. In the second frame, it only appears as though the moon is rotating on its own axis. There are not actually circles being etched out around the moon’s own COM. The only circles etched out by the path of the moon are about the COG of the Earth/moon system. If the moon were actually rotating about its axis, the paths would criss-cross.
bdgwx misses the point about “reference frames” — The reference frame must match the physics, or it’s the WRONG reference frame. bdgwx doesn’t understand the physics, so he chooses the wrong reference frame. In his reference frame, passenger jets fly backwards!
He keeps doing the same thing over and over. He can’t learn. And, we know why….
DREMT said: No, the circles are only being etched out in the first of those two frames
Circles are etched in the second frame (r=0 through COM of Moon and a=0 pointed at distant star) too. Draw it out on a piece of paper if you need to.
Wrong, as explained.
Yes they do. It is a fact. If you plot the (r,a) coordinates of any point within the Moon on the frame where r=0 goes through the COM of the Moon and a=0 points to a distant star you WILL get circles. The reason for why they etch out circles is completely irrelevant here. You can convince yourself of this if you just simply draw it out on a piece of paper.
Circles around what?
ClintR said: Circles around what?
The (r,a) coordinate (0,0) where r=0 goes through the Moon’s center of mass and angle a=0 points to a distant star.
DREMT here, not Clint R. OK then. There are circles. But only because the moon changes its orientation whilst it moves due to the fact that it is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis.
The clearest indication is to look at the circles drawn out when r=0 goes through the COG of the Earth/moon system, and a=0 is pointed towards some distant star. If the moon were rotating on its own axis, the paths drawn out would criss-cross. If the paths are concentric circles/ellipses, the moon is not rotating on its own axis.
In reality, if our moon were rotating on its own axis more or less than once per orbit, then the paths drawn out would criss-cross. If the paths are concentric circles/ellipses as they are, the moon is not rotating on its own axis more or less than once per orbit.
Incorrect, I refer you to my previous comment, which refutes yours and settles the issue.
I’m right.
No. Points on the Moon etch out circles in both reference frames. That is the way it is in reality right now. And the angular velocity in both frames is 2.66e-6 rad/s. The Moon can be rightfully said to be rotating on both axis because angular velocity is non-zero in both. And yet the circles still don’t criss-cross in either frame.
Now if you consider a hypothetical Moon that has different angular velocities in those frames then the circles criss-cross as observed from the Earth-Moon barycenter axis frame. They will still be parallel circles in the Moon’s COM axis frame. And it doesn’t matter which angular velocity changes. It could be the orbital angular velocity (Earth-Moon barycenter frame) or the spin angular velocity (Moon COM frame). As long as they are different this is the result.
Draw it out on a piece of paper if you need to.
The clearest indication is to look at the circles drawn out by the particles comprising the moon when r=0 goes through the COG of the Earth/moon system, and a=0 is pointed towards some distant star. If the moon were rotating on its own axis, the paths drawn out would criss-cross. If the paths are concentric circles/ellipses, the moon is not rotating on its own axis.
If the paths are concentric circles/ellipses, the moon is not rotating on its own axis more or less than once per orbit.
Incorrect, Ball4.
Seems like we need some high school physics equipment.
Like a bicycle wheel filled with lead and a lazy susan big enough to stand on.
Or maybe just the lazy susan and a ball on a string.
Standing on the lazy susan swinging the ball on a string in a circle, then flipping it so it rotates in the other direction.
What happens?
It will tell you if the ball on a string has angular momentum or not.
Physics experiments rule, non-spinners drool.
bob, we already know you don’t understand angular momentum. But thanks for re-confirming.
Well here’s what happened back in high school physics.
Standing on the lazy susan holding the lead filled bicycle wheel with the wheel horizontal, the wheel was rotated as fast as we could, then the wheel was flipped over, and then you start spinning.
So using your understanding of angular momentum, explain what happened?
You’re missing the point, bob.
Angular momentum can exist. The physics of angular momentum is well established. The point is, you don’t understand that physics.
Way to go champ
Make the point a personal attack
DREMT
“Entropic Man, I have not said anything about angular or linear momentum, so dont go putting words in my mouth.”
I don’t need to. Like any hypothesis, yours has logical implications which any scientist can explore
Your hypothesis is :
“The hammer/ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis prior to release, nor is the Moon rotating on its axis ”
Your theory has implications.
In DREMTworld the ball instantaneously goes from not rotating to rotating at the moment of release with no input of energy or angular momentum.
This means that conservation of momentum and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are violated in your world. In DREMTworld inertia does not exist.
In DREMTworld the string does not exert a torque on the ball while attached. The string exerts a torque on the ball after release.
In DREMTworld you can stand where the Earth/Moon axis enters Earths surface and look vertically upwards at the Moon. Where the axis exits the other side of the Earth you can stand and look vertically downwards towards the Moon’s position.The two observers each see the other as upside-down relative to the Earth/Moon axis.
Yet ClintR tells me an airliner can carry a person from one location to the other by orbiting the Earth without rotating; without either pitching forward 180 degrees or arriving upside-down.
Similarly Clint R tells me that all movement is relative to the Earth/Moon axis. Thus at the Equator the Earth’s surface is moving Eastwards at 4000 mph and an airliner flying Westward is flying backwards at 4000-600mph.
Theories are tested by testing their predictions. Yours fails. It’s predictions do not match reality.
Ent, you started off okay: “The hammer/ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis prior to release, nor is the Moon rotating on its axis.”
But, you went downhill from there.
Entropic Man bashes some colorful strawmen.
DREMT, your very first comment, 3000 comments up, started: “With the issue settled that the moon is not rotating on its own axis…”
You didn’t know how right you were!
They have NOTHING.
TF claims there are 6 million links that proved my statement wrong, but he can’t produce even ONE. Norman smashed his hand with a hammer because he didn’t understand “momentum represents force”. Now Ent resorts to manufacturing straw men, to the point Earth is running out of straw! The rest of the idiots resort to the same such nonsense.
It’s all to avoid the reality that the ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating about its axis.
They have NOTHING.
It’s quite amusing, definitely! When you start getting push-back from people simply for saying that a record being spun only has one axis of rotation, wherever you observe it from…and people start seriously arguing that the individual atoms within the record are all rotating on their own axes, just because the record is spinning…you couldn’t make it up!
Their own arguments are hilarious, so they have to invent some funny ones for us, too…
It doesn’t matter the size of Tesla’s ball M DREMT, just reduce the radius of ball M to the radius of an atom, same Tesla formula for E applies both E inertially and E in the frame of the spinning spokes.
“It doesnt matter the size of Tesla’s ball…”
If repeating an action over and over without the desired change therefrom is a sign of madness, this is the comedy that is evoked, unnoticed by the insane.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
…in the accelerated frame where his ball M is attached to spinning spokes in Fig. 5 and a string in Fig. 6. Inertially, Tesla showed ball M rotating once on its own axis per orbit on both the spokes and string.
No, he never mentioned reference frames.
DREMT changed his view when it was pointed out Tesla did mention reference frames in another subthread.
He did not mention reference frames:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-644504
Is barry starting to see reality?
He is one of the smarter “Spinners”, maybe to only smart one….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-644246
DREMT
DREMTworld violates well established physical laws.
Nobody outside your echo chamber is going to take you seriously until you can demonstrate that your theory conserves energy and momentum.
OK, Entropic Man. Did you see Tims comment to you?
Tim’s right. I’m guilty of sloppy terminology.
I used the term angular momentum for the linear momentum due to the tangential velocity of the ball during its circular motion.
When the string was released the linear motion was conserved and so was the kinetic energy of the ball.
The angular momentum was in addition to the linear momentum and was due to the ball’s rotation on its axis.
This is where DREMTworld breaks down. Your theory accounts for the linear momentum, but defines the angular momentum of the ball as zero while the ball is in circular motion and then gives it a real value as the ball rotates on its axis after release.
Angular momentum and the associated kinetic energy been created, in violation of the conservation laws.
Only the total system angular momentum needs to be conserved. The ball has orbital angular momentum before release, it has spin angular momentum after release.
In DREMT’s dreams Tesla’s orbital angular energy Eorbit on radius R is destroyed and the spin angular energy Espin on radius r is created out of nothing.
Shows DREMT hasn’t learned even the basics in physics since: Eorbit .NE. Espin
No energy is being created. We all ultimately agree that the energy from swinging the ball around in a circle initially is transferred to the ball flying off at a tangent whilst spinning on its own axis. The only difference is, Im saying the ball is not rotating on its own axis before release.
That is because there is only one axis of rotation for a ball on a string.
No DREMT, the radius of our moon orbit (R in Tesla’s math) and radius of spin (r) are so much different their spin energy and orbital energy are hugely different. Tesla even gives an example of how different:
“If we estimate the radius of gyration of the satellite at 600 miles and its mean distance from the earth at 240,000 miles, then the energy necessary to rotate it once in a month would be only ( 600 / 240,000 )2 = 1 / 160,000 of the kinetic energy of the orbital movement.”
gyration def: “a rapid movement in a circle”
Yes, the spin energy is much less than the orbital energy. But the orbital energy before release is not just all going into the spin energy after release! Nobody is saying that. The orbital energy before release goes into moving the ball in a straight line plus spinning it on its own axis, after release.
“Yes, the spin energy is much less than the orbital energy.”
Welcome to the spinners club DREMT.
There is no spin energy prior to release. Stop twisting my words, troll.
Now you’re getting sloppy. The ball has LINEAR momentum plus spin angular momentum both before and after its release.
In Tim’s worked example these are 6 and 0.024 respectively.
In DREMTworld the ball has linear momentum of 6 and spin angular momentum of 0 while in circular motion; 6 and 0.024 after release.
Perhaps you can do a worked example.
I will keep it as simple as humanly possible.
The ball has the same total energy before and after release.
Before release, all the energy is "orbital". There is no "spin" energy.
After release, the "orbital" energy is converted to "linear" and "spin".
Do the math and use whatever terminology you wish to describe that. No energy is being created or destroyed.
Not one of the “Spinners” understands “angular momentum”.
Upthread, I asked bdgwx to calculate the angular momentum for a captured moon that had no original spin. He gave the correct “algebra answer”, not realizing he was creating a new momentum that was not there.
“Tim said, the moon always had that amount of angular momentum and linear momentum.”
Just because the algebra is correct, that does not mean the physics is correct.
The captured moon only has its original linear momentum, p. You can calculate an angular momentum, rp, but that angular momentum is only a mathematical construct. The captured moon does NOT then have “p + rp”, for total momentum. It only has “p”. If gravity were suddenly turned off, the captured moon would go off into space with only its original linear momentum.
No twisting of words I quoted DREMT verbatim as DREMT fully entered the spinners club and cannot now ever go back; DREMT had previously admitted the moon changes its orientation in space as it orbits. As Tesla showed in moon’s inertial eqn. for energy of motion E, the moon possesses both spin angular energy plus orbital angular energy.
Go argue with Tesla Clint R as you are now alone in the non-spinners club; Gordon long ago admitted the moon turns on its axis as it orbits & bill is on the fence.
Troll4 believes he can pervert reality by twisting and distorting quotes. That’s just another troll tactic. We see it often. They’ve got NOTHING.
The reality is the ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating about its axis. Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
Troll4’s attempted perversions just amount to ineffective flak. He can’t bring down reality, no matter how much nonsense he throws up.
After release, the “orbital” energy is converted to “linear” and “spin”.”
Worked example, please.
Do the math and use whatever terminology you wish to describe that. No energy is being created or destroyed.
Off-topic
This had currency here a few months ago.
“Lawyer Sidney Powell said her claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election shouldn’t be treated as gospel truth.
In a response to a lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems, the right-wing attorney said reasonable people should realize her claims were opinion-based, not fact-based.”
https://www.fox8live.com/2021/03/23/sidney-powell-argues-no-reasonable-person-would-believe-her-election-fraud-claims/
Not. Fact. Based.
I do hope you swing by to spin this, Stephen.
An opinion based upon the presumption that great efforts should be employed to ensure our balloting system is secure?
bill, Powell presented these notions as fact. She stated as fact, not allegation, that Dominion voting systems was created under the auspices of Hugo Chavez to rig his own election, and stated as fact that Dominion systems had defrauded the American people of their election.
The vast majority of conservatives in the US (and some abroad), and every Trump follower took her statements as fact, because she said the case was iron clad. You can read that on any political forum from here to last November. Or you can listen to Powell:
https://youtu.be/U4BufJxxmKE?t=3037
https://youtu.be/J9ecsRDfP1U?t=50
https://youtu.be/J9ecsRDfP1U?t=136
https://youtu.be/J9ecsRDfP1U?t=897
She’s not saying this needs to be investigated, she’s saying this happened and that the “truth” will be shown in the courts. She was saying that votes tallies definitely were sent out of the country (Germany, Barcelona) to be processed. She’s saying the technology was used to defraud the US election. As a matter of fact, not opinion.
At least, until a few days ago, when she had to front up to a court about those assertions.
Barry:
What you say is basically right from a laymans viewpoint but not a legal position. You may like to view “Planet America” where basically her legal view/claims are subject to Court determination has support (and lets face it the hosts are not Trump supporters). Details are here – start about 52.10 so it is short:
https://iview.abc.net.au/video/NC2114H010S00
‘statements made as attorney-advocate .’
case history: ‘ language of political arena …is often vituperative and inexact’
CNN is basically wrong.
As an outsider I think we all join with the people of the USA in wishing POTUS Biden every success – even where there is disagreement. As leader of the greatest democracy on earth it is important.
Barry what I clearly heard was that this was about going through the full legal process, discovery, the whole nine yards and determining the truth using America’s jury system.
There was a very explicit statement that it was not about trying the case in the court of public opinion. Yet you are clearly insisting thats what it was.
Watched the video. I’d read the motion earlier to dismiss and was familiar with the defence they referenced, and had also read the statement by Powell’s representation.
If the case is heard we may find out if a lawyer publicly slandering a company while outlining a court case they are about to prosecute is protected as political speech under the First Amendment if they represent a case for a president.
The main question for me is this: is there any accountability when the outgoing government party traduces the country’s democray and drums up a rebellion on a pack of lies?
(Or is this 3rd world craziness something America just has to accept as part of the Constitutional deal?)
”If the case is heard we may find out if a lawyer publicly slandering a company while outlining a court case they are about to prosecute is protected as political speech under the First Amendment if they represent a case for a president.”
Definitely protected Barry. Not only have the relevant American agencies called the Venezuela elections fraudulent, but the Lima Group has also and it comprises Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and Peru. Guyana, Saint Lucia. Belize, Bolivia, and Haiti.
It seems rather obvious that there is a widely perceived truth that the technology in the Venezuela election is capable of being subverted. One would think that the owners of the software firm would want in depth investigations for the purpose of clearing up any incorrectly arrived at conclusions.
A “perceived truth?”
Man, that’s right fromn the same playbook as “alternative facts.”
As soon as Trump lied about the election there was “widespread belief” among his followers. There didn’t have to be evidence, and that widespread belief became evidence, just as you imply now.
Reminds me of this quote attributed to an aide in Bush Jr’s administration:
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Dominion and Smartmatic had nothing to do with the Venezualan elections. Different company, different machines.
Trump and his campaign got their info from Qanon and OAN, the latter of which cited an Edison Research report, which Edison Research said they never wrote.
It’s patently obvious that Powell and Giuliani did not approach the companies, examine any original facts, or do any due dilligence to corroborate their claims.
And that is why Newsmax, Fox and even OAN eventually publicly disavowed the claims. Powell was asked for the evidence by Fox, and she refused to provide.
But for some reason people keep believing what has already been disproved, and easily.
barry says:
”Trump and his campaign got their info from Qanon and OAN, the latter of which cited an Edison Research report, which Edison Research said they never wrote.”
It would take you about 3 minutes to call total BS on your your statement above.
UK Guardian a mainstream left news media corporation in the UK published this article about concerns with voting machines, specifically mentioning Dominion 8 months before the election.
And thats just one of hundreds.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/22/us-voting-machine-private-companies-voter-registration
Now that you have been educated don’t you think we should do something rather quickly and energetically about it?
Gotta love this quotation from Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin in early 2020? Is he the head of Qanon or OAN?
”The fact is that democracy in the United States is now largely a secretive and privately-run affair conducted out of the public eye with little oversight.” Jamie Raskin (D, MD)
Seems to be a bipartisan issue until its not. So what is it Barry are you a bad man or are you a sucker?
bill, you quote me:
“Trump and his campaign got their info from Qanon and OAN…”
That’s a matter of public record. Trump even credited OAN in tweets. Eg,
“REPORT: DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE. DATA ANALYSIS FINDS 221,000 PENNSYLVANIA VOTES SWITCHED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BIDEN. 941,000 TRUMP VOTES DELETED. STATES USING DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS SWITCHED 435,000 VOTES FROM TRUMP TO BIDEN.” @ChanelRion @OANN
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2020
Powell cites figures taken directly from OAN original ‘reporting’, also a matter of public record, but she doesn’t credit OAN.
Presumably to counter what you quoted of me re sourcing, you supply a 2019 Guardian news article that contains not one of the Trump campaign’s claims against Dominion.
It does say this.
“To say that they don’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing is not to say that nothing untoward happened,” Raskin said. “It’s simply to say that we don’t have the evidence of it.”
No mention either of Venezuala, Cuba or Germany.
The Guardian article correctly identifies American/Canadian ownership of Dominion and says there is no tangible evidence of wrongdoing.
I trust you didn’t throw out the unvetted Gaurdian article as a lame “the left criticised too!” riposte, disguised as a reply to my point (thank you for quoting me accurately).
Seems to be a bipartisan issue until its not. So what is it Barry are you a bad man or are you a sucker?
”I trust you didnt throw out the unvetted Gaurdian article as a lame the left criticised too! riposte, disguised as a reply to my point (thank you for quoting me accurately).”
———————-
Well it appears you haven’t figured out which it is yet. So sucker gets my vote.
”unvetted”???? Hmmmm, do you determine if something is vetted or not depending upon how well it comports with your belief system?
I learned a long time ago to do my own vetting. Of course I also have done it for a living as an auditor, explicitly security and protection of assets. Yet here it seems you are making an unvetted claim that the election was secure. And what appears to be the basis of that claim. . . .that nobody has handed you absolute proof they aren’t secure?
From my own experience I was very concerned about long before the outcome was known. I have those kinds of concerns especially heightened when things are being done on the fly to respond for example to the need to maintain social distancing at the polls and new ways of voting simply are mandated without any new controls.
At least prior to this election you had to go through a registration process before getting your hands on a ballot. In this election ballots were sent everywhere uninvited with the only control being you must sign it; but with hardly any control regarding the checking of signatures. Thats really concerning.
Further the standards of my profession would demand some new looks at a variety of existing controls such as checks against registration databases, typically done before a ballot is sent or handed to someone, and now would need to be done after a ballot was cast.
Are you so stupid you don’t see issues such as that?
Oh I forgot to ask you for your source that Qanon was supplying some of the information to Trumps attorneys.
I didn’t know who OAN was, but now see from a quote of the retweet that it was from OANN, One America News Network which is as far as I know is as credible of a news network as anything you read.
so can you produce or can I conclude that you are more full of BS than anybody in here?
Hmmmm, do you determine if something is vetted or not depending upon how well it comports with your belief system?
Nope, it was obviously unvetted (not properly read) by you because it contradicted the point. Nothing to do with my worldview, just basic reading comprehension.
The Trump campaign could not possibly have relied on the Guardian report as it contaioned none of their claims and said there was no evidence.
Is that difficult for you to comprehend? Is that why you ignored the most salient point in my reply?
You’ve not heard of OAN? They are a terrible ‘news’ service, more biased than Fox, and have a very poor standard of journalism. But they only reported on Trump glowingly and never anything good on Democrats, so of couse it became an important source in Trump’s news feed.
And yes, I can supply links demonstrating D Trump and others in the Trump campaign, including the legal reps, relied on Qanon and other conspiracy channels for their ‘evidence’.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/trump-pushed-qanon-4chan-created-conspiracy-theories-georgia-call-n1252769
https://slate.com/technology/2021/01/trump-georgia-call-lies-qanon-8kun-twitter-oann.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/q-fades-qanon-s-dominion-voter-fraud-conspiracy-theory-reaches-n1247780
https://web.archive.org/web/20201212132136/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/19/heres-how-seriously-you-should-take-trump-legal-teams-conspiracy-theories/
With the last link, just click on the stop-loading button (an X on my brwoser) after a little time of the page loading, or else the web archive page will eventually load in the paywall and you won’t be able to read it.
The last link gives a quick precis of OANN during the article, too.
An excellent resource for getting ionformation on the quality of a news service is News Guard. Here is their article on One America News Network.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201216173515/https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/oann.pdf
bill, the Republicans who actually ran the election said there was no fraud (as did the Democrats who ran the elections). Amazingly, the US electoral commission only deals with campaign finance iomproprieties. The US does not have a federally mandated independent body to run the lections. The governing party runs the elections in many places in the US.
The department that oversees election security for voting machines denied therer was any fraud – that’s with Trump appointees at the helm.
The attorney general of the US (a Republican appointee) said there was no evidence of fraud.
All voting machine systems are vetted by independent specialists in each state, usually working in labs. Something the Trump campaign didn’t mention.
What we’re talking about here is claims from Sidney Powell and the Trump campaign that there was definitely fraud.
They don’t have any credible evidence. They got the ownership of the voting systems wrong, they got the location of Smartmatic voting machines wrong, hell they even used data about voters numbers from a different state to the one they were arguing in. The cases have been woeful.
You are trying to pitch the necessity for an investigation, which is shifting the goal posts. This is about a defamation case, in case you’ve forgotten.
If Sidney Powell is claiming she was not speaking as a lawyer about the case she was going to prosecute when she maligned Dominion, and instead as a campaigner for the Trump campaign, then that will be a very interesting development for those who think that the lawyers were being truthful, and that being a lawyer confers some sort of weight to the claims made.
I’m curious to know how much freedom there is in the US to lie through the teeth on a political campaign with the effect of causing an insurrection. I would have thought there would be consequences for that, but perhaps the US is so liberal that you can damage its democratic institution with impunity.
This fact checker provides the links making the trail from website conspiracist to OAN, to Donald Trump.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/trump-tweets-conspiracy-theory-about-deleted-votes/
Wikipedia’s entry on Qanon and the 2020 elction (you can follow the links therein for source matierial):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon#2020_presidential_election
An article backgrounding Powell, and at the bottom the article is how she got involved with the Trump campaign, and her take on and lack of evidence for pushing the Dominion angle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/sidney-powell-trump-kraken-lawsuit/2020/11/28/344d0b12-2e78-11eb-96c2-aac3f162215d_story.html
barry says:
”bill, the Republicans who actually ran the election said there was no fraud (as did the Democrats who ran the elections).”
LMAO! Barry in all my years of auditing I never had the guy that was running something say it wasn’t done properly. You are asking absolutely the last guy you should ever ask. ROTFLMAO!!
barry says:
”Nope, it was obviously unvetted (not properly read) by you because it contradicted the point. Nothing to do with my worldview, just basic reading comprehension.”
Barry you are a barrel of laughs. Here is the bottom line. An election needs to have good internal controls. Good internal controls alert you and provide evidence when bad stuff is happening. For me being an expert auditor who review internal controls I understand that bad internal controls allow assets to disappear without anybody noticing. When an article says the controls are practically non-existent that article tells me there is very little chance you will find any evidence.
So you leap over the parts in the article ”secretive and privately-run affair conducted out of the public eye with little oversight” then you latch on to the statements from those responsible that nothing wrong occurred, do you have any idea what a sucker you are being? I don’t think so.
Yes, barry
The campaign launched by the Trump Command about alleged election fraud in the 2020 election was itself a single, disgusting fraud.
Most Americans did not even notice that in 2020, for the first time in a very long period, Trump did not vote by letter as usual, but appeared in person for the election.
Then, as if by a miracle, the shots against postal voting went off continuously.
Any voices that indicated that postal voting was NEVER a problem were discredited and hushed up.
The calculation of the Trump troop and his family was completely transparent: they knew that while the Trump fans would certainly appear in the polling stations, the Biden fans, on the other hand, would prefer postal votes by a large majority because of COVID19.
And since the postal ballot papers were almost always counted AFTER the votes cast in the polling stations, and Trump always appeared as the current winner first, it was easy for the Trump election team to claim that the postal ballot papers in Biden’s favor would have cost him the victory and were a single fraud.
Nowhere in the European countries like France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark etc. was postal voting ever a problem.
What Trump and his team did was an absolute shame for democracy.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon has indicated he doesn’t want to discuss politics here. Of course, that means he doesn’t want to discuss things that don’t fit with his cult beliefs.
ball4…”After achieving escape velocity to moon Apollo 11 had mostly linear velocity which upon entering moon orbit most of that linear momentum converted to orbital angular momentum …”
That’s not a conversion, the Moon does not lose its linear momentum. The angular momentum to which you refer would apply to a mass at the end of a lever where the other end of the lever was connected to an axle. A mass like that has only angular momentum but the Moon has only linear momentum which is acted on continuously by gravity to bend its instantaneous linear momentum into an orbit.
“The angular momentum to which you refer would apply to a mass at the end of a lever where the other end of the lever was connected to an axle. A mass like that has only angular momentum but the Moon has only linear momentum … “
We seem to have a lot of concrete thinkers. I’ll pick on Gordon, just because this a rather clear, immediate example.
A mass on the end of a lever connected to a fixed axle would have angular momentum about that axle at some instant given by
L = (mass) * (instantaneous speed) * (distance from axle to mass)
But … remove the lever and the object STILL has the same angular momentum about that axle at that instant. Neither m nor v nor r is changed at that instant by the presence of a physical lever. And of course, the axle also does not need to be present to calculate the angular momentum about that line through space.
Furthermore, at that same instant, the same object has a different angular momentum if you measure about some other line at some other distance from the object.
Similarly, a mass — whether attached to a physical lever or floating through space — has linear momentum p = mv.
*********************************
Both a mass on the lever and a moon have angular momentum (the value of which depends on the axis you choose).
Both a mass on the lever and a moon have linear momentum (the value of which also depends on the coordinates you choose).
The orbital angular momentum of Moon is only a mathematical construct. It only has linear momentum.
It is no more or less a mathematical construct than linear momentum. If it has linear momentum then it has angular momentum and vice-versa. The relationship is L=rP.
It’s confusing to you bdgwx, because you understand algebra, but you do not understand physics.
You can calculate an angular momentum for Moon = rp. But Moon does NOT have “p + rp” total momentum. The correct terminology is “it ONLY has linear momentum”.
The correct terminology is “it ONLY has linear momentum”.
No, it’s not. … Yes, it is.
No, it’s not. … Yes, it is.
No, it’s not.
Look, folks. Its fun to discuss this stuff, but if you are looking for correct info, you really need to find a text book or take a class, not listen to some random guys on the internet trying to explain orbits in a discussion about global temperatures!
That sounds like good advice, but idiots like Folkerts, can’t learn. He believes two ice cubes can make something much warmer than one ice cube! He believes you can create angular momentum, just with algebra.
TF is just a random guy on the internet trying to pervert reality to match his cult beliefs.
His failures are fun to watch.
ClintR said: But Moon does NOT have “p + rp” total momentum.
Nobody said it did.
Correct bdgwx. Moon only as linear momentum, “p”.
“He believes you can create angular momentum, just with algebra.”
Time to ‘put up or shut up. I challenge you to quote anything I said that supports this claim.
ClintR said: Moon only as linear momentum, p.
Nobody said that either.
ClintR said: He believes you can create angular momentum, just with algebra.
Again…nobody said that.
TF, go back to bdgwx’s comment: “Tim said, the moon always had that amount of angular momentum and linear momentum.”
(Bold is my emphasis.)
If you now want to deny that, that’s good. That means you’ve learned something.
TF and bdgwx got caught with their confusion about angular momentum.
It’s now fun to watch their attempts to deny their own words.
Now you’ve got it ClintR. The Moon always had that amount of angular momentum and linear momentum. It wasn’t created from nothing. And notice that at no time did either of us say that it was useful or even valid to add those two quantities together.
In the reference frame with radius r=0 going through the Earth-Moon barycenter and angle a=0 radial line pointing to a distant star the values are…
L = 2.88e34 kg.m^2/s
P = 7.51e25 kg.m/s
This is calculated with…
m = 7.35e22 kg
r = 384e6 m
v = 1022 m/s
w = 2.66e-6 rad/s
I = mr^2 = 7.35e22 kg * 384e6 m = 1.08e40 kg.m^2
L = 1.08e40 kg.m^2 * 2.66e-6 rad/s = 2.88e34 kg.m^2/s
P = 7.35e22 kg * 1022 m/s = 7.51e25 kg.m/s
And notice that…
L = rP
2.88e34 kg.m^2/s = 384e6 m * 7.51e25 kg.m/s = 2.88e34 kg.m^2/s
At no time did I ever add L and P together or say that it is useful or even valid to do so.
At no time did I ever create L or P from nothing. They simply are what they are because of the Moon’s orbital motion in this reference frame.
bdgwx, you keep saying the same thing, denying you’re saying it.
“The Moon always had that amount of angular momentum and linear momentum.”
Both momentums do NOT exist together. There is no “and” there. For example, if gravity were turned of, Moon would only have its linear momentum. Your calculated angular momentum is merely an algebraic result.
But keep denying reality. How about some more meaningless calculations?
Ah! so Clint’s problem is reading comprehension.
Yes, sometimes “and” means “plus”. If I said “I have 5 dollars and 20 dollars” that would mean “25 dollars”. They are the same sort of thing and can be added.
But with two different quantities, “and” does not mean “plus”. If I said “the moon has a mass, m, and a velocity, v”, no one would conclude I meant to add m + v. And when I said the moon had “angular momentum and linear momentum”, no should should conclude I meant to add L + p.
Such a conclusion would indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of both English and physics.
If a moon has linear momentum “p”, in orbit around a planet at radius “r”, then a calculated angular momentum would be “rp”. But that does NOT mean both “p” and “rp” exist together. An algebraic calculation does NOT create energy, if the physics in incorrect.
For example, if gravity were turned off, the moon would continue with only “p”. There never was any “rp”. It didn’t exist. It was only a meaningless calculation.
The idiots WANT angular momentum to be created by a meaningless calculation. They need angular momentum to “prove” something that has no axial rotation has axial rotation!
They keep fighting reality, but reality always wins.
“But that does NOT mean both ‘p’ and ‘rp’ exist together. ”
p = mv exists.
L = mvr exists.
KE = 1/2 mv^2 also exists.
They all exist simultaneously for the moon. Having one does not preclude having any of the others. They are all different, interesting, useful properties to know.
Or perhaps you are going to claim that p & KE don’t both ‘exist together’.
TF, if you can scrape up 5 dollars cash, then multiply “5” by “1000”.
You still have your 5 dollars, but now you also have $5000! They both “exist”, because the math is correct!
(It’s so easy to debunk idiots, but they keep trying anyway. That’s why this is so much fun.)
As much as I hate analogies, the fact that the Moon has its “heaviest” face facing the Earth continuously, while falling around the Earth, invites analogy.
Suspend an unbalanced disc on an axle parallel to the surface, free to spin. A bicycle wheel will do nicely, if the inflator fitting is the source of imbalance.
Now feel free to spin the wheel as much as you like on the axle. Invariably, the wheel stops with the heaviest part facing the Earth. Just like the Moon, with its heaviest part continuously facing the Earth.
I am sure that some people will start talking about various frames of reference (they don’t actually understand what they are talking about, but no matter . . . ), points of view, and other distractions.
The fact remains, the Moon falls towards Earth continuously. The heaviest part of the Moon, not surprisingly, is the part closest to the Earth.
No calculations needed. Reality prevails.
Yep. If the wheel were in orbit, then it would need to rotate to keep the valve pointed to Earth, at the same rate as it orbits.
Nothing controversial about it.
“Tidal locking, in the best-known case, occurs when an orbiting astronomical body always has the same face toward the object it is orbiting. This is known as synchronous rotation: the tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner. Wikipedia”
Wrong Nate.
If the wheel were in orbit, it would not necessarily “settle” with the heavier side facing Earth. Tidal locking is a hoax. (See below.)
If one side always faces the inside of the orbit, that is “pure orbital motion”.
“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.
Our moon has day/night cycles rotating on its own axis once per orbit of Earth immediately debunking Clint R’s best efforts.
Moon’s day/night cycles are due to its pure orbital motion. If it were really rotating about its axis, in sync with its pure orbital motion, it would NOT have day/night cycles, as one side would always face Sun, and the other side would always be dark. (And all sides of Moon would be visible from Earth, as Moon orbits.)
Troll4 verifies he understands none of this and debunks himself, thereby making his flak pure nonsense,
Tidal Locking and the Moon’s axial rotation are only controversial among attention-seeking trolls on this blog who ignore facts, try to change standard definitions of ORBIT and ROTATION, refuse to learn basic physics, simply LIE about what Newton and Astronomers have said and generally have no integrity.
In the real world among people who do science and engineering, there is no controversy.
All that is certainly true of “Spinners”.
Nate stumbled onto some reality. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.
Nate goes full tilt Freudian!
Clint quotes someone who says: “The problem is, gravity does not induce a torque on a sphere.”
While it is indeed true that does not induce a torque on a spherically symmetric object, this is not a problem, because astronomical objects are not perfect spherical!
1) There are irregularities in any solid ball of rock. Like mountains and valleys. Like uneven distributions of mass inside the object.
2) Gravity stretches objects in such a way that an originally spherical object becomes slightly oblong. Anyone who lives by the ocean knows this — its called “tides”. What few people know is that the earth itself stretches! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
Problem solved!
* Gravity can cause torques on objects that are not spherical symmetric
* The earth and moon are not spherically symmetric.
With the issue settled that the moon is not rotating on its own axis, maybe we could get back to the other biggest debate there has ever been on this blog – the Green Plate Effect. Now, the GPE was debunked some time ago, but it is always useful to keep going over why, just so people understand that there is no such thing as back-radiation heating/insulation.
Our moon has day/night cycles rotating on its own axis once per orbit of Earth immediately debunking DREMT’s best efforts.
The GPE was long ago settled in favor of Eli and 1LOT.
The moon has day/night cycles because it is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis. Ball4, you wrote:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Thus agreeing that the GPE is debunked.
The Energizer Bunny of Ignorance wants another schooling?
Give it a rest, wronger and wronger.
bob disagrees with Ball4. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
How so DREMPTY?
I agree with Ball4 in way more ways than I agree with you.
The Moon spins on its axis and the blue plate warms, on these two main points Ball4 and I agree.
What do you mean “how so?”
Read his comment that I quoted at 8:20 AM. What is your response to his debunk of the GPE?
Ball4 has it correct that the green plates cool on separation, as I recall, you disagree with that.
Ball4
“the other two green plates decrease in temperature”
Anyway, that was 2 years ago, got anything more recent from Ball4?
Some of us make mistakes with the green plate effect from time to time, I don’t think that was Ball4s final answer.
So, why do you think Ball4 is wrong about the part I quoted?
He’s not wrong, the green plates cool, so there is no violation of the 1st law of thermo.
He pointed out that there is a change in outgoing energy, and he was quoting good ole huff and puff.
So I have no disagreement with Ball4, only you and the others who never took a class in thermodynamics, and make up their own physics.
“He’s not wrong”
Ah, so you agree that the GPE is debunked. After all, he said:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
bob believes: “…the green plates cool…”
Wrong bob. The green plates start at 244K, and when separated, remain at 244K. The bogus solution says the middle plate (blue plate) magically increases to 290 K. That’s the violation.
You don’t even understand the problem. You just support nonsense because you belong to the cult. You don’t even know what you’re supporting!
DREMT 8:20am knows that quote debunked now banned JD’s separated version, and showed the original GPE was settled in favor of Eli long ago. DREMT can’t even keep the stories straight.
Or who’s quoting who.
We all make mistakes quoting denizens, but at least someone could man up and admit Ball4 didn’t make the quote attributed to him.
Of course he did. Those are his words.
The 1LOT is a law DREMT, that’s what the L stands for. 1LOT settled the GPE in favor of Eli and 1LOT debunked the banned JD.
Nope
“The clown version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, a clear violation of the laws of physics.”
He was quoting the clown above.
Ball4 debunked the GPE…how funny is that?
☺️
The Earth moon system has total angular momentum Lorbital +Lspin. Lspin incudes that from the EARTH and the Moon.
No oops.
In any case this is the proper eqn used for centuries. No need to change it.
Arthur C Clark comes to mind.
Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear a magic to the likes of Clint R
“The bogus solution says the middle plate (blue plate) magically increases to 290 K. That’s the violation.”
Nate says:
The Earth moon system has total angular momentum Lorbital +Lspin. Lspin incudes that from the EARTH and the Moon.
No oops.
In any case this is the proper eqn used for centuries. No need to change it.
You didn’t specify which equations you were using for Lorbital Nate. And centuries? Perhaps you could provide some references for 2 or 3 of those centuries.
Yes the GPE nonsense is a great source of fun also. That’s where we saw such nonsense as “160 W/m^2 magically becomes 480 W/m^2”, and “Two ice cubes make something much warmer than one ice cube”.
Fun indeed!
With the issue of DREMTs deep concern for the integrity of others, but no concern for his own lack of integrity, settled,
we can all do our best now to ignore this attention seeking troll until he decides to debate honestly.
Troll Nate, you are encouraged to ignore reality as much as you want.
Your ongoing rejection/perversion/denial of reality proves us right.
For the TEAM of Morons, inviting lots of ridicule by being ridiculous = FUN.
DRsEMT the troll/sock puppet continues it’s endless loop repetition of it’s denial of the GPE, having never provided any experimental evidence to “debunk” the widely known scientific facts.
For example, the denialist troll(s) have yet to present any logical response to THIS DATA, which clearly supports the GPE. It’s been 2 YEARS, clowns, give it up!
Geraint Hughes provided the experimental evidence that there is no GPE.
LOL
OK, bob.
Then Geraint Hughes provided the experimental evidence that there is no 1LOT. That’s the law that was used by Eli to settle the GPE in Eli’s favor, so Hughes experimental evidence is evidently flawed.
But 1LoT was also the law that you mentioned in your debunking of the GPE, as per your comment linked to at 8:20 AM.
Sure, Geraint’s experiment is evidently flawed, so 1LOT is ok to use as Eli did settling the GPE in Eli’s favor.
1LoT was also the law you mentioned in your debunking of the GPE, as per your comment linked to at 8:20 AM.
Never debunked GPE which is long settled with 1LOT in favor of Eli, DREMT is simply wrong quoting my debunking of the pitiful and banned JD physics in JD’s separated plate fiasco.
Yes, you thought it pitiful that when the plates were separated, the temperature of the blue plate was claimed to rise to 290 K. As you remarked:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Thus debunking the GPE.
DRsEMT, as expected, can not provide any proper scientific evidence. We are reminded that Hughes’ “demonstration” was seriously flawed, which, of course, DRsEMT, et al. still refuse to acknowledge. For example, Hughes used a mechanical vacuum gauge, which can not measure high vacuum levels. He used a digital thermometer, providing no specifications for it, placed in an open “well” with a poor thermal connection to his plate while most of it’s tube was exposed to the IR from the surroundings. He did not measure the temperature of his second plate, nor did he measure the temperature of his tubular glass enclosure.
Then too, DRsEMT has nothing to say about my experimental results linked to above, which are different from my earlier GPE experiment.
You seem to have run an experiment proving that insulation works as expected. In other words:
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body”
As per Wikipedia. Pay special attention to the “reflected rather than absorbed”. In other words, insulation does not work via back-radiation.
E. Swanson, either you don’t understand the issue, or you’re trying to run around it.
If you believe in the GPE, fine. But beliefs ain’t science.
Both the 2-plate and 3-plate versions violate the laws of physics, if using black bodies, vacuum, no losses, etc. Energy ends up being created. It doesn’t work that way.
Clint R, the other sock puppet troll, again fails to understand engineering radiation heat transfer. Tell us, oh befuddled one, when you are sleeping and get cold at night, do you put on another blanket layer to warm yourself and would doing so also “create energy” and violate the 2nd Law?
So it’s both. You don’t understand the issue, AND you’re trying to run around it.
This issue is NOT about insulation or blankets. The ideal black bodies emit as they absorb. If you want to also try to violate the laws of physics, using insulators and radiative reflectors, be my guest. Your “data” does NOT support the GPE.
The bogus solutions to both the GPE scenarios violate the laws of physics.
There are no ideal black bodies in existence Clint R. However, insulation does exist with shiny foil on one side, perhaps you should puzzle through why is that?
The GPE was settled in favor of Eli long ago. JD got banned his physics was so laughable, you know, like your physics.
Troll4, all that desperate nonsense just confirms you have nothing, confirming our side has it right.
Thanks.
Clint R wrote:
There’s no excess energy available. With one Blue plate, half the energy is emitted by each side. Add two Green plates placed a small distance from the Blue plate, the result is that the outside surface of each Green plate emits at the same rate as one side of the single Blue plate.
But, the Green plates must also emit the same amount of energy from their inner facing sides, thus each Green plate must emit energy at the same rate as the single Blue plate, so the total for both Green plates is twice the rate for the single Blue plate. The energy from the inward side of each Green plate is absorbed by the Blue plate, which must then emit at a rate twice the initial rate and thus exhibits a greater temperature.
There’s no “new” energy created. If any energy is removed from the Blue plate, the Green plates will cool to a lower temperature to balance the flow. There’s no violation of the 1st Law.
Swanson, thanks for verifying you don’t understand thermodynamics.
This has all been explained before, but you obviously chose to ignore it.
When is your next cult meeting?
The troll Clint R, as usual, just rattles it’s chicken claws and ignores the critique. Perhaps it’s still expecting that some “magic green arrows”, as originally presented in a cartoon years ago, are an explanation. Surely you can do better than that by now.
Ball4 has already explained why the GPE is debunked. Try to keep up.
As I stated, this has been explained several times before. Swanson does not understand thermodynamics. That’s common in his cult.
With all three plates being identical, the heat content of each is simply determined by the specific heat capacity, mass, and temperature. Since the plates are identical, the temperature alone can represent the heat content. That makes it easy to follow.
So before the plates are separated, the heat contents are 244, 244, and 244.
After separation, the idiots believe the heat contents are 244, 290, and 244.
Their problem is, the “290” is an increase in energy with no additional energy being added to the plates. The energy flow remains 400W in, 400W out.
Swanson, and the rest, have to reject reality to keep their cult beliefs.
Clint R the sock puppet troll repeats his usual blunder, writing:
As expected, Clint R confuses internal thermal energy “content” with energy flow, as in, watts. The Second Law is applied to energy transfer, that is, power, not internal thermal energy at some point in time. The GPE does not “create” energy, the changes in temperature are the consequence of the different configuration when the Green plate(s) are added. As he notes, energy flows thru the “system” at the same rate, 400 watts for meter sq plates. That continual energy flow results in the temperatures seen in each case with higher temperature due to the change in plate positions.
I never considered engineering (as in, applied science) to be a cult. At least, said “cult” is grounded in facts, which can not be said for real cults, such as characterized by fundamentalist Christians and the followers of “Q”.
Ok, DREMT 9:47am the quote you clipped does already explain the debunking of the banned JD’s GPE solution and reinforces Eli’s GPE as settled long ago in favor of Eli. And in the process shows Geraint Hughes experiment is flawed.
Here is what you said;
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
It mirrors what ClintR is explaining to Swanson, and helps debunk the GPE. Thank you for your assistance.
As I stated, Swanson does not understand thermodynamics. I’ll let him prove it: “That continual energy flow results in the temperatures seen in each case with higher temperature due to the change in plate positions.”
Swanson believes temperature can be raised without additional energy! See why they’re idiots?
DREMT works tirelessly to uncover the ‘truth’ of what someone may have said months ago about something, as if humiliating that person will solve all his problems.
Meanwhile he repeatedly fails to learn the basic facts about heat transfer, and loses the debate again and again.
The Clint R/DRsEMT troll continues to ignore reality, leaving time out of the situation. So, lets try again.
Start with a system comprising single Blue plate with no power supplied and a near perfect black body surface. What’s it’s temperature? It depends on it’s environment, which might be very cold in deep space. Turn on the power supply of 400 watts/m^2 and after some time, the temperature will rise to 244 K as the rate energy is emitted equals that supplied.
Now, begin with a second system of three plates with the same mass, all touching, i.e., in thermal contact. Again, the temperature of the combination will start at some steady state with the environment. Turn on the 400 watts/m^2 and the temperature of the three will again rise to 244 K. The difference is it takes three times as long to achieve steady state, since there’s three times the mass.
Lastly, for a system of 3 plates separated by some distance in a vacuum, again the initial temperature will be some value depending on the surroundings. Turn on the power and the steady state temperatures will finally settle at 244–290–244 K.
There’s no extra energy created in system #3, it’s just that the steady state temperatures of the three systems are different. For the trolls who don’t know it, Thermodynamics includes Time, heat transfer is energy transferred per unit time.
So, Swanson disagrees with Ball4…interesting. How will Ball4 respond?
So before the plates are separated, the heat contents are 244, 244, and 244.
After separation, the idiots believe the heat contents are 244, 290, and 244.
Their problem is, the “290” is an increase in energy with no additional energy being added to the plates. The energy flow remains 400W in, 400W out.
I have no disagreement with E. Swanson DREMT, your 9:54 am comment is just from your own misunderstanding & confusion of the context.
“I have no disagreement with E. Swanson DREMT”
Sure you do. Swanson is trying to defend the GPE, whereas your comment helped debunk it. You couldn’t have much more of a disagreement.
…whereas my comment helped debunk JD as clipped. Just more confusion on DREMT’s part.
Your comment mirrors what Clint R is explaining to Swanson, and helps debunk the GPE. Thank you for your assistance.
No DREMT, you remain confused with your clip of mine taken out of context. GPE was settled long ago in favor of Eli. JD’s GPE was debunked and JD banned for bad physics.
There is no "context" which can save you, Ball4. Your comment mirrors what Clint R is explaining to Swanson, and helps debunk the GPE. Thank you for your assistance.
DREMT still remains confused, in context the forcing used in my comment long ago was different than what E. Swanson is discussing today so there can be no disagreement. Still ok though, JD’s GPE with bad physics that got JD banned was debunked by my earlier comment which reinforced Eli’s GPE being settled in favor of Eli long ago.
The “forcing” used in your comment!? What on Earth are you talking about you ridiculous troll!?
See, you remain confused DREMT. You can’t even understand the difference in forcings being discussed long ago in the comment you clipped out of context and the forcings in E. Swanson’s comments today. Pity. But there it is.
GPE settled in favor of Eli long ago as well as JD being debunked and then banned.
What was being discussed back then was identical to now in every single way. You wrote:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Thus debunking the GPE.
As you can see, the difference from E. Swanson’s current forcings & those I discussed back then isn’t mentioned in your clip DREMT, that’s why your clip is out of context. And proves you haven’t looked into my long-ago comment context to get the forcing difference correct, so thanks for proving you don’t know what you are writing about.
You’re welcome for my efforts debunking banned JD’s GPE; Eli’s GPE was settled in Eli’s favor long ago.
Thank you for your assistance in debunking the GPE, Ball4. Sorry you can’t wriggle your way out of it. You said what you said, and it will never be forgotten.
You’re welcome for my efforts debunking banned JD’s GPE, DREMT, I’m glad they will never be forgotten; Eli’s GPE was never debunked & settled in Eli’s favor long ago.
Your comment debunking the GPE will never be forgotten.
“Their problem is, the ‘290’ is an increase in energy with no additional energy being added to the plates. The energy flow remains 400W in, 400W out.”
Will dimwit Clint ever understand the basic difference between power and energy? The relationship between heat flow, temperature, and insulation?
It seems there is no hope.
Your comment debunking the GPE will never be forgotten..
The Moon’s axis rotation is relative. Are you in the elevator or the building next door?
A record being spun on a record player has only one axis of rotation, in the center of the record, regardless of whether you observe it from the record itself, in the same room as the record player, in the elevator or the building next door, or wrt the fixed stars, or from the moon, or wherever else.
Now draw a little moon towards the outside edge of the record. Is that moon rotating on its own axis, just because the record is spinning? Of course not. It, like every other part of the record, is rotating about the axis in the center of the record.
Tesla proved you wrong about that DREMT; the drawn moon spins up on its own axis to conserve momentum as the record spins up. 1LOT comes into play also, but DREMT writes the 1LOT was experimentally disproven by Garaint Hughes.
"the drawn moon spins up on its own axis"
You couldn’t make it up. Thank you for the laughs.
This was all covered in many previous posts….the moon does NOT rotate on it’s axis in reference to the earth and the moon. While the Earth does….the moon does not…
stephen…”The Moons axis rotation is relative. Are you in the elevator or the building next door?”
Stephen…it’s not a problem of relative motion. The Moon cannot rotate about its local axis because it must keep the same side pointed to the Earth.
I have covered this in detail and I’ll be brief here. The side always pointing to the Earth moves in an inner orbital path. The far side of the Moon must then move in an outer, concentric orbital path. The COG moves on an inner concentric path between the other two. Those three points moving in concentric circles are enough to define all the points on the Moon, which are moving in concentric paths.
That rules out any kind of rotation about the COG and that applies to any viewing perspective. There is no relative POV that can start the Moon rotating about its COG.
Gordon, Clint R writes there IS a POV (reference frame) that can start the moon rotating on its COG, see below and go argue with Clint R about his normal clock reference frame:
“the “moon on the right” is actually orbiting CCW, while rotating CW, in sync.”
And as for our moon, as long as it makes one complete turn (Gordon term) or one complete orientation (DREMT term) change on its axis per orbit, then all parts move in concentric circles as Gordon showed with his coin example by properly turning (orienting) the moving coin once per orbit. The same is shown by the string not wrapping the ball.
Yawn.
Imagine this, Harris, unelected staff, and cabinet members are directing Biden…..surreal.
Better than having to mop up after Donald Trump.
Better how? The border is better? China? Taxes? Spending? What? Your leftist utopia?
Better for the staff. Trump had this bad habit of saying something daft and leaving his staff scrambling to explain what he meant. Remember the time he suggested to a senior health professional in a press conference that you could cure people of Covid-19 by irradiating them with UV light? Or the way he kept contradicting both Pence and Fauci on handling the pandemic?
I always thought of Rightists as utopians, sharing Pangloss’ belief that “All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.”
entropic…”I always thought of Rightists as utopians…”
I have often wondered why people are labeled as left or right. It’s a division created by the conditioned human mind which needs to separate what it sees into categories. The basic function of the conditioned mind is to separate people, which is the basis of violence and wars.
There are socialists who are billionaire, businessmen, which seems a contradiction in terms. I have met right-wingers who are good-hearted people who insist that a centralized government is harmful, yet we need a centralized government to function as a country. It comes down to the extent of the centralization.
I don’t think you can generalize on people re right/left unless you know the people involved.
Various measures of Left and Right.
The Left tend to “All for one, one for all”, the Right tend to “Every man for himself”.
The Left tend to run the country for the benefit of the poor, the Right for the benefit of the rich.
The Left won’t let you better yourself financially the Right will let you die of diabetes because you can’t afford insulin.
The Left will redistribute the wealth until it’s all gone, the Right won’t redistribute it at all.
The Left tend to be liberal and happy with the idea of change, the Right tend to be conservative and wish things would stay the same.
Both sides are authoritarian. The Left want state control in the name of the people, the Right want state control in the name of the ruling class.
The billionaires are only socialists because they want to use the government to preserve their wealth by limiting competition. UV light to combat Covid 19 has been studied. He didn’t mention it out of the blue. I don’t think he contradicted Pence too much but Fauci is an egomaniac and incompetent government bureaucrat. It was never about Trump. He was just in the way of the left. Look at all the softball questions Biden gets. Better for the staff? Is that really all you got?
Also, your left and right comparisons are baloney. Conservatives are for individual liberty and keeping what you earn. The right is for limited government. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights tell you everything you need to know about the right: provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, secure the blessings of liberty. The left has worked for 200 years to dismantle the Constitution. Those are the differences.
The scary part is that Harris may be President soon.
There is hope, however. In Germany, a lawyer who has successfully taken on Volkswagen and the Deutch bank, is filing an international class action suit for crimes against humanity over the current lockdowns. He is hoping his action will spread to other countries where massive class action suits will be filed against their governments.
The basis of the lawsuit is that the tests for covid are not valid and that they do not test for infection or a virus. Therefore the lockdowns have been illegal. If that spreads to the US, the Democrats may be forced out of office.
https://evolvetoecology.org/2021/02/27/dr-reiner-fuellmich-begins-legal-litigation-on-the-covid-19-fraud-the-greatest-crime-against-humanity/
Gordo, Such complaints would need to get past nations like Brazil first, IMHO:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/27/world/americas/virus-brazil-bolsonaro.html
Perhaps we can get back to debating climate change.
The bad news is that it has been confirmed that clouds will increase in a warmer world and they will have a net warming effect which will amplify the rate of global warming.
https://theconversation.com/why-clouds-are-the-missing-piece-in-the-climate-change-puzzle-140812
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab97c9
Ent, do you actually believe that nonsense?
It’s all modeling, “what ifs”, estimates, and assumptions. That ain’t science.
No wonder you’re so confused.
Whoever put out that nonsense could have stopped abusing his keyboard right after: “As the atmosphere contains far more low, thick clouds than high, thin clouds, the parasol effect dominates and our planet would be much hotter if clouds did not exist.”
But noooooo! He rambles on into alarmism, and ends with the obligatory “more funding is needed”.
Entropic man
I think I will have to agree with Clint R on this one (I disagree with him on 90% of his posts but he seems correct with this one).
I would not trust the models when the CERES data shows exactly opposite. The CERES data is a combination of modeled and measured information. Collected from satellite and Surface measuring locations.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAF41Selection.jsp
Not sure if this will bring up the correct tool. You can put in your email and visualize the data (select global) and you get a series of graphs of surface radiant energy.
The global average solar flux reaching the surface is 240 W/m^2 with clear sky conditions. You add clouds and it drops to around 185 W/m^2. That is a loss of 55 W/m^2 that will not reach the surface because of clouds (all types).
You get a decrease in Net longwave surface loss. With clouds the net Longwave loss is around -54 W/m^2. With no clouds the loss is around -81 W/m^2. The total contribution from clouds is to decrease the longwave loss by 27 W/m^2. Far less than the 55 W/m^2 lost to the surface from cloud reflections.
The have the graphs of total radiant energy (solar and longwave)
(the Graphs go from 2000 to 2020).
With Clear sky conditions the surface receives a net positive of 130 W/m^2 (other surface heat transfer mechanisms remove this excess energy). With clouds it drops to around 108 W/m^2.
The articles make a completely opposite conclusion based upon models. I would reject this information as alarmist and intentionally misleading. The actual evidence supports a completely opposite conclusion. More clouds (of all types) leads to an overall cooler Surface.
N,
And at night, all the heat of the day escapes to space. That is why the temperature falls.
You seem to ignore reality.
Have you managed to accept that winter is colder than summer? No trapped heat!
Carry on.
Norman
I tried to find a way of adjusting both types of cloud. CERES does not seem to allow separate treatment of low cloud and high cloud.
Low cloud is water droplets. Their net effect is to increase albedo more than DWLR and produce a cooling effect.
High cloud is ice crystals. These have little effect on albedo but reflect DWLR. Their net effect is warming.
Paraphrased from the press release.
“First, the cover of low clouds is expected to decrease in the tropics as global temperatures rise, reducing albedo. Second, it is well understood that high clouds will move into higher regions of the atmosphere as it warms, increasing DWLR. These warming effects may be mitigated slightly by an increase in the thickness of clouds at high latitudes only, particularly over the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, but this will not cancel out the overall warming effect.”
Looking at Figure9b in the paper you can see this illustrated. The figure shows the effect of changes over time on various factors influencing the climate feedback parameter lambda. A positive change has a cooling effect, a negative effect warms.
The change in cloud longwave radiation has a cooling effect. The change in cloud shortwave radiation has a larger warming effect and the overall effect of cloud is warming.
Entropic man
I do accept you are an intelligent poster. I am doing more research into the topic.
“The ETH scientists were able to show that, in the past, there were fewer low-lying clouds in warmer years than in colder years.”
From:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160816110756.htm
But the question is what is causing what? Are the lack of clouds increasing the temperature (which seems logical, more solar energy reaching the ground) or is the increased temperature decreasing cloud cover? Both could explain the data.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/met.1745#:~:text=Decreases%20of%20about%203.52%20%C2%B1,HIRS%20data%20over%20those%20regions.
This paper brings up some interesting points. Convective clouds seem to be neutral on warming or cooling.
I need to see some more papers on why they conclude a warming world leads to less tropical low clouds.
“Papers” won’t help. What is needed is an understanding of the basic science.
During daytime, clouds are reflecting high energy (visible) solar photons. That solar energy does NOT reach Earth. Any energy emitted by clouds reaching Earth is much less than the energy reflected by the same clouds.
During nighttime, low clouds can act as a blanket. They are NOT adding energy to the system, just helping to hold temperatures.
The net effect of clouds is “cooling”. More clouds = lower temperatures.
Norman
“I need to see some more papers on why they conclude a warming world leads to less tropical low clouds. ”
So would I. I did a quick literature search and didn’t get much. There’s a considerable body of observational evidence building up that tropical low cloud is decreasing.
There’s also radiative physic and observation confirming that less low cloud is a positive feedback..
The mechanism by which warming causes less low cloud is still obscure, which is why it’s so hard to model.
“I do accept you are an intelligent poster. ”
Thank you, but if I was intelligent I wouldn’t be here. (Smile emoji)
Entropic man
I hope you keep posting. Climate Science is such a vast field of knowledge that good debate and discussion is still possible. It is hard to do not blogs with irrational people who peddle their ideas and will not accept that they could be wrong and willing to learn.
I am interested in learning the Truth of Climate Change. There are irrational fanatics on both sides of the issue. I like to keep it on the evidence and science. Logical thought is also a postive.
And just for fun.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56542408
Roll on the end of the month.
This thread is getting too long.
Dreamt Will make sure he poisons next months Temp update thread with the same nonsense.
Cults usually consider reality to be “poison”.
I love it when they believe all the “Spinners” are just powerless to help responding. Like they haven’t initiated sub-thread after sub-thread.
The following are Tesla’s ramblings and opinion from a magazine article he published in The Electrical Experimenter, with my response in bold:
With this object attention is called to Fig. 5 showing a system composed of eight balls M, which are carried on spokes S, radiating from a hub H, rotatable around a central axis O in bearings supposed to be frictionless. It is an arrangement similar to that before illustrated with the exception that the balls, instead of forming parts of the spokes, are supported in screw pivots s, which are normally loose but can be tightened so as to permit both free turning and rigid fixing as may be desired. To facilitate observation the spokes are provided with radial marks and the lower sides of the balls are shaded. Assume, first, that the drawing depicts the state of rest, the balls being rotatable without friction, and let an angular velocity ω = 2 π n be imparted to the system in the clockwise direction as indicated by the long solid arrow. Viewing a ball as M, its successive positions 1, 2, 3-8 in space, and also relatively to the spoke, will be just as drawn, and it is evident from an inspection [The only thing evident is the cluelessness of Tesla in regards to the mechanics of rotational motion] of the diagram that while moving with the angular velocity ω about O, in the clockwise direction, the ball turns, with respect to its axis, at the same angular velocity but in the opposition direction, that of the dotted arrow. [Totally wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. The ball does not turn as Tesla states with an angular velocity of w CCW. The ball does not rotate at all, but undergoes curvilinear translation. Tesla switches to a non-inertial rotating reference frame without notifying the reader, and makes the claim of rotation, which is true, but only wrt a rotating reference frame in sync with the spokes] The combined result of these two motions [There is only one motion, that being w of the system] is a translatory movement of the ball such that all particles are animated with the same velocity V [Tesla switches back to the inertial reference frame again without notifying the reader, since all particles are not animated with the same velocity wrt his rotating reference frame], which is that of its center of gravity. In this case, granted that there is absolutely no friction the kinetic energy of each ball will be given by the product of 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 [Tesla switches back to his rotating reference frame fixed to the spokes, and declares the angular motion relative to the spoke is impossible because the pivots are screwed tight. Like duh, Captain Obvious. But motion wrt the inertial reference frame is still happening, genius] 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. [That does not happen. Tesla makes unsupported assertions and declarations, without providing scientific proof. It is just his opinions. And his confusion and misuse of reference frames is astounding, just like with his Tesla-ite cultists. The Tesla articles appeared in a magazine called The Electrical Experimenter. His ideas did not undergo the rigorous review required by the scientific method.]
“Tesla switches back to his rotating reference frame fixed to the spokes, and declares the angular motion relative to the spoke is impossible because the pivots are screwed tight. Like duh, Captain Obvious. But motion wrt the inertial reference frame is still happening, genius”
Incorrect. He is not saying the motion “relative to the spoke” is impossible, he says “relatively to their axes”, “their” being in reference to the balls themselves. All he is saying there is that when the pivots are screwed tight, the balls can no longer rotate on their own axes, regardless of reference frame. They merely rotate around the center of the apparatus.
All he is saying there is that when the pivots are screwed tight, the balls can no longer rotate on their own axes, regardless of reference frame.
Thanks for your opinion of the thoughts of Tesla. Your mind reading abilities are fabulous.
Thanks for confirming the stupidity of Tesla who does not realize rotation for a system is measured wrt the inertial reference frame. And that even though the pivots are screwed tight to the rotating arm, that does not prevent the ball from rotating wrt the inertial reference frame.
This is why nobody gives any credence to Tesla’s articles on the moon. They were never scientifically vetted. All you are doing is regurgitating his unproven ideas. You are just a Tesla puppet. No need to post all this BS. We can read the opinions of Tesla from his articles.
No need for me to mind read, I just use the English language.
You think that when something becomes physically incapable of rotating on its own axis…that it starts rotating on its own axis!
The fixed balls are simply rotating about the central axis O.
People uneducated in advanced dynamics/kinematics have this comprehension issue. When the pivots are screwed tight to the arm, all that does is prevent rotation wrt the arm (rotating non-inertial reference frame). Hello! McFly!! But that does not prevent the ball from rotating on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, something Tesla completely ignored or misunderstood. (as well as his lemming followers.)
I’ve given two examples of this issue from two universities that present the rotational concepts of a ball fixed to a rotating rod:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlFlZHfAZeE
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=80BA8BA13FEC03B0!2052&ithint=file%2cpptx&authkey=!AER-b8FVoR8gLQM
It seems counterintuitive to the uninitiated that the disk welded to the revolving arm rotates on its own axis, whereas the disk that is free to rotate does not rotate on its own axis. This is why there are only 4 or 5 commenters on this blog who rabidly believe the moon does not rotate on its own axis. They lack a true education in physics and have to rely on the erroneous writings of Tesla, and refuse to learn. Whereas the overwhelming majority understand and follow the science.
I completely understand Tesla’s point of view regarding Figure 5, that an orbiting object with its face pointing towards the center of orbit only has an enhanced translational component of kinetic energy compared to when the object was unlocked and free to rotate. But that viewpoint is not supported by actual physics. Tesla agreed that a ball whirling on a string would rotate on its own axis if the string were suddenly broken. But his contention that the ball did not rotate on its own axis prior to release violates all the laws of physics, and especially Newton’s third law of motion.
For example, with the ball on a string, the string only supplies a tension force acting on the ball’s COM. The string cannot impart any rotational component to the ball’s movement. The ball rotates on its own axis upon release from the string because it was rotating on its own axis prior to release (Newton’s third law of motion) Tesla is entitled to his opinions, but he never thoroughly vetted his ideas in conformance with the tenets of the scientific method.
You are entitled to your opinion as well. I’ll stick to the science.
StalkerGoneWeird believes: “The string cannot impart any rotational component to the ball’s movement.”
Wrong Stalker. You just don’t understand the physics. You actually believe the ball-on-a-string is rotating about its axis. If the ball were rotating, the string would wrap around it. You don’t have any understanding of motion, and you can’t learn.
The discernment of axes of rotation – where they are, how many they are – is not dependent on reference frames.
In reality, if the ball were inertially rotating more or less than once on its axis, the string would wrap around it. Clint R ignores the evidence yet again.
Again, the discernment of axes of rotation – where they are, how many they are – is not dependent on reference frames.
Not according to Clint R who defines a clock frame with CW and CCW rotation on certain axes.
???
Ball4: the most desperate troll in existence.
SkepticGoneWild says:
It seems counterintuitive to the uninitiated that the disk welded to the revolving arm rotates on its own axis, whereas the disk that is free to rotate does not rotate on its own axis. This is why there are only 4 or 5 commenters on this blog who rabidly believe the moon does not rotate on its own axis. They lack a true education in physics and have to rely on the erroneous writings of Tesla, and refuse to learn. Whereas the overwhelming majority understand and follow the science.
I completely understand Tesla’s point of view regarding Figure 5, that an orbiting object with its face pointing towards the center of orbit only has an enhanced translational component of kinetic energy compared to when the object was unlocked and free to rotate.
=============================
Thats laughable SGW. A mathematical 2 step shortcut solution to an orbital rotation doesn’t redefine reality.
Mathematics as powerful as it is, is purely symbolic and creates no reality of its own.
Confusing mathematics with reality is the biggest bane in science and leads to ridiculous extrapolations that can take a long time to straighten out. . . .especially when there is politics involved that strongly discourages ”dangerous” research.
Your problem can be traced to the fact that there is no mathematical description of ”rigid” and thus you unrealistically violate the philosophical concept of rigidity with mathematical shortcuts that can produce the correct answer and leap on parts of the equation to claim reality. Reality does not arise out of symbolism. Good symbolism arises out of reality. But some times we become too conceited to recognize our own shortcomings.
Indeed a welded globe rotating on its own axis is both counter intuitive and lacking in reality. Blame your math for not being able to deal with the reality of existing rigidity.
If you want to criticize Tesla you should confine yourself to specifically marking up his mathematical errors as indeed your perception of reality has been clouded by too many trees.
Poor Bill would flunk the Basic Mechanics 2 course offered at Purdue University from whence the pendulum welded disk problem originated.
Bill is also confused about rigid bodies. Maybe this will help:
A rigid body is an idealization of a body that does not deform or change shape. 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
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm#:~:text=A%20rigid%20body%20is%20an%20idealization%20of%20a,during%20the%20course%20of%20motions%20of%20the%20body.
Gee, SKG your quote missed the part about:
”Like the approximation of a rigid body as a particle, this is never strictly true.”
Poor Bill misses the money quote:
All bodies deform as they move. However, the approximation remains acceptable as long as the deformations are negligible relative to the overall motion of the body.
SkepticGoneWild says:
”Poor Bill misses the money quote:
All bodies deform as they move. However, the approximation remains acceptable as long as the deformations are negligible relative to the overall motion of the body.”
—————————————————-
Aha SGW demonstrates the perfect example of misunderstanding.
I couldn’t agree more with the money quote. All the libration, tilt of axis, and elliptical shape of the orbit are all negligible and add to zero over time.
What doesn’t add to zero over time is the gravitational bulge that is emblematic of the rigidity of the relationship between the earth and the moon.
Gravity long ago sucked all the spin out of the moon and what remains is far more rigid than seen on the typical non-rigid planet moon relationship.
Earth to Bill. Tesla’s models in his moon rotation article all meet the definition of a rigid body.
SkepticGoneWild says:
Earth to Bill. Teslas models in his moon rotation article all meet the definition of a rigid body.
===========================
Tesla had 300 patents. How many do you have?
Tesla had 300 patents. How many do you have?
Wow, Bill. Nice deflection.
I don’t care how many patents Tesla had. That does not excuse his stupidity regarding the moon’s rotation.
And the basis of your opinion of Tesla? You just don’t like his conclusion?
Tesla’s best argument, that the Moon just ‘appears to be’ rotating but it is not in reality, is in the end, a non-argument.
The TEAM buys it because he is Tesla! Even though they cannot even explain his logic
But he has other had noteworthy failed claims, where he did not do proper analysis, even in his area of expertise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wireless_System
skeptic…”[Tesla switches back to his rotating reference frame fixed to the spokes, and declares the angular motion relative to the spoke is impossible because the pivots are screwed tight. Like duh, Captain Obvious. But motion wrt the inertial reference frame is still happening, genius] ”
****
You’re the freaking idiot, not Tesla. If the ball is screwed tight, how does it rotate about its axis, Mr. Rocket Scientist? You are so blatantly stupid you fail to grasp the simplereality of that obvious situation. You think that if someone slams on the brakes in a car, and hold the brakes locked, that somewhere in an imaginary reference frame those wheels are still turning around their axles.
Says the f**king clown who thinks the crescent moon is caused by the earth’s shadow.
If the ball is screwed tight, how does it rotate about its axis, Mr. Rocket Scientist?
If you actually completed a university course in advanced dynamics or kinematics, you would understand. But your a complete moron.
fast typo; your = you’re
Stalker still hasn’t learned he can’t apply kinematics to orbital motion.
He just can’t learn.
“If the ball is screwed tight, how does it rotate about its axis, Mr. Rocket Scientist?”
By inertially rotating once on its own axis per orbit like our moon. Of course, the ball M does not rotate on its own axis “relatively” to the spinning spokes. Tesla proved that in his physics of spinning up ball M from free to rotate on its axis to “fixt” on the spokes.
He said “relatively to their axes”, and by “their” he was referring to the balls.
Ok, Tesla referring to the ball M on the spinning spokes rotating once on ball M own axis (radius r) per orbit (radius R) but not rotating on ball M own axis (radius r) “relatively” to the spokes since ball M is attached to the spokes in Fig. 5 and attached to the string in Fig. 6.
Good for you joining the spinner point of view DREMT, you were a really slow learner. Now learn from Clint R that reference frames do matter with his CCW and CW normal clock frame example of the moon on the right.
Yawn.
Tesla drools incoherently as noted in the unbolded text:
it is evident from an inspection of the diagram that while moving with the angular velocity ω about O, in the clockwise direction, the ball turns, with respect to its axis, at the same angular velocity but in the opposition direction [Tesla is measuring angular velocity wrt a non inertial reference frame rotating at the same rate and direction as the spokes], that of the dotted arrow. The combined result of these two motions is a translatory movement of the ball such that all particles are animated with the same velocity V, which is that of its center of gravity. In this case, granted that there is absolutely no friction the kinetic energy of each ball will be given by the product of M V2 not approximately, but with mathematical rigor. If now the pivots are screwed tight and the balls fixt rigidly to the spokes, this angular motion [What angular motion? Answer: the angular motion measured wrt the rotating spokes.] relatively to their axes [Telsa declares the location of the axis of rotation is about the ball itself] becomes physically impossible [with the ball fixt to the spoke, the ball can not longer rotate on its own axis wrt the spoke.]
SGW, Tesla makes sense, you don’t.
That’s a good way to show how incompetent you are. Quote him exactly, then interject what you believe he said. No one can make you look stupider than you.
Well done.
Says the clown who thinks a tensile force (from a string) acting through the center of mass of a ball will cause it to spin, proving the dumbass is a physics moron.
And then he STILL cannot calculate the velocity of a point on the far and near sides of the moon.
Well now Stalker, that ain’t exactly right, is it?
But trolls don’t care about getting it right, do you?
When you get a model, or example, of “pure orbital motion” that doesn’t violate the laws of physics, let me know. Until that happens, you’re just an ignorant troll, and Moon will continue to NOT rotate on its axis as it has been doing since people first noticed it.
….our Moon will continue to NOT rotate on its axis in the accelerated frame as it has been doing since people first noticed it.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
Go argue that point with Clint R, who writes reference frames do matter to get the moon on the right rotating on its own axis: “the “moon on the right” is actually orbiting CCW, while rotating CW, in sync.”
Ball4, why do you devote your entire life to lying about what other people have said?
That’s a verbatim quote DREMT, the basic problem is you don’t know what you are writing about. It’s really funny watching two 3ring circus entertainers write opposite things.
Ball4, you wrote: “Go argue that point with Clint R, who writes reference frames do matter…”
Where did Clint R write that? Why do you devote your entire life to lying about what other people have said?
Where did Clint R write that CCW rotating right moon quote showing Clint R’s clock reference frame matters to make that moon rotate? Apparently DREMT isn’t competent enough to even use the page search function to find a verbatim quote; given DREMT’s confused writing around here, I should have allowed for such a circumstance. See here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-647076
Exactly, he did not write “reference frames do matter”. Thank you.
Is Troll4 still trying to misrepresent me?
What a loser. The only ones he can fool are the other idiots like Norman, bob, and Bindidon.
What the idiots can’t understand is that when they choose the wrong reference frame, they get the wrong answer. They can’t understand physics, and they can’t learn.
Now the two physics incompetents try to tell readers their nonrotating moon on the right has NOT been made to rotate according to Clint R “while rotating CW, in sync.”. This is what is expected from a couple of 3-ring circus entertainers. The physics laughs just keep on coming folks; it’s fun to watch the incompetent argue with one another.
Again: Ball4, why do you devote your entire life to lying about what other people have said?
I don’t need to lie when I can use verbatim quotes that show the incompetence. Go argue with Clint R that “you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right”” when your fellow incompetent Clint R writes the opposite truth moon on the right is with axial rotation: “The truth is the “moon on the right” is actually orbiting CCW, while rotating CW, in sync.”
It’s fun to watch the incompetent argue with one another.
You are so hilariously confused.
Troll4 must muddy the waters to cover up his lack of understanding.
His antics provide continuing evidence we’re right and they’re wrong. They have nothing.
SkepticGoneWild says:
”If you actually completed a university course in advanced dynamics or kinematics, you would understand.”
Correction some who complete advanced courses begin to adopt form over substance. Its the most common affliction related to long term inculcation.
I hope you get the moon problem and the green plate problem solved soon.
Carbon taxes are making the price of everything skyrocket and are being hiked up rather dramatically next week in my soon-to-be-third-world country of Canada.
You have till Thursday to get the climate change claptrap problem solved too so we can stop the carbon tax in the nick of time.
Chill, Ken. We’re talking about 10$ per tonne per year up to 2022 then 15 cad until it maxes out at 170 cad.
If by 2030 you still have not converted your home heating and bought an electric car, you’d deserve worse than that.
Ken
Conversely, you can see above how pseudoskeptic Contrarians use to be.
They discredit, denigrate and distort all what others say who do not agree to their stubborn, egocentric narrative.
Their reactions on comments mostly are to divert with claims showing the inverse of what was written in the comment they replied to.
We have a few more of them on board.
J.-P. D.
Willard, Actually what we are talking about is the price of chocolate bars.
I grew up during the 1970’s oil crisis where OPEC artificially raised the price of energy.
A gallon of gas (imp) used to cost 50 cents, which, after metrification is equivalent to 10 cents a liter. A chocolate bar used to cost 10 cents.
Fast forward to today where gasoline costs $1.40 a liter. So does a chocolate bar.
If there are further carbon taxes hiking up the cost of energy then I fully expect the price of a chocolate bar will go up.
Unfortunately, my income does not go up commensurately. Further, the chocolate factory gets moved to a place where there is not a carbon tax taking jobs with it.
My chocolate habit is being seriously impacted; never mind climate, this is a real crisis.
Seriously, its not just chocolate that goes up with energy prices. Carbon Taxes are truly regressive and don’t do anything to affect climate change.
Ken,
You’re just saying stuff. That’s boring.
Were you really were interested by regressive taxes, you’d be screaming from the top of your lungs against fossil fuel subsidies:
https://www.iisd.org/articles/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies-faq
I blame chocolate.
Subsidies for Renewables vs Subsidies for Fossil fuels.
See Blancolirio’s youtube ‘PG&E 25 billion Settlement Calpocalypse 2019’ Dec 2019. Fires in California due to renewable energy requirements.
See Benny Pieser youtube ‘Climate Euphoria Climate Hysteria Insight from German Media Complex’ April 2018. Germany pays 30 cents per kwh and subsidizes German industry a trillion euros so that they can compete with lower energy cost jurisdictions.
See Jo Nova Youtube ‘How to destroy a perfectly good electric grid in three easy steps’ Dec 2018. Australia pays 40 cents per kwh for unreliable power that has caused industrial disasters throughout Australia.
See Micheal Schellenberger ‘ Why Renewables Can’t save the planet’ Jan 2019. A discussion about renewable energy effect on the real time environment.
See Micheal Moore Youtube ‘Planet of the Humans’ April 2020 (it might be difficult to find because the greenies don’t like it) Truth bites. I don’t like Micheal Moore. I think he is against any technical progress including renewable energy, but in this case he is speaking to the truth about renewables.
See Bill Gates Youtube ‘Bill Gates Slams Unreliable wind and Solar Energy’ Feb 2019. You can’t make steel or concrete with wind and solar.
The upshot is that Solar and Wind demand huge subsidies and only provide unreliable and expensive power in return.
I can only find fossil fuel subsidies going to defray the cost of exploration and research. Exploration subsidies also go to mining other minerals. Research subsidies go to any research including green energy. Meanwhile, subsidies to renewable energy are used to hide the real cost of renewable energy from the consumers.
Any discussion about Fossil Fuel Subsidies needs to consider the benefit versus cost. Roger Bezdek calculates that of fossil fuels to be about 260 to 1.
In Canada, about 80% of renewable energy projects are being built by oil companies. They know the PR value and they get subsidies for producing ‘green’ energy. They also know the longer the oil stays in the ground the more valuable it becomes.
Armwaving to the usual squirrels is unresponsive, Ken.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard you probably should learn something about taxation before sucking up the leftist propaganda on it.
=============================
Fossil fuel taxes are one of the most regressive taxes out there. Working people at the bottom of the economic ladder by far pay more in gasoline tax than the rich do.
Thus how can tax relief be regressive? Answer is saying it is is total BS.
But it seems so typical of government that once tax is collected they forget who they collected if from.
Now of course some tax relief could be more effective at reducing the regressiveness of fuel taxes. Take the tax exemption for aviation fuel. Now again picking aviation over say automobile or home heating is a regressive choice in how to relieve the regressiveness of energy taxation, but now the government has doubled down with the rich kicking the butts of the poor.
Bottom line is there are no 15 second sound bite answers to making the system more fair. . . .and in that world who loses?
Truthfully this kind of regressive taxation is endemic in the system. Only exception is income taxes. Of course wealth taxes would be less regressive than income taxes and how many of those kinds of taxes do we have?
Both Obamacare and Social Security are regressive. Investors don’t pay into the systems. The systems are designed to be paid by employees not owners. And worse they cap how much one has to put in well down into the middle class.
When you want to ‘require’ contributions at a percentage of pay throw in all sorts of income and wealth with no caps and then you will know its not regressive.
A non-regressive tax starting with a ‘right’ to healthcare and retirement (which can be political in itself as a ‘right’) you should start with an exemption and allow that exemption to apply to everybody but gradually phasing out all the way up the income scale. There are a some principles like that already in some of our tax laws but the phase out doesn’t rise to the highest levels and hit a lot of middle class folks.
> stop trolling
As soon as you stop punching hippies, kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ken
” Carbon taxes are making the price of everything skyrocket and are being hiked up rather dramatically next week in my soon-to-be-third-world country of Canada. ”
You are really brazen.
1 liter of petrol generates approx. 2.75 kg of CO2 when burned.
Thus, one ton of CO2 is equivalent to around 360 liters of gasoline.
The CO2 tax is therefore around 7 €-cents per liter at 25 euros per ton.
1 liter of petrol currently costs around 1.40 euros in Germany.
{ The greatest part of the price: taxes.
That’s the way how maintenance of streets, roads and highways has to be financed, in order to avoid those who don’t have a car having to pay taxes for citizens owning a car. }
So the CO2 tax only accounts for 5% of that.
I didn’t know that Germany now will become a ‘soon-to-be-third-world’ country.
Thanks for informing.
J.-P. D.
Bin
Its Canada, not Germany, though Germany is also in serious economic woes due to its ‘green’ agenda. Canada is discouraging investment, is printing money, and spending without regard to fiscal sense, all a surefire way to bring on a debt crisis. Our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is a fan of the ‘great reset’ which as far as I can tell has parallels with Cambodia’s Agrarian Reform program under Pol Pot. I think the debt crisis is being deliberately manufactured and Carbon Taxes are part of making that disaster unfold.
Yes, taxes pay for streets etc, however, carbon taxes were introduced as being ‘revenue neutral’ which effectively means its a wealth redistribution scheme. Carbon taxes are not meant to pay for streets etc. In British Columbia, there is a new socialist government that is using the carbon tax as a source of revenue for its costly programs; its no longer ‘revenue neutral’.
Ken
” Our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is a fan of the ‘great reset’ which as far as I can tell has parallels with Cambodia’s Agrarian Reform program under Pol Pot. ”
People like you should be sent to the ‘Democratic’ People's Republic of Korea, or to Myanmar, for a one year stay.
You would quickly learn there how stupid and ignorant your political ideas really are.
In the future, I’ll manage to avoid replying to your comments.
J.-P. D.
I don’t want to live in a state like North Korea or Myanmar.
But its happening here and Climate Change Claptrap is being used as the justification for it.
See Marc Moreno’s new book ‘Green Fraud: Why the Green New Deal is Worse than you Think’ for details.
Bindidon says:
The CO2 tax is therefore around 7 -cents per liter at 25 euros per ton.
========================
Seriously? Doesn’t that work out to about a Euros 35.00/day tax for breathing?
https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-much-does-human-breathing-contribute-to-climate-change/#:~:text=All%20those%20billions%20of%20bodies,starts%20to%20add%20up…&text=In%20one%20day%2C%20the%20average,to%20around%201kg%20in%20mass.
Ken, you can see, from following the comments here, the cult behavior. Some people already live in a third-world mentality. They worship their cargo cult–all government is “holy”, all taxes are “holy”, since they go to support the “holy” government. Any alternative thinking is considered “blasphemy”.
“But Religion” is a common Climateball Bingo move, Clint:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
I added “blasphemy” and “holiness” just for you.
Strike 1.
“But Religion” is a known contrarian bingo square, Clint.
I added “holiness” and “blasphemy” just for you.
Thanks!
Strike 2.
“But Religion” is a known contrarian bingo square, Clint.
I added “holiness” and “blasphemy” just for you.
Thanks!
Strike 3.
You’re out!
You must be new to Climateball, Clint.
Do you still hold that momentum represents a force, by any chance?
Yes, it comes from Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion.
F = ma = mdv/dt = dp/dt
If you have trouble understanding, you can ask Norman about an easy experiment to verify….
> it comes from Newtons 2nd Law of Motion
You mean it comes from your misinterpretation of Newton’s law:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-640525
A pity you’re ignoring Bob’s lessons.
They’re worth their 50 bucks.
Just do the hammer experiment.
Next time, dear Clint, please mind your units.
It appears we have a new idiot troll. He could be Nate or bob, in disguise. He will be stalking me all day, so this will be my last response to him.
I happened to notice something funny in his comment where he quoted bob:
“Momentum is not a force…”
I never said momentum was a force. bob was misrepresenting me, again. But bob went on:
“Gravity is a force…”
Gravity is an acceleration. The “force” would be “mg”, where g is the acceleration due to gravity. So bob gets all tangled up trying to misrepresent me.
Then new idiot troll “Willard” falls into the muck with bob!
> I never said momentum was a force
Here’s what Clint said:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-640520
Hence why I asked Clint “Do you still hold that momentum represents a force,” to which Clint responded:
Clint must be new to Climateball.
Clint R doubles down on stupid with his gravity is an acceleration nonsense.
Welcome to the bodega to the “new” troll Willard.
Willard’s been around a long time, I am please to be put in the muck with him.
Most of us could learn a thing or too from him, if we wanted.
Clint R doesn’t want to learn anything, he knows it all.
Willard says:
Heres what Clint said:
The momentum represents a force
=================================
Come on Willard what are you trying to be the grammar professor around here? You took that out of a context that explained that for the purposes of orbits momentum represents the outcome of a force.
Its pretty juvenile to run around playing fast and loose with the facts to make a truly stupid point.
"I hope you get the moon problem and the green plate problem solved soon."
Yep, all sorted already.
The Spinners continue to abuse their keyboards, misrepresent the facts, dream up new distractions, and reveal their ignorance of physics.
We have provided several simple analogies of “pure orbital motion” (orbiting without axial rotation) — a ball-on-a-string, an airplane circumnavigating Earth, a wooden horse on a merry-go-round, Moon. Yet the Spinners attempt to pervert each reality.
But, they have no alternative. They have not provided their cult’s version of “pure orbital motion”. They imply that the “moon on the right” (in the computer graphic) is “pure orbital motion”.
In “pure orbital motion”, one side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of the orbit. If the Spinners try to use the “moon on the right”, one side always faces a distant star. That means an airplane circumnavigating Earth would start with its nose facing its direction of travel. 90 degrees later, the airplane would have to be flying sideways, to keep it’s nose facing the original direction. At 180 degrees, the airplane would be flying backwards!
That’s how stupid and silly their argument is. But they don’t care about reality. It’s only their false religion that matters.
(The truth is the “moon on the right” is actually orbiting CCW, while rotating CW, in sync. That combined motion would keep the same side facing a distant star.)
Clint R does at least correctly understand reference frames matter with a moon orbiting on axis of rotation CCW and spinning on axis of rotation CW in the reference frame of some clock (the C before W) so Clint R should go educate DREMT who writes incorrectly according to Clint R’s clock frame: “The discernment of axes of rotation – where they are, how many they are – is not dependent on reference frames.”
A three ring circus with free admission!
You are the most pathetic, desperate troll I have ever encountered on the internet.
The trolls make us look good. The stupider they are, the better.
Keep it up guys, it’s better entertainment when a circus performer argues with the performer in the next ring. I wonder what will be your next act?
True, Clint R.
Clint R,
Your pure orbital motion is made up shit.
Everything that follows from that is shit.
You are just full of shit.
You should not have sold your physics textbook to buy drugs.
Thanks for being such a good example of a “troll”, bob.
Trolling against ignorance is no sin!
“Trolling” and “ignorance” are symbiotic.
That’s quite right, Clint.
Take Socrates, the most ignorant of us all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
As soon as you stop punching hippies, kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here below you see that this Clint R guy either is demented, or is a persistent liar:
1. On March 27, 2021 at 10:10 AM, Willard asks:
” Do you still hold that momentum represents a force, by any chance? ”
*
2. On March 27, 2021 at 10:23 AM, Clint R replies:
” Yes, it comes from Newtons 2nd Law of Motion. ”
*
3. On March 27, 2021 at 11:51 AM, Clint R writes:
” I never said momentum was a force. bob was misrepresenting me, again. ”
*
Some days ago, Clint R already pretended:
” Momentum represents a force by Newtons 2nd Law of Motion, F = dp/dt ”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-640529
In that comment, you read:
” Momentum represents a force by Newtons 2nd Law of Motion, F = dp/dt ”
*
Then, again and again, Clint R pretends that gravity is not a force, but an acceleration! That’s really brazen.
A little reminder:
” Gravity is a force that causes acceleration. It is measured by the force that it applies per kg of matter. On earth, 9.8 Newtons of force are applied to each kilogram of mass. ”
The second Law of Motion is:
F = m * dv/dt = ma
where F is the net force applied, m is the mass of the body, and a is the body’s acceleration. Thus, the net force applied to a body produces a proportional acceleration. ”
*
Does this blog really merit thousands of useless, scienceless comments showing no more than a mix of ignorance and arrogance?
J.-P. D.
Bin, it’s your language problem again. If you don’t understand “represent”, you could just ask. I gave clarification several times. You obviously overlooked it.
Momentum can definitely represent a force. You can do the hammer experiment I recommended for others. Who knows, you might even learn something….
Momentum is NOT a force, basta ya!
You are such a ridiculous, pseudoskeptic Contrarian.
When nwill you stop with that?
J.-P. D.
Momentum is not a force, as I’ve pointed out before:
F = ma = mdv/dt = dp/dt
But, momentum can represent a force, as you would find out if you hit your hand with a hammer. Force is the time derivative of momentum.
I imagine it is frustrating when you can’t communicate clearly. Perhaps if you just picked one language and tried to learn that well enough to get by. Then you wouldn’t always be making a fool of yourself, and have to resort to name-calling.
Hint: Avoid semantical arguments when you don’t speak the language.
Clint R
Don’t try to manipulate anybody here.
You are clearly confusing momentum and force.
1. Momentum is the amount of motion within a moving object.
2. Force is the action of pulling or pushing something.
A force applied on an object results in a change of momentum within that object.
The fact that force is the derivative of momentum does not play any role anywhere else than in your own brain.
Your primitive hammer example corresponds exactly to the ridiculous toys you use desperately to describe the movement of the Moon.
*
Feel free to distort everything until it matches your narrative, like your disgusting claim about Giovanni Domenico Cassini being an ‘astrologer’ just because he had some interest in it in younger years:
” Cassini was first interested in astrology. At a young age he read a lot about astrology and was soon very knowledgeable about it.
This extensive astrological knowledge led to his first appointment as an astronomer. He later focused almost entirely on astronomy and almost denounced astrology as he became increasingly involved in the Scientific Revolution. ”
*
Oh btw: should you complain about my poor English, so manage to tell that to the Google software group maintaining the Google Translation tool. They sure will be grateful.
J.-P. D.
I don’t mean to laugh at you Bindidon, but every effort you make to pervert reality fails. And you can’t seem to learn that.
Here, try this again:
Momentum is not a force, as I’ve pointed out before:
F = ma = mdv/dt = dp/dt
But, momentum can represent a force, as you would find out if you hit your hand with a hammer. Force is the time derivative of momentum.
Also, the Full Moon is approaching again. Make sure you stay up all night watching it. It is NOT rotating about it axis, as you will observe.
In reality, it is NOT rotating about it axis, as you will observe from the accelerated frame as pointed out by Tesla.
Ball4, are you on something?
“momentum can represent a force”
Clint will be the star of the new reality show:
Climate Skeptics Say the Darndest Things.
Here he doubles down on his earlier efforts to sum momentum and force vectors.
I’ll bite, Clint.
What do you mean by “represent” in
?
Many thanks!
Crickets.
Willard you should read up on momentum and a force to understand the relationship.
Since an objects momentum is an accumulation of total forces that have acted upon it and it can transfer that energy to another object, momentum in certain circumstances can represent a force.
Hunter,
Nice to see you here.
Clint said:
So I ask. Him.
Bill seems to understand just fine, troll Willard.
You’re the one with problems.
Thank you for probing my mind, Clint.
Please rest assured that I have no idea what you mean by “represent” in “momentum can definitely represent a force.” All I know is that p = mv. I *do* hope you are not suggesting that F = mv.
Since you sound like a troglodyte, you might like this refresher:
https://byjus.com/physics/difference-between-force-and-momentum/
Willard its not difficult to understand.
Momentum is the accumulation of force.
Momentum can be transferred to other objects in ways similar to how a force does it.
I can understand that somebody might not understand when somebody says a momentum can ‘represent’ a force if and only if they don’t understand the relationship between a force and a momentum.
So all I did was suggest a way for you to understand it. Posting a webpage that only talks about the differences is probably responsible for your difficulty in understanding.
So go through this lesson and it should become more clear.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class9th-physics-india/in-in-force-laws-of-motion/in-in-momentum-and-force/v/calculating-momentum-changes-solved-example
And I would think either Clint or I can help you if you have some problems getting through that.
> Posting a webpage that only talks about the differences is probably responsible for your difficulty in understanding.
I doubt it, Hunter, for I found that page after I asked Clint what he meant by his “represent.”
You might have messed up your iff, btw, for I’m sure you can understand that somebody might not understand when somebody says a momentum can represent a force *and* understand the relationship between a force and a momentum.
If you really want to help Clint, perhaps you might wish to remind him that he meant to talk about rates of momentum’s change.
Willard. Its not my perception that Clint needs any help. He seems to understand the facts and has drawn his own conclusion (along with many other scientifically oriented folks). His conclusion is consistent with the facts. It also appears to be more consistent requiring but one axis and includes energy to reorient the moon as part of the orbital movement.
Its not like I think it should be a different result if one selects a second axis.
Clint and others just see this like welded globes moving around the central axis of a spoked wheel.
If we accept your viewpoint Willard please answer this question.
If you start gradually filling in the web of that spoked wheel with more steel plates welded between the spokes to end up with a flat round disk like Figure 2 of the N2LR explanation; at what point do you give up on the synchronous rotation position? When half the spaces between the spokes are filled in or are you holding out until zero gaps are left?
Heck maybe you are one of those chalked circle guys claiming the particles in chalked circles on the merry-go-round deck are rotating synchronously with the center of the merry-go-round deck too. Please explain the parameters of your defintion here and rationalize why you chose those parameters.
> Please explain the parameters of your defintion here and rationalize why you chose those parameters.
And when was the last time you asked that of Clint, Hunter?
The issue here is what the hell Clint my mean by “represent.” Here could be a way out for him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
As for what you call “my” position, picking any relevant Wiki entry would do.
Willard says:
And when was the last time you asked that of Clint, Hunter?
==========================
attaboy Willard just dodge the question!
You can’t even confirm if you’re “hunter,” bill.
What you call a question is mere armwaving.
The point is that when Clint tries to claim that all the rest of us dont understand physics, then he repeatedly makes basic math or physics errors like trying to sum vectors with different units, or claiming that the far and near side of the Moon have the same velocity, or that EM fluxes don’t add.
These are not trivial errors, because they lead him to get the wrong answers.
Yeah and I can’t confirm you are Willard. So what?
> I can’t confirm you are Willard
The person who tries to comment under my name will hear from me, Hunter.
You tell me you’re Hunter, you’re Hunter. Besides, you’re going for a silly equivocation, which the Hunter I know would not miss.
Good enough for me.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please see your response on March 14, 2021 at 1:02 PM, kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Appears Bindidon is having the same problem as Willard.
Binny here is the link on how forces are converted into momentum and vice versa that should clear up what Clint is saying.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class9th-physics-india/in-in-force-laws-of-motion/in-in-momentum-and-force/v/calculating-momentum-changes-solved-example
You’re trying too hard, Hunter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Relation_to_force
Am I right to presume that you’re Hunter?
Just trying to be helpful for those expressing a lot of confusion.
A simple yes or no would do, Hunter.
Of course I am Hunter. Are you trying to accuse me of being somebody elses sock puppet like you are Clint?
In a system where appearances could suggest more than one reality one should state their the details of their position.
In the case of the moon rotating on its own COM there seems to be no more relevant question than at what point in your mind where in N2LR does Figure 1 (a rotation of a moon being rotation on the moons COM) become Figure 2 (a rotation of a merry go round with the axis in the center of entire system?)
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
Is it when it becomes a donut rotating around orbital axis? is it when it has material solid body spokes rather than forces hold the system together? Are there multiple conversion points? Explain please!
One cannot understand the duality of your position without you actually spelling it out. That is unless you want to claim the object in Figure 2 is just a bunch of randomly drawn chalked circles rotating on their own axis and orbiting the axis of the merry-go-round. In a dual physics-based system there needs to be a definition of clear boundaries. Simply declaring a complex dual system by fiat is so. . . .uh. . . .6,000 BC
> Are you trying to accuse me of being somebody elses sock puppet like you are Clint?
No, I’m trying to make sure you’re the “hunter” I know.
***
> One cannot understand the duality of your position
Then why do you presume there’s a duality?
In fact, why do you call me *my* position?
If you’re the hunter we all know and love, you should know that your baiting won’t work.
Well probably not. I don’t know anybody named Willard.
That’s too bad.
Here’s the Climateball player I had in mind, Bill:
https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/26/skeptics-make-your-best-case/#comment-16713
There’s a Bill Hunter that commented in the same comment threads as that hunter at Keith’s.
Nope not me. I have no idea who that is. I have seen that person post before on Climate Etc.
Thanks.
That satisfies a question I had for a long time!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Right after you stop punching hippies, kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Of course I am Hunter. Are you trying to accuse me of being somebody else’s sock puppet like you are Clint?
Is that your normal modus operandi to dodge the substance of the debate and go straight for accusations, smear tactics, and obfuscations?
In a system where appearances could suggest more than one reality one should state their the details of their position.
In the case of the moon rotating on its own COM there seems to be no more relevant question than at what point in your mind where in N2LR does Figure 1 (a rotation of a moon being rotation on the moon’s COM) become Figure 2 (a rotation of a merry go round with the axis in the center of entire system?)
https://cnx.org/contents/JXOmS3vN@3/Newton-s-Second-Law-for-Rotation
Is it when it becomes a donut rotating around orbital axis? is it when it has material solid body spokes rather than forces hold the system together? Are there multiple conversion points? Explain please!
One cannot understand the duality of your position without you actually spelling it out. That is unless you want to claim the object in Figure 2 is just a bunch of randomly drawn chalked circles rotating on their own axis and orbiting the axis of the merry-go-round. In a dual physics-based system there needs to be a definition of clear boundaries. Simply declaring a complex dual system by fiat is so. . . .uh. . . .6,000 BC
“Explain please!”
bill, in your link the mass m is defined a point mass:
“Recall that the moment of inertia for a point particle is I=mr^2”
so the point particle with mass m is defined to have no rotational inertia about its own axis unlike our moon. Note r is the radius to the central axis. So of course the orbiting mass therein does not rotate about its own axis because point particles cannot rotate on their own axis since their own radius = 0.0
Ball4 says:
So of course the orbiting mass therein does not rotate about its own axis because point particles cannot rotate on their own axis since their own radius = 0.0
========================
So your first premise in the argument is that nothing is rotating around the center of the orbit, merely an imaginary dot with an imaginary weight.
Could be a problem for your conclusion Ball4. After all any object is going to have lots of particles rotating in concentric circles and when you square the radius of those funny shiit happens.
take concentric circles with radius’ of 1,2,3,4,5. the mean radius of 3 squared is 9
then take the squares of those radius’ 1,4,9,16,25 and add them up to 55 and find the mean. It comes out to 11.
So using a point mass underestimates the actual ‘translational’ element.
So what is the point? The point is the entire problem can be solved using nothing but translational elements. And here you guys are trying to pooh the non-spinner position as not being a rotation but instead some weird kind of translation.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken.
> The point is the entire problem can be solved using nothing but translational elements.
I thought the entire problem was to know something about reality, i.e. if the Moon rotates on its axis or not.
Well perhaps if you logic and you knew that:
1) many spinners around here want to argument an orbit is not a rotation but instead some kind of translation.
2) that the entire movement of the moon can be described as a translation using the methods of the spinners.
Which of course would then prove that the moon spinning on its axis would then not be a rotation either.
Spinners, spinners, spinners.
Keep waving your arms, Bill!
Just point out that the ‘translation’ argument doesn’t amount to a hill of beans Willard. Its a bad argument as the spinner position can’t survive it either if it were valid.
Math is very powerful stuff but splitting a complex math problem into two simpler math problems doesn’t speak to an identity unless both the resulting calculations can be attributed to a real physical concept. In this case if you read Madhavi, the rotation of an object around an external axis should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.
“Just point out that the translation argument doesnt amount to a hill of beans Willard. Its a bad argument as the spinner position cant survive it either if it were valid.”
Its not an ‘argument’. It is simply how Orbit is defined.
Its as if you were never shown ORBIT in all these confirming Astronomy Glossaries.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-638470
But you were, Bill, and you even commented on them!
Definitions of words Nate has zero to do with science and everything to do with semantics.
You can call it ‘adam’ if you want. It doesn’t change the fact that it meets the physical criteria of a rotation.
Thus developing a 2 part simple calculation to measure its total angular momentum while arbitrarily ignoring the dimensions of the moon in the orbit calculation and including them all in the spin calculation isn’t telling you squat about the nature of the fact that the moon as part of one motion changes its orientation has it goes around the earth.
In fact making the dimension argument is the daddy told me so argument.
Oops that was making the ‘definition’ argument is in fact the ‘daddy told me argument’ because it was your daddy that invented the definition.
“Oops that was making the definition argument is in fact the daddy told me argument because it was your daddy that invented the definition.”
Science uses standard universal definitions. You wanna call them my daddy, thats quite childish.
You don’t have to like or use science’s definitions, as long as you dont need to communicate with any other scientist and be understood, or build spacecraft that actually land where they are supposed to.
Clearly you dont.
The definitions used by Astrophysics are what they are because they work and are the simplest way to describe planetary motion.
And, you cannot win an argument simply by changing definitions to suit your beliefs as DREMT does.
DREMT insists erroneously that an ORBIT is defined to be an orbit just like the Moon’s.
But of course that is preposterous, since all the planets have orbits but they arent just like the Moon’s.
“the nature of the fact that the moon as part of one motion changes its orientation has it goes around the earth.”
Nope, neither you nor DREMT have made that case. DREMT simply changes definitions.
And you just wildly wave your hands around speculating about imagined ‘rigidity’.
‘the moon as part of one motion changes its orientation has it goes around the earth.’
ONE MOTION is a RELIGIOUS BELIEF that REJECTS all of these inconvenient facts as if they dont exist or dont matter:
Lunar Librations
Perigee 362600 km
(356400370400 km)
Apogee 405400 km
(404000406700 km)
Semi-major axis 384399 km (1.28 ls, 0.00257 AU)[1]
Eccentricity 0.0549[1]
Orbital period 27.321661 d
(27 d 7 h 43 min 11.5 s[1])
Sidereal rotation period 27.321661 d (synchronous)
Equatorial rotation velocity 4.627 m/s
Axial tilt
1.5424 to ecliptic
6.687 to orbit plane[2]
24 to Earth’s equator [8]
North pole right ascension
17h 47m 26s
266.86[9]
North pole declination 65.64[9]
Axial Precession Period 18.6 y
Nate says:
ONE MOTION is a RELIGIOUS BELIEF that REJECTS all of these inconvenient facts as if they dont exist or dont matter:
=======================
If perfection were mandated for all scientific principles, science would not exist Nate. Are you anti-science? If not, then think up an argument that actually matters about anything.
“1) many spinners around here want to argument an orbit is not a rotation but instead some kind of translation.”
Not us, all of physics and astronomy and engineering. IOW everyone except the Moron TEAM.
“2) that the entire movement of the moon can be described as a translation using the methods of the spinners.”
Nope. Not consistent with (1).
It is (1) plus axial rotation.
The problem is, bill, there are those “Spinners” who describe the moon’s motion as a translation plus a rotation. That’s one thing, but then there are “Spinners” like bob and Ball4 and bdgwx who also think the moon’s motion is a rotation about an external axis plus a rotation about its own axis. Even though it can’t possibly be a translation plus a rotation and a rotation plus a rotation.
Of course, the “Spinners” who think it is a translation plus a rotation could set the other “Spinners” straight…but they tend to leave it all to the “Non-Spinners”. Probably because they are aware how frustrating it would be arguing against people as pig-headed as bob, Ball4, and bdgwx…
“he problem is, bill, there are those Spinners who describe the moons motion as a translation plus a rotation. ”
And yet you will not acknowledge that this model works!
“Let the other Spinners straight”
Actually I have, because unlike you, who will not acknowledge that his definitions are in error, I have integrity.
The latest from bdgwx:
“Not that it matters since celestial mechanics scientists already define its orbit as a rotation and its spin on its own axis as a rotation.”
DREMT desperately wants others to correct their errors, but never ever corrects his own.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-638470
The moon would be translating around the earth in every instance of a rate of change in orientation different than what it has. Per Madhavi.
“Per Madhavi”
Madhavi discussed Rotation about a Fixed Axis:
“2. Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation,
intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.”
Are the particles of the Moon moving in circles centered on the same axis???
NO. The Moon has an elliptical orbit and significant libration.
Then there is NO CHOICE, the Moon’s motion must be this:
“3. General plane motion: There are many other types of plane motion, that is, motions in which all the
particles of the body move in parallel planes. Any plane motion which is neither a rotation nor a
translation is referred to as a general plane motion.”
“A general plane motion can always be considered as the SUM OF A TRANSLATION AND A ROTATION.”
Nate a translation is a straight line, not a rotation as in an orbit.
Curvilinear translation has both straight line forces or momentum combined with additional forces not related to a rotation on a single axis. See Madhavi for examples.
She states up front:
“1. TRANSLATION: A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion. It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the
body move along parallel paths. If these paths are straight lines. The motion is said to be a rectilinear
translation (Fig 1); If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a CURVILINEAR translation.”
“Curvilinear translation has both straight line forces or momentum combined with additional forces not related to a rotation on a single axis. See Madhavi for examples.”
Nope. No forces are NOT included in Kinematics, which is simply the description of Motion.
There is no ambiguity of what she said here, Bill. Something that is neither a pure rotation or a pure translation is a General Plane Motion.
Nate says:
She states up front:
1. TRANSLATION: A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion.
Nope. No forces are NOT included in Kinematics, which is simply the description of Motion.
=============================
No straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion Nate. None, not any, zilch, nada!!!!
By your own interpretation the moon is NOT moving in a translation!!!!!!!!
And a General plane motion includes both a translation and a rotation. The orbit is a pure rotation and explains ALL the movement of ALL the particles on the moon.
Your confusion is being generated by the ‘translational element’ in the N2LR calculations for torque. A torque arm with a translating force! And as you state here kinematics has nothing at all to do with forces!
Learn your kinematics correctly Nate and stop being such a class dunce. You are smarter than that. Go home and do your homework!
“By your own interpretation the moon is NOT moving in a translation!!!!!!!!”
I never said the Moon was simply translating, dumbass!
“And a General plane motion includes both a translation and a rotation.”
Thats exactly what it is per Madhavi!
“The orbit is a pure rotation”.
If so, then all of the Moon’s particles are moving in CIRCLES around an external axis.
Which they are definitely NOT!
If you continue to try to claim they are, Bill, then you are a MORON or a LIAR/TROLL.
Which one are you?
Nate, its not a perfect rotation but it is a pure rotation. Study and understand the difference!
Pure semantic nonsense.
Excellent article! We are linking to this particularly great article on our website. Keep up the good writing.
william at coesca
I recommend the following blog:
http://clivebest.com/blog/
Outstanding material.
His evaluation of global temperature series using spherical (and even, some years ago, icosahedral) triangulation is amazing.
Follow his threads back in
http://clivebest.com/blog/?paged=2
You’ll enjoy.
J.-P. D.
Clive is indeed a natural:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169#comment-1271
Willard
Wow!
Taking a 10 yr old example without looking at the rest: I apologize, but… that’s perfect pseudoskeptic behavior a la Robertson.
J.-P. D.
Dear Bidington,
No need to apologize. You can act like an trouduc as much as you please. At least own it.
Perhaps you’d prefer:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/03/23/science-in-the-time-of-covid-19/#comment-189634
Bear in mind that if one could look at all the things at once and at the same time, one would look at nothing in particular.
I personally prefer “contrarian,” for “skeptic” has very little to do with the kind of crap we witness daily in Climateball.
bon entendeur,
Willard, please stop trolling.
As soon as you stop punching hippies, kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Moon is now in its “full moon” phase. It’s a perfect time to observe that Moon does NOT rotate about its axis, as it orbits around Earth.
My Climateball service for the day:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-just-a-coincidence/
You’re about a year behind, Willard. This has all been discussed. Belief that Moon rotates on its axis comes from astrology, centuries ago.
You’re uneducated and unoriginal, yet you believe you’re “cute”.
The reality is you’re just another useless idiot.
Willard, Clint R handle emerged after a handle with the initials JD was banned here for incompetent physics. Clint R and DREMT have been entertaining readers here with incompetent physics for quite a while. Don’t expect them to improve physics when their incompetence has been pointed out as they ignore reality & evidence to prefer their roles as 3-ring circus entertainers.
Troll4, we don’t have to waste time proving you’re a worthless idiot. We just let your comments do that for us.
Thanks.
Clint R, may the force representing momentum be with you.
See what I mean….
> See what I mean.
Not really, Clint. While waiting for you to clarify what you mean by “represent” in “momentum can definitely represent a force.”
Are you suggesting that Pythagoras’ theorem is invalid because it’s old and comes from an old esotericist?
Willard, do you believe misrepresenting people makes you appear smarter?
(That’s a rhetorical question.)
Dear Clint,
Thank you for begging a silly question.
Here is what you said:
Pythagoras’ theorem comes from esotericism, and it’s thousand years old.
By the logic of the only argument you presented, this would spell doom to Pythagoras’ theorem.
Please advise.
Willard, do you often confuse science with nonsense?
(That’s a rhetorical question.)
Clint,
You keep using that word “rhetorical.” I do not think it means what you make it mean.
Here’s an example of a rhetorical question: if the Moon did not rotate, how would you explain that we never see its Far Side every once in a while?
Notice the difference?
Here’s a hint as to why it’s a rhetorical question:
https://www.britannica.com/video/185629/role-gravity-Earth-hemisphere-planet-Moon
Best,
Newton’s work to verify how gravity affects an orbiting body is SCIENCE.
Beliefs from cult religions that can be easily disproved are NONSENSE.
Notice the difference?
Clint,
I do notice the difference between:
[C1] Belief that Moon rotates on its axis comes from astrology, centuries ago.
and
[C2] Beliefs from cult religions that can be easily disproved
I emphasized the relevant part.
Where’s your easy proof?
W,
Here’s a rehetorical question for you.
If the Moon was falling towards you, why would you not be able to see the other side from time to time?
Newton worked it out. Obviously you are having difficulty understanding.
No problem – lots of people still don’t accept that the Moon just falls towards the Earth continuously. So do satellites.
You are free to believe whatever you want – slow cooling is heating, CO2 has magical heating properties . . .
I wish you well.
Where’s my “easy proof” of what?
Try asking a responsible question.
> Wheres my easy proof of what?
Of the only question that matters here, Clint:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-647922
Do keep up.
You’re not doing very well, Willard. You’re all over the place.
You don’t appear to know the difference between “proved” and “disproved”.
You can’t construct a responsible question.
And, I’ve already addressed your link here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-648066
If you want to learn why your astrology is wrong, you’ll have to do much better. Idiots and trolls don’t impress me.
> I’ve already addressed your link here: […]
Here’s what you said, Clint:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-648066
By that logic, Pythagoras’ theorem has been disproved.
Please try again, this time with more feeling.
Try again it is:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-648332
I have all time, Clint:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-648302
You got nothing.
You trolls are amazing.
You never get anything right. You appear to live on your keyboards. And you have no problem trying to pervert reality.
At least the internet keeps you off the streets….
You talk tough, Clint, but I bet you’re a softie.
Willard, please stop trolling.
As soon as you stop punching hippies, kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
thanks Willard. I was arguing with Nate on this and he claimed there was no sideways force generated from the earth’s COM. I just told him there was and explained it to him. but this article certainly lends support to the fact.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-just-a-coincidence/
Scientific American –
“If the tip of the football/egg does not point toward the Earth, then gravitational forces exert a torque that makes the tip point back toward the Earth (in reality, the moon oscillates a small amount around perfect alignment, a motion called the lunar libration).”
How to mangle a scientific explanation. The Moon is not a football/egg, and does not oscillate (back and forth, anyway).
Oh well.
Is that you, Charlie?
Interesting that gravity-gradient stabilization of satellites was demonstrated as early as the 1960s.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147466701769092X
Is that you, Stupid?
Nah, Swanson. I’m with stupid. Sometimes he called himself Daddy. Sometimes Charlie. Often Mike.
Yes Swenson I agree.
One more point. By far and nearly all of the movement of the moon in libration, velocity, are all orbitally timed zeroing out in a single orbit.
If they were consistent the spinners would be arguing these movements were moon COM influenced.
Perhaps this image would suit our tough contrarian customers better:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-do-we-always-see-the-same-side-of-the-moon
W,
Why do you seem to be frightened by the reality of the Moon being subject to the force of gravity, acting in a direct line etween the Moon and the Earth?
Are you scared, knowing that the Moon is continuously falling towards the Earth? Don’t worry. It won’t fall on your head!
Calling people who accept reality “tough contrarian customers” just makes you look fanatical. Appealing to the dubious authority of a magazine writer is only likely to convince others of your ilk.
Think about it for a while. Learn some physics. Start with Newton’s Laws of Motion, and his Law of Universal Gravitation. Oldies, but goodies!
If it’s all too hard, try denigrating your opponents. That might change reality!
Ho, ho ho!
You can believe in “tidal locking”, but it ain’t science. It’s wrong.
You can believe Moon rotates on its axis, but it ain’t science. It’s wrong.
And, two wrongs don’t make a right.
> If it’s all too hard, try denigrating your opponents.
That might explain your “Why do you seem to be frightened” and “Are you scared,” and “just makes you look fanatical,” Mike.
W,
Who is Mike? Another figment of your imagination, like Charlie?
I see you are not enthusiastic about addressing physical reality. I don’t blame you. Many people seem to have difficulty with a body like the Moon falling continuously towards Earth.
Just one force acting on the Moon – gravity.
You have my permission to believe that celestial beings propel the Moon around its orbit. That seemed to be a widely held belief in Newton’s day.
> Who is Mike? Another figment of your imagination, like Charlie?
Charlie was a character a Denizen at Judy’s invented to represented contrarians. A Murican troglodyte. David something.
Mike is another Denizen at Judy’s. An Aussie, this time. One of his names was Flynn. He disappeared from Judy’s for some reason.
I’d say your Climateball style is more like Mike’s than David’s.
Not that it matters much. A troglodyte is a troglodyte is a troglodyte.
W,
You seem to be firmly embedded in a fantasy world.
Climateball, troglodytes, contrarians, Muricans . . .
Irrelevant nonsense, but if it helps you to avoid facing reality, so be it.
“The Moon is not a football/egg …”
It a small but important extent it is! Tidal forces literally stretch solid planets and moons, creating an oblong shape with the long axis toward the other object (sun/moon/planet). With liquid oceans, the effect is obvious. But the same happens with solid objects (like the moon) to a lesser extent.
This torque on an oblong earth due to the moon is indeed slowing the earth’s spin (and similar torques did slow the moon’s spin long ago).
…to zero.
Tim,
The Moon is not an egg, nor a football. The last time I looked, it wasn’t an oblong, either.
Did you intend your comment to be irrelevant, or have you no control over your keyboard?
Are you agreeing that the Moon lost any axial spin it may have had “long ago”, or do you think that after a few billion years or so, the Moon still spins on its axis?
You don’t seem to be prepared to commit one way or the other. Man up – take a stand!
I’d be inclined to call the Moon more oblate spheroid than oblong, but maybe you were poorly taught as a child.
> The last time I looked, it wasnt an oblong, either.
It must have been a while you did, puppy:
https://earthsky.org/space/five-myths-about-the-moon#round
Note that the “side” facing us would be bigger even if the Moon was round, for there are more degrees visible than degrees invisible to us.
How can a perfect sphere have sides anyway?
Must be astrology.
Tim Folkerts says:
This torque on an oblong earth due to the moon is indeed slowing the earths spin (and similar torques did slow the moons spin long ago).
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
to zero.
================================
GOAL!!!! 1-0
Just to be clear the Moon’s spin slowed down to…
2.66e-6 rad/s in the non-rotating (inertial) frame
0 rad/s in the rotating (non-inertial) frame.
Incorrect.
To be more clear to DREMT calling incorrect what is correct: our Moon’s change in orientation slowed down to…
2.66e-6 rad/s in the non-rotating (inertial) frame
0 rad/s in the rotating (non-inertial) frame.
—–
To be clear to Gordon: our Moon’s change in turns slowed down to…
2.66e-6 rad/s in the non-rotating (inertial) frame
0 rad/s in the rotating (non-inertial) frame.
“GOAL!!!! 1-0”
More like self-goal!
It is truly astonishing that Bill discovers that the tidal-locking mechanism is absolutely standard Astronomy that it clearly states that the Moon has axial rotation… yet he thinks this is somehow a win for his TEAM!
Ball4, the moon does not rotate on its own axis, despite appearances from a certain very specific inertial frame that bdgwx defines as r=0 through the COM of the moon and a=0 aligned with a distant star.
“Why do you seem to be frightened by the reality of the Moon being subject to the force of gravity, acting in a direct line etween the Moon and the Earth?”
There it is. Its the CLASSIC Flynnson strawman we have come to expect!
Does he really think thats what the argument has been about for two years?
Could he really be that clueless?
Apparently.
Nate says:
It is truly astonishing that Bill discovers that the tidal-locking mechanism is absolutely standard Astronomy that it clearly states that the Moon has axial rotation yet he thinks this is somehow a win for his TEAM!
========================
I leave the ”daddy sez so” kind of physics discussions where they belong.
Thanks, Hunter.
I saw this resource earlier, but preferred to show the Britannica Encyclopedia video as Clint’s attention span does not seem to age very well. It also mentions that the synchronizing between the Moon and the Earth took about a thousand years.
Yes that works also. But one should realize that a rotation would be introduced from the moon having no motion. the idea that is a remaining spin isn’t supported by science because the moon could have been spinning in the opposite direction requiring it to reverse direction.
But as I see it thats just an ackward attempt to suggest that the moon spins on its own axis. For all we know Tesla could be right with a spinless moon simply entering orbit already possessing a spin on an axis of the precise angle as determined by the ecliptic in relationship to the moon’s tilted orbit.
Newton credibly calculated it as such back at the beginning of the 18th century. . . .since refined. All orbiting bodies possess an axis of this type of established angle which is nearly totally if not totally unrelated to all independent spins of orbiting objects in the solar system.
Thus its fair to conclude its a spin of a very different origin and your Britannia link and the Scientific American link show that its a result of the centripetal force of earth’s COM and not anything to do with the moon’s COM.
Further its a necessary element to N2LR as a point mass orbiting a planet is not anything that is physically real as a the mass of any such point in the universe equals zero grams.
Thus its pretty lame to suggest that the point mass part of N2LR is any way representative of a real physical mass.
Claiming it as a spin on the moon’s COM might look good but it doesn’t tell you where the force arrives from and it leaves the orbit calculations incomplete for any object of non-zero dimensions. . . .which would be all objects.
Further, having not thoroughly studied Tesla, I can only imagine where his thoughts arose from from what I have read. And it is sensible if you imagine the entire heavens being imbued with gravity and existing measures of angular momentum. In such a universe where those rules apply, which is our universe, entering orbit might always be something involving the transfer of angular momentum from one focal point to another. As we see occurring with the earth giving up independent angular momentum as its independent rate slows and its transferred into the radius of the moon’s orbit. Every orbit has one rotation with an axis of that nature in a universe where many objects have other spins on pretty much randomly angled other axes as well. The gravity bulge may only be associated with ending independent spin with the bulge simply arising out of the gravity and not be needed to create or end any spin at all.
So laughing at Tesla is something that people have done probably since he was born. Many are laughing no longer. It says a lot that a genius like Elon Musk would name his company of inventions after him.
Agreed, Hunter.
It’s better to address arguments than to mock.
A good wrap-up of Nikola’s ideas:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1993POBeo..44..119T/0000122.000.html
A newsie I found clear enough:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161101102656.htm
W,
You found a “newsie” clear enough? Did you actually read the contents of your link?
Enough said. You really are a gullible wee soul, aren’t you?
Speculation is not fact. Feel free to believe otherwise, if it makes you content.
Why do you still JAQ off, Mike?
W,
Ooooh! I’m so hurt – not.
Not sure about your imaginary Mike, though.
Maybe you might appear more credible if you faced facts. Or maybe not.
willard…”Why do you still JAQ off, Mike?”
Interesting how the alarmists and spinners feel compelled to disappear when losing a debate and reappear with another nym.
So, is Willard, skeptic, student, or one of the other pseudo-science graduates?
I think Dullard would be a more fitting nym.
I heard that ringtone somewhere.
But where?
Ah, yes:
https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/05/profits-of-doom/#comment-542337
Live well and prosper, Mike.
W,
Another reality-avoiding delusional alarmist, are you?
Or just a witless deluded troll?
Unfortunately, your fantasies only apply in your own mind. I see why you cannot face reality – your fantasies are more comfortable for you. Create some more imaginary opponents if you feel your self esteem needs boosting.
I wish you well.
> Create some more imaginary opponents
It’s the other way around:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-627933
Funny how sock puppets project.
Willard, please stop trolling.
As soon as you stop punching hippies, kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
You mean #21.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
Funny how this topic turns spinners into trolls. But if you have no argument. . . . .what else are you going to do? Not participate?
willard…”It also mentions that the synchronizing between the Moon and the Earth took about a thousand years”.
***
The egos of some scientists are never satisfied till they claim facts they have not witnessed, can’t prove, nor do any of them have any idea where the Moon came from.
Some have egos so strong they state with certainty that the Moon was blown out of the Earth and had just the right momentum to go into orbit. They can’t explain why it is spherical and no matching spherical hole exists on Earth. They can’t explain the existence of black holes either, but hey, maybe the Moon was blown out of one of those black holes, aimed precisely my a master race of teenagers having some fun and seeing who could be first to shoot the Moon into orbit around the Earth.
Our friend Darwin, took a ride on a sailing ship, observed some flora and fauna on the Galapagos, or somewhere, and reached the stunning theory of evolution. Couple of problems. He had no explanation for the origins of life from inert materials, he had no fossils to explain how one species evolved into another, and he would not have known about the codes embedded in DNA without which life could not exist. If he had known, he might have concluded the tooth fairy put the codes there, the tooth fairy being natural selection.
> The egos of some scientists
Is “ego” a scientific concept, Gordon?
Asking for a friend.
Long live and prosper.
Willard, please stop trolling.
As soon as you stop punching hippies, kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
tim…”Look, folks. Its fun to discuss this stuff, but if you are looking for correct info, you really need to find a text book or take a class, not listen to some random guys on the internet trying to explain orbits in a discussion about global temperatures!”
Tim…I have taken courses, serious courses in engineering where all classes are honours-level classes. They don’t mess around in engineering classes with your flaky theories that cannot meet the standards of physical motion. If I had tried introducing the spinner’s flaky theories about reference frames creating an angular momentum where there is none, I’d have gotten my butt kicked off both of my physics courses, and probably banned from both math courses for good measure.
You don’t even understand the difference between a mass attached to a lever, which is turning on an axle, and the relatively independent motion of the Moon. The mass on the lever has true angular velocity/momentum because it is part of a rotating lever. You seem to think that removing the lever would force the mass to continue turning in a circle with the same angular velocity/momentum.
If the lever was shattered somehow, the mass would go flying off in a straight line while gravity forced it to the surface along a parabolic or hyperbolic path.
You even mentioned that the angular momentum of the mass is determined by the distance it is from the axle. Does that not immediately suggest something to you…like torque? An angular momentum is a torquing action for the simple reason that no mass will turn in a circle by itself.
However, torque = force x distance. Torque is a twisting force.
The Moon has no orbital torque nor does it have an angular momentum. It has only linear momentum without local rotation or spin. It moves along an orbital path only because gravity gradually bends its linear momentum into an orbit. It’s motion is pure translation, which explains how it can keep the same side toward the Earth whereas local rotation cannot explain it.
LMAO, Gordon. Are these honors classes where you learned that the crescent moon is caused by the earth’s shadow?
Are these honors classes where you learned your phony definition of curvilinear translation?
You are a fake, Gordon, a complete BS artist.
skeptic…someone like you, who is unlikely to have graduated from Junior High could never understand. You are wasting your breath with your ad homs replies, without a textbook you are unable to think. You think curvilinear translation is people sitting on a bus with its wheels replaced by levers attached to axles. Or people sitting in the gondolas of a Ferris wheel. Neither of those examples meet the criterion of your textbook definition but you are too stupid to see that. So you persist in making a fool of yourself.
According to you, physics is about amusement park rides and curvilinear translation, to your limited mind, could not possibly have a broader meaning. In the dense mind of skeptic, translation cannot take place unless it involves amusement park rides.
Gordon cries:
Neither of those examples meet the criterion of your textbook definition
Most of my references are not textbooks, but lecture notes from professors who teach advanced dynamics/mechanics. From a Brown University 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
With the gondola of a ferris wheel, take a horizontal line through the surface of the gondola seat. Let the original position be at 6:00 o’clock position where they load passengers. That line throughout the motion of the gondola stays parallel to its original position throughout the motion. Therefore, the gondola is undergoing curvilinear translation. Pick any two points on the gondola and trace their path during the motion. The paths will form congruent circles. Therefore every point will travel the same distance in the same amount of time, and therefore have the same velocity, which is another feature of a translating body.
Brown University school of engineering is ABET accredited. The engineering school I graduated from was ABET accredited as well. And no, we did not learn the crescent moon is caused by the earth’s shadow either.
Gordon,
You say all this, yet you cannot think about angular momentum ‘unless it involves a physical lever’. You, too, need to consider that ideas like angular momentum have a broader meaning that does not require objects physically attached to rods or strings.
Here you go again, TF.
Are you one of the idiots that believe Earth is transferring angular momentum to Moon? That’s another false belief from astrology.
Are you a believer?
> Thats another false belief from astrology.
Citation needed.
At the risk of going way over Clint’s head, their are two answers here, depending on the level of detail desired.
1) To a first approximation, central objects do not transfer angular momentum to their orbiting satellites. Gravity is a central force, meaning torque = r x F = rF sin(theta) = 0. Since a torque is required to change angular momentum, then the angular momentum of a satellite does not change. Satellites merely continuing orbiting with the angular momentum they have. This is actually the theoretical basis of Kepler’s 2nd Law.
Over the course of an orbit, whether at apogee, perigee, or anywhere in between, the moon will maintain a constant angular momentum throughout its orbit.
2) To a second approximation, satellites can experience torques due to tidal interactions. This is the basis of “gravity gradient stabilization for artificial satellites. This is the reason the moon is tidally locked with the earth. This is the reason the earth’s spin is decreasing and the moon is moving farther away.
The earth is losing angular momentum at an infinitesimal rate and transferring that angular momentum to the moon.
Tim Folkerts says:
first,
1) To a first approximation, central objects do not transfer angular momentum to their orbiting satellites.
then,
The earth is losing angular momentum at an infinitesimal rate and transferring that angular momentum to the moon.
==============================
what am I missing here?
bill said: what am I missing here?
To a second approximation part…
You mean ignore the details.
I’m not sure what you mean. Tim mentions the crucial detail in point 2. If it was ignored that is on you; not him.
Bill, What you are ‘missing’ is that there are varying levels of accuracy that can be discussed in any physics problem. Rather than ignoring details, I was giving a “freshman engineering” level answer, followed up by a “juniorphysics major” level answer.
Tim in my trade one would say
Central objects do not ‘materially’ transfer angular momentum to their orbiting satellites while still a going concern.
> If I had tried introducing the spinners flaky theories about reference frames creating an angular momentum
In an engineering class, Gordon?
“In an engineering class, Gordon?”
Like your butt-kiss pal skeptic, you not only cannot read, you are too thick to comprehend what was written.
You tell me, Gordon:
I’m sure the syllabus of the relevant classes you took is there somewhere.
But where?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Right after you stop punching hippies, kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
W,
Is that the best you can do?
You didn’t learn much at Troll U. You have a long way to go!
Don’t despair, you might just not have the talent. No cause for shame.
You really should beware your wishes, puppy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Right after you stop punching hippies, kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please see my response on March 30, 2021 at 7:34 PM, kiddo.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon, it would be fascinating to discuss your various points in greater detail to find what each of us actually thinks and to further find out what is the correct physics.
You are saying a few right things about physics.
You are saying a few wrong things about physics.
You are saying a lot of wrong things about what I think.
As the section you properly quoted said, there is just WAY too much to work out in this sort of setting. Maybe I need to post a Zoom link and say “let’s chat about this next Saturday at 18:00 GMT” and everyone can show up.
TF, you could learn a lot from Gordon, if you were able to learn. But your mind doesn’t work. You can’t “think”. You can only “believe”. Like the rest of your cult, you try to pervert reality to match your false beliefs.
Here’s just a quick sampling of your cult beliefs:
1) Two ice cubes can make an object hotter than one ice cube.
2) A 5000# boulder falling on your head won’t hurt because it has zero potential energy.
3) Jet airplanes fly backwards and sideways.
4) A ball-on-a-string rotates about its axis.
5) You can smash your hand with a hammer because force has no relation to momentum.
6) Opposite sides of Moon move with different velocities.
7) Gravity is a “force”.
8) All flux always adds.
9) All photons are always absorbed.
10) Reality is anything you want it to be.
Clint, you could earn a lot if you listened instead of assumed. The points you are trying to make are either true (and you are wrong) or they are inaccurate representations of what I have said.
If you wanted to discuss and clear up one at a time, that might be possible here, if you are willing to engage and interact.
We could start with (6) “Opposite sides of Moon move with different velocities.”
The point on the moon closest to the earth is indeed moving with a smaller speed than the point farthest from the earth. Like merry-go-round horses near the edge move faster than merry-go-round horses near the center. Do you disagree?
All points of Moon move with the same velocity, IF you understand orbital motion. Claiming different sides of Moon move at different velocities is based on kinematics, which does not fit with orbital motion.
There is NO evidence you understand orbital motion. In “pure orbital motion”, one side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of the orbit. Examples are a ball-on-a-string, Moon, an airplane circumnavigating Earth, a racehorse on an oval track, a wooden horse on a merry-go-round.
You can’t/won’t understand orbital motion. You have trouble facing reality.
How troglodytes who keep breaking an exchange at the same point over and over again with abuses fail to get inertia might be the most amazing paradox of Climateball.
Clint, you flabbergast me some times! Apparently I do the same to you. Let’s see if we can at least agree on a few things.
Do you agree …
1) points on a merry-go-round farther from the center move faster than points closer to the center.
2) The outer side of a merry-go-round horse moves faster than the inner side.
3) the left side of a car making a left turn is moving slower than the right side of the car?
4) The parts of a door farther from the hinges move faster than the parts closer to the hinges.
Of course they do Tim. All those points are drawing a concentric circle with the other points around their axis of rotation where the difference in the radius of the circle they are drawing is equal to the distance the points are apart.
All you want to do is treat bring them to a stop and imagine the rotation continuing independent of their real motion. the door is a fantastic example. Simply love that one. Oh the imagination of an independent rotational axis not on the hinges of the door but in the middle of the door and viola you have a bifold door! Except then you will want to change the axis location once again and multiple them and you have a quadfold door, and so on to each particle in the door.
One has to respect that sort of thinking it seems so useful. one can even imagine a door that folds up so many times it becomes invisible to an expansive view!
Within each of the examples, the angular velocity is the same. But for a body in pure orbital motion, all points move with the same velocity as its CoM.
Every time you get confused, just consider the ball-on-a-string. Spinner’s hate that simple analogy. Yet they can’t come up with a model, or example, of pure orbital motion that does not violate the laws of physics.
That’s interesting, huh?
ClintR said: All points of Moon move with the same velocity
Patently False. No matter which frame you use whether it is anchored to the COM of the Moon or the Earth-Moon barycenter points within the Moon that are further from the center of the frame are moving at higher velocities because they etch out a circle with a longer circumference in the same amount of time. If we cannot convince you of this simple geometric fact then we probably aren’t going to agree with you on anything.
bill said: Of course they do Tim.
Maybe you can explain it to ClintR then?
Bill, I am glad we agree that the other points are moving faster than the inner points. Now you just have to convince Clint, who is adamant that “All points of Moon move with the same velocity”.
> If we cannot convince you of this simple geometric fact then we probably arent going to agree with you on anything.
But suppose that we live in a world that is drawn once and for all, and Clint’s suggestions all make sense out of a sudden.
To get Force, just make it bolder.
“Every time you get confused, just consider the ball-on-a-string.”
OK … I’ll consider a ball with a diameter of 1 m on the end of a string 1 m long, twirling around 1 time per second.
The innermost part of the ball is travelling 6.28 m in 1 second = 6.28 m/s
The outermost part of the ball is travelling 12.57 m in 1 second = 12.57 m/s.
You are right! That does clear up all the confusion! The outer part *is* moving faster!
“Oh the imagination of an independent rotational axis not on the hinges of the door but in the middle of the door and viola you have a bifold door! Except then you will want to change the axis location once again and multiple them and you have a quadfold door, and so on to each particle in the door.”
Exactly, bill…this is precisely what they do. A record on a turntable has only one axis of rotation, in the center of the record…but they believe if you draw a small circle towards the outside edge of the record, then the contents of that circle are now rotating on their own axis, just because the record is spinning. They don’t seem to get that the circle is in fact just rotating about the center of the record, and not on its own axis, same as every other part of the record. The (il)logical conclusion to their way of thinking is that every atom of the record is rotating on its own axis, just because the record is spinning!
So in DREMT’s language the logical conclusion to DREMT’s way of thinking is that every atom of the record is changing orientation on its own axis once per orbit, because the record is spinning!
Just have to be careful to use DREMT’s childish language, our moon is changing orientation completely once per orbit.
See TF, kinematics does not work with orbital motion.
Good example.
Then there is the question of how fast atoms in solids are actually rotating about their axes.
Some would say that’s an interesting line of research.
Atoms are just balls on a string of life, Bob.
Just ask Nikola.
There, problem solved.
Newton discovered what “pure orbital motion” is. It is the motion of a ball-on-a-string. The same side always faces the center of the orbit. That’s why we know Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. We always see the same face from Earth.
If Moon were rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it.
The ball-on-a-string is a simple analogy. The “Spinners” hate it, for obvious reasons. But, they are unable to come up with a simple analogy for “pure orbital motion”, that doesn’t violate the laws of physics.
They have nothing.
Willard,
“Atoms are just balls on a string of life, Bob.
Just ask Nikola.
There, problem solved.”
He’s dead, the pigeons are unhappy, though some were probably passenger pigeons, they are even more unhappy.
I googled “pure orbital motion”
LOL
“Pure orbital motion” just means “orbital motion without axial rotation”, bob. Everybody here, including yourself, has an idea of how a body that is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis, remains oriented whilst it moves.
DREMTY,
Go ahead and google your “pure orbital motion”
And then tell me you clowns aren’t making shit up.
I triple dog dare you!
Here’s one source I found, it says you are phucked up as hogan’s goat.
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/cfd/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2018/ENU/SimCFD-UsersGuide/files/GUID-2DA802D9-07D0-4903-8297-1BA131628B42-htm.html
“Pure orbital motion” just means “orbital motion without axial rotation”, bob. Everybody here, including yourself, has an idea of how a body that is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis, remains oriented whilst it moves..
Got to go to the Offspring for this one.
“you got to keep em separated”
Orbital motion and rotation are separate phenomena, and if you are linking them in “pure orbital motion” you are doing it wrong!
Wrong DREMPTY
Wrong DREMPTY
Wrong DREMPTY
They have nothing to do with each other, except when a satellite is tidally locked, which means the period of rotation and period of orbit are the same. For the most common case of tidal locking, other ratios may happen.
Which is what you call pure orbital motion.
Which would be OK, if you concluded from that, that the Moon is spinning, but you don’t, you conclude that the Moon is not spinning.
But it’s changing orientation, right?
How can something change orientation without rotating on it’s axis?
“Pure orbital motion” just means “orbital motion without axial rotation”, bob. Everybody here, including yourself, has an idea of how a body that is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis, remains oriented whilst it moves…
> How can something change orientation without rotating on its axis?
First, take a pigeon.
“How can something change orientation without rotating on it’s axis?”
It can change its orientation if it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
Nope DREMPTY,
That’s impossible.
If something changes its orientation, it has to turn, or rotate on its axis, or stop facing the same direction.
It has to rotate about an axis. Not necessarily its own.
DREMPTY,
Now you are just being contrary and not making any sense whatsoever.
Of course it’s its own axis, the body determines the axis or axes that it rotates around.
And it can rotate around more than one axis.
The Moon defines both axes that it rotates around, the internal one and the external one.
You know what, bob? I really don’t give a shit what you think. There’s never any point talking to you. So think what you like.
Tim Folkerts says:
Bill, I am glad we agree that the other points are moving faster than the inner points. Now you just have to convince Clint, who is adamant that “All points of Moon move with the same velocity”.
==================================
I have to admit Tim that sometimes Clint’s statements go over my head. I tried to look up thread to figure out what Clint said. I see him talking about angular velocity. the question about some points apparently moving faster seems a different question.
You have angular velocity. You have a velocity associated with linear momentum which is the same for all points in the moon. You have the acceleration of gravity that arrives at a terminal velocity which maybe the same for all points on the moon. And you have a tangential velocity which is typically expressed as a velocity perpendicular to the radius (and another way of expressing the velocity of the linear momentum). Its the same for all particles in the moon.
and the relationship between tangential velocity that is frequently expressed as angular velocity along with that terminal gravitational velocity so all points on the moon are moving at the same angular velocity. But nowhere do I see any of this being well clarified in the discussion. But over time I have seen Clint touch on all those issues.
We do know that rotation arises out of two essentially linear forces or linear momentum. That is converted into an angular velocity that is the same for all points on the moon.
but the spinners like to go outside the language of science on this and talk about how fast particles are moving on two sides of the moon. It seems intuitive but I can’t answer the question as it just doesn’t seem to arise in the physics of orbital rotation except in terms of rotations of objects on different orbital paths.
I also see some folks claiming the moon slows down when earth gives up angular momentum to the moon’s orbit and the radius of the orbit increases. But that makes little sense as if all that is being given up is angular momentum for the same amount of angular momentum the relationship between tangential velocity and the radius is locked. So if you increase angular momentum and the radius increases, the velocity is not going to become less like that of an iceskater that holds the same angular momentum.
So context is everything here and it seems to me that if Clint is confining himself to velocities relative to angular momentum and you guys are talking about something that has nothing to do with that, I can clearly see why the result can be so confusing and that would obviously include the question you asked me to try to explain to Clint.
DREMPTY,
“You know what, bob? I really dont give a shit what you think. Theres never any point talking to you. So think what you like.”
You know I will think what I like.
You can stop responding to me any time.
OK, bob.
Bill you seem to be rambling a bit now. When in doubt, it is always good to go back to definitions and equations.
>You have angular velocity.
ω = dθ/dt
>You have a velocity associated with linear momentum
which would just be velocity, v = dr/dt
>which is the same for all points in the moon.
No. We just showed that different points on a ball on a string (or a moon in orbit) move at different speeds.
Perhaps you mean the velocity specifically of the center of mass? This average velocity would the correct variable for momentum for the object as a whole, p = mv
>You have the acceleration of gravity that arrives at a terminal velocity
This makes no sense to me. Perhaps you mean 9.8/(60^2) m/s^2 = 0.0027 m/s^2, the acceleration of the moon toward the earth?
But that is not related to a “terminal velocity”. what equation are you imagining here??
>you have a tangential velocity
v = rω
> way of expressing the velocity of the linear momentum
well, yes for a circular orbit. For an actual elliptical orbit there is also a radial component.
>Its the same for all particles in the moon.
No. the tangential velocity is larger on the far side of the moon because r is larger.
>terminal gravitational velocity
what is this? What equation? Objects on earth have a “terminal velocity” but this is due to air resistance (which of course does not exist for the moon).
I’ll stop here. These are the sorts of issues that everyone needs to address to make any discussion fruitful. If we can’t agree on the words we are using, then there is no way to actually figure anything out!
The “omega” characters didn’t show up properly in the previous post. Just imagine them in the correct locations.
Tim Folkerts says:
Bill you seem to be rambling a bit now. When in doubt, it is always good to go back to definitions and equations.
>You have angular velocity.
ω = dθ/dt
>You have a velocity associated with linear momentum
which would just be velocity, v = dr/dt
>which is the same for all points in the moon.
No. We just showed that different points on a ball on a string (or a moon in orbit) move at different speeds.
Perhaps you mean the velocity specifically of the center of mass? This average velocity would the correct variable for momentum for the object as a whole, p = mv
1))) Linear momentum is the same for all particles of the moon. What changes is the distance a particle is from the earth’s COM that results in an actual difference to the equation for movement speed of the various particles of the moon.
———————-
>You have the acceleration of gravity that arrives at a terminal velocity
This makes no sense to me. Perhaps you mean 9.8/(60^2) m/s^2 = 0.0027 m/s^2, the acceleration of the moon toward the earth?
But that is not related to a terminal velocity. what equation are you imagining here??
2))) There has to be a terminal velocity or the moon would crash into the earth. What supplies the terminal velocity is the changing orientation of the gravity vector (e.g. in only accelerates for an instantaneous moment in any one direction, then is accelerating in a different direction). I am not well schooled in physics either so I am not sure how to label this limiting physical fact and while it logically seems to serve the same purpose as a terminal velocity of an accelerating factor usually associated with friction of the atmosphere I just chose to label it in that way. A correction in terms would be welcomed.
————————–
>Its the same for all particles in the moon.
No. the tangential velocity is larger on the far side of the moon because r is larger.
3))) that may be true but it has been made irrelevant via the factoring of the rotational equation into two terms and leaving the orbital rotation to be represented by a point mass that only has a tangential velocity on the center of mass. To reintroduce velocities of two sides of the moon one would have to get the full equation into the orbital frame. After you have done that then some of these questions would seem to likely come out of it.
Introducing it into half the equation only presumes the moon having all its rotating momentum in the answer pre-selected as to where the rotation is occurring and not occurring.
I see that as a fundamental failure of the educational system to fully explain what is actually going on. this is a common problem with math as our view of the world becomes affected by the form of the mathematics rather than the mathematics being formed by the realities of the world.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
1) Two ice cubes can make an object hotter than one ice cube.
Yes, a whole igloo is warmer than half an igloo
2) A 5000# boulder falling on your head wont hurt because it has zero potential energy.
but the boulder does have potential energy relative to my feet.
3) Jet airplanes fly backwards and sideways.
Harrier jump jets anyone.
4) A ball-on-a-string rotates about its axis.
well, yes it does.
5) You can smash your hand with a hammer because force has no relation to momentum.
The force that does the damage comes from the force your hand acts on the hammer, that should be obvious, if you understood Newton’s Laws.
6) Opposite sides of Moon move with different velocities.
Well, yes they do, the far side moves farther in the same amount of time, hence it moves faster, or has more velocity.
7) Gravity is a force.
That’s why it’s called the force of gravity.
8) All flux always adds.
Now you know we say fluxes can add, not that they always add simply, it’s vector addition.
9) All photons are always absorbed.
No, only for ideal blackbodies, other thing transmit or reflect. And then there is Compton scattering and pair production.
10) Reality is anything you want it to be.
Now we go to the Old Jazzman’s Church, anything you wanna do is all right, you gotta do anything you want to do, it’s all right.
TF tried to cautiously back away from supporting such nonsense: “…they are inaccurate representations of what I have said.”
But he did cherry-pick one to try to defend. He failed again.
But not bob! Bob swallowed the whole mess. Even the stuff TF wouldn’t touch. I guess that proves there are different levels of depravity within the cult.
It’s just a bunch of sciency stuff you know little about Clint R.
It’s all way beyond your understanding so you have to call it a cult.
When you believe in things you don’t understand, then you suffer!
Thanks to Stevie.
I would ‘touch’ any or all of these. They are all interesting in their own way. But addressing just one already led to a whole slew of responses. Staying focused one seems more rational.
And with that one, Clint admitted that his understanding of orbits does not agree with the kinematic equations of physics, so he pretty clearly lost that one. The bar side of the ball (and the far side of the moon) does move at a faster speed than the near side.
GR said: If I had tried introducing the spinners flaky theories about reference frames creating an angular momentum where there is none
That’s not how it works. Body’s have interesting properties like velocity, momentum, kinetic energy, etc. that are quantified by using a reference frame for assessing its motion wrt to something else. A body does not acquire values for these properties because you declared a reference frame and made a measurement using it. The reference frame is merely the standard by which you assess these properties.
The fact is…the Moon has angular velocity of 2.66e-6 rad/s, angular momentum of 2.35e29 kg.m^2/s, and rotational energy of 3.14e23 joules in an inertial frame anchored to its COM. I didn’t create these values nor did the reference frame create these values. They are what they because of the mass, size, and shape of the Moon and the forces that had been acting on it over billions of years to cause it to tidally lock with the Earth.
Yes bdgwx, if you choose the wrong reference frame, you can get the wrong results.
Good example.
That doesn’t make any sense. There isn’t even an opportunity for choosing a reference frame in my post; nevermind choosing the “wrong” one. The frame is declared and the values are computed for that frame. Those values are what they are in that frame.
In your “chosen” frame, is Moon rotating about its axis?
There is no choosing here either. The question declares the frame for us by specifying “its axis” and by omitting a condition that it be anything other than inertial. Therefore the question is choosing the frame with radius r=0 going through the COM of the Moon with angle a=0 radial line pointing at the distant stars. It just so happens that the angular velocity, angular momentum, and rotational energy are 2.66e-6 rad/s, 2.35e29 kg.m^2/s, and 3.14e23 joules respectively…in that frame. And since these properties are non-zero we can rightfully answer yes to that question.
Then that makes your “frame” wrong.
We know Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. If you choose the wrong reference frame, you get the wrong results.
I didn’t choose the frame here. You did by asking that particular question.
The “we” 9:45 am must mean Clint R’s pocket mouse. Clint R stands quite alone wrongly ignoring reality. DREMT has declared the moon changes orientation, Gordon writes our moon is turning, and Tesla writes for his analogy of our moon orbiting ball M:
“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”
then Tesla goes on to change his chosen frames without notifying the reader (faking out a few readers) in “relatively” ball M appears to rotate in the spinning spoke frame “But it does not tho to the eye it seems so.”
Wrong bdgwx. it was your choice of “frames”.
“The frame is declared and the values are computed for that frame.”
But, if you want to now deny that “declared” frame, that’s allowed. There’s nothing wrong with accepting reality.
> There’s nothing wrong with accepting reality.
For Clint, that comes without any frame of reference whatsoever.
ClintR,
This discussion is focused on whether the Moon rotates on its own axis. It is the discussion itself that is dictating the location and orientation of the reference frame. It is not arbitrarily chosen by me. I’m only calculating these properties in that frame. And as the discussion pivots to another observational perspective I am forced to perform those same calculations in the frame representing that new observational perspective. In that context I’m not making an arbitrary choice or even choosing the frame at all. It is chosen for me by the context of the discussion.
That’s sounds good, bdgwx. But the reality is you chose an inertial reference frame. That means your results are WRONG. An inertial reference frame gives the same invalid results for a ball on a string, which is obviously not rotating about its axis.
You’re still avoid reality. And that still makes you an idiot.
ClintR, Let me just make sure I understand your position. You’re saying that analyzing motion in an inertial reference frame necessarily yields the wrong result?
A reference frame where r=0 goes through the COM of the moon and a=0 remains pointing toward some distant star will certainly not give you the correct answer for whether the moon is rotating on its own axis or not, as I have explained to you about twenty-one times now.
It works just fine for every other astronomical body.
It "works" in the sense that every astronomical body ends up with a value for angular velocity, angular momentum, and rotational energy that can be compared. Which is all well and good, and useful.
It’s just that they’re technically all wrong.
bdgwx tries to pervert reality: “You’re saying that analyzing motion in an inertial reference frame necessarily yields the wrong result?”
I’m saying if you choose a frame of reference that gives you the wrong result, then you have chosen the wrong frame of reference. “The stars” don’t work for Moon, or the ball-on-a-string, because both are orbiting. “The stars” cannot differentiate between “orbiting” and “rotating about it axis”. That’s why you get confused and believe the ball-on-a-string is rotating about its axis. You can’t figure it out. You can’t think for yourself. So, you go with the false religion of astrology.
Clint perverts markup.
And yet the stars or cosmic microwave background work just fine to settle the debate regarding whether the Earth, Mars, Europa, Titan, Pluto/Charon, or any other astronomical body rotates about its own axis.
[EXTREME HOMER SIMPSON VOICE] And yet the stars or cosmic microwave background work just fine to settle the debate regarding whether the Earth, Mars, Europa, Titan, Pluto/Charon, or any other astronomical body rotates about its own axis, so far.
For the twenty-first time, you are calculating angular velocity here because you are observing that the same point on the surface of the object (moon) starts and returns to the a=0 radial line. But it does so because the object (moon) is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. The motion “rotating about an external axis” involves the object changing its orientation whilst it moves.
An object that “rotates about an external axis”, without rotating about its own center of mass, always keeps the same (inside) face pointing towards that external axis, whilst it moves. Hence the outer face will point through e.g. N, W, S and E, and back to N as each rotation is completed. This is why when you put the origin of your inertial reference frame through the COM of the object it appears as though it is rotating on its own axis.
DREMT said: For the twenty-first time
And for the twenty-first time…that is completely irrelevant. The calculation for angular velocity is invariant to the cause of a body’s motion.
This is true for linear velocity as well. For example, A vehicle that is going 100 km/hr is measured to do so regardless of whether it is doing so because it was accelerated by an internal force from say an engine or by an external force from say the pulling/pushing by another vehicle. It’s 100 km/hr all the same. The reason is because the calculation of linear velocity is invariant to the cause of the vehicles motion.
DREMT said: This is why when you put the origin of your inertial reference frame through the COM of the object it appears as though it is rotating on its own axis.
The frame is rotationally inertial. No fictitious forces are required to explain the motion. So you tell me…is that more or less “real” than if we had done the calculation on the non-inertial frame that rotates such that it always points toward the Earth and which forces us to consider the fictitious forces?
“And for the twenty-first time…that is completely irrelevant. The calculation for angular velocity is invariant to the cause of a body’s motion.”
I wasn’t talking about the cause of the motion. I was pointing out that the moon is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. The moon’s rotation is about the barycenter, not about its own center of mass. In other words, it is “orbiting” and not “rotating on its own axis”.
Of course if you put the origin of your reference frame through the COM of the moon it is going to appear to be rotating on its own axis!
Read my previous comment again, and again, until you start to understand what I’m actually saying.
> I wasnt talking about the cause of the motion.
You’ll never guess why there’s a “cause” in “because,” kiddo.
DREMT said: I wasnt talking about the cause of the motion.
You said (and have been saying) “it does so because the object (moon) is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter”
Let’s ignore for a moment that this cause isn’t even correct. It doesn’t matter at all what the cause actually is. The 2.66e-6 rad/s angular velocity on its own axis wrt to the distant stars is what it is. It is calculated via w = 2pi / (27.3d * 24 h/d * 3600 s/h). No where in that calculation did we have to invoke a cause for the motion. All we had to do was measure the 27.3d period that elapses between the start and return to the same orientation wrt to the distant stars.
DREMT said: Of course if you put the origin of your reference frame through the COM of the moon it is going to appear to be rotating on its own axis!
There is no illusion here. As long as the reference frame is inertial any motion can be rightfully claimed to be real. And besides do you really think the Earth only “appears” to be rotating on its own axis? Afterall both the Moon and Earth experience day/night cycles and start and return to their same orientation to distant stars on regular cycles as well. Those are real phenomenon all the same.
I wasn’t talking about the cause of the motion.
> I wasnt talking about the cause of the motion.
In that case, you were begging your favorite interpretation.
bdgwx, I repeat my 9:34 AM comment, which refutes your response.
> which refutes your response.
No strong “because,” kiddo, no refutation.
I don’t make the rules.
Sorry.
bdgwx, I repeat my 9:34 AM comment, which refutes your response..
> which refutes your response..
Only if your “because” is a strong one, kiddo.
Which you explicitly repudiated.
Nice try.
No cookie.
bdgwx, I repeat my 9:34 AM comment, which refutes your response…
You can repeat the same thing as many times as you like. That won’t make it any less wrong than before.
I repeat my 9:34 AM comment, which refutes your response.
> it does so because the object (moon) is rotating about the external axis of the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
That’s a big “because” there, moderator guy.
You know, the main problem with Nikola’s papers is that he never got to prove his illusion.
Not really…if you understand rotation, then you know that an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, always keeps the same side of its body oriented towards that external axis whilst it moves around it. Like a ball on a string.
> Not really
Not really, what?
Repeating Nikola’s interpretation doesn’t invalidate anyone else’s unless he can explain more phenomena in a more general way, and even then he’d have to show how everyone but him fails.
He did none of that in his papers.
Not really “a big because”.
> Not really “a big because”.
If by that you mean that “because” could mean “under an alternative interpretation,” you’re right.
If by that you mean that “because” means “that’s the best explanation,” you’re wrong.
Which is it?
It’s not really “a big because”. If you understand rotation, then you know that an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, always keeps the same side of its body oriented towards that external axis whilst it moves around it. Like a ball on a string. Are you aware of that fact about rotation?
Or are you arguing, like the rest of the “Spinners”, that the moon is translating in a circle, plus rotating on its own axis?
> If you understand rotation
That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo.
Explanations support understanding, not the other way around. Or if you prefer, one does not simply beg the interpretation one prefers to argue that it’s the correct one.
Put yourself into Nikola’s shoes. At first he thought that the Moon rotated around its own axis. Then he realized that it was an illusion. But that realization means little unless he can *demonstrate* that it is one.
He didn’t do that in his papers. How could you do that for him?
Think of how we can prove that a stick in water can appear broken. That should inspire you to think of something.
Best of luck!
If you understand rotation, then you know that an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, always keeps the same side of its body oriented towards that external axis whilst it moves around it. Like a ball on a string. Are you aware of that fact about rotation?
Or are you arguing, like the rest of the “Spinners”, that the moon is translating in a circle, plus rotating on its own axis?
DREMT said: If you understand rotation, then you know that an object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, always keeps the same side of its body oriented towards that external axis whilst it moves around it.
Wrong. A body that is said to be in a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance, synchronous rotation, or is tidally locked has the same spin angular velocity as the orbital angular velocity. Then and only then will it present the same face toward the orbital or external axis. It must have rotation about its center of mass. That is not optional nor is it debatable. It is an indisputable fact.
Incorrect, bdgwx. I refer you to Madhavi, Fig. 2(b), where the rectangle is shown rotating about point O, and not about its own center of mass. The rectangle moves as per a ball on a string, or “the moon on the left” from the gif discussed earlier. This is “rotation about an external axis”, which is not to be confused with ‘curvilinear translation in a circle”, Fig. 2(a) or motion like the “moon on the right” (if you consider it to be comprised of only one movement, as do the “Spinners”).
Referring to Madhavi, Fig. 2(b), observe the rectangle is shown rotating about point O, and rotating about its own center of mass c once per orbit of O using Tesla’s notation. Same as Tesla writes inertially for his ball M analogy of our moon orbiting O and roating about its center c:
“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”
after that Tesla goes on to change his chosen frames without notifying his reader (faking out a few readers here) in “relatively” ball M appears to rotate in the spinning spoke frame “But it does not tho to the eye it seems so.”
Note to readers: I am ignoring Ball4’s comment, and await a response from bdgwx.
For those not up to speed DREMT is referencing this…
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
In figure 2B the body is indeed rotating about an external axis.
But that in no way is inconsistent with the fact that all points within that body have angular velocity about the body’s internal (center of mass) axis as well.
And the reason why the angular velocity is the same in the internal and external anchored frames is because the motion of the body and all points within are constrained by the nature of the system.
Similar to the body in figure 2B the Moon is also constrained by the nature of the system. The only difference being with the way in which it is constrained. The body is figure 2B is constrained via the electromagnetic force between molecules. The Moon is constrained via the gravitational force between the mass of the Earth and Moon.
And in both cases if the rotation about the external axis were to cease the body in figure 2B or the Moon would continue to rotate about their own internal axis as they conserve angular momentum despite moving further and further away from that external axis.
There is nothing in Madhavi’s document that is inconsistent with the observation that the Moon has synodic and sidereal periods or that it rotates on its own axis. Had Madhavi presented a section on orbital dynamics he would not have disagreed that the Moon both rotates on an external (Earth-Moon barycenter) or internal (center of mass) axis. And he likely would have adopted the same jargon that celestial mechanics scientists use to describe the motions of astronomical bodies.
> For those not up to speed DREMT is referencing this
Does kiddo know how to cite or even use URLs?
No, you are still miles away from getting it, bdgwx. Let me ask you this question:
How do you think an object would move that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, if not like the rectangle shown in Fig. 2(b)?
Note that you cannot say, “like the “moon on the right” from the gif we discussed earlier”…because that motion you described as “curvilinear translation”, and Madhavi advises to be careful to keep rotation and curvilinear translation separate.
“How do you think an object would move that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, if not like the rectangle shown in Fig. 2(b)?”
Per Prof. Madhavi notes, that would look like the rectangle orbiting a central axis in her Fig. 2(a) that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass.
Note to readers: I am ignoring Ball4’s comment, and await a response from bdgwx..
DREMT said: How do you think an object would move that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, if not like the rectangle shown in Fig. 2(b)?
It would be like a rotor attached to the perimeter of a carousel via a low friction mount in which a mark on the rotor always points to a distant object as the rotor as a whole rotates around the external axis through the carousel’s center.
The "Spinners" would describe that motion as "curvilinear translation", bdgwx. Remember, Madhavi advises you to keep rotation and curvilinear translation separate.
So, try again.
Yes keep them separate as does Prof. Madhavi in Fig.s 2(a) and 2(b). bdgwx 1:20 pm description is same as Madhavi Fig. 2(a).
Thank you for your assistance, Ball4.
So I’m reading through Madhavi’s document again. This time I’m paying more attention to sections 4.0 and 5.0. Madhavi would characterize the Moon’s motion as translation plus rotation. See figure 7 and 11 where he says “plane motion = translation with A + rotation about A”. Unfortunately the only example given is the rectilinear case. But because the Moon’s translation component is curved I’m confident Madhavi would would further refine the Moon’s motion as “lunar motion = curvilinear translation with COM + rotation about COM” even though he does not specifically call out the curvilinear case. I didn’t notice the use of “=” and “+” in these diagrams before. The point…it certainly looks like Madhavi’s language is consistent with the “spinner” position and inconsistent with the “non-spinner” position.
Now you’re getting it, bdgwx. As I explained to you further upthread, the “Spinner” position is that the moon is translating, plus rotating on its own axis. The “Non-Spinner” position is that the moon is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, as per Fig. 2(b).
The “Spinner” position is not that the moon is rotating about an external axis and rotating about its own center of mass.
DREMPTY,
“The “Spinner” position is not that the moon is rotating about an external axis and rotating about its own center of mass.”
But that is my position, though I’m not sure the Moon rotates about its center of mass, odds are it doesn’t. Close maybe.
I have been saying the Moon rotates around at least two axes, and I could name more than two.
Yeah, it might be your position, bob, but you’re not exactly one of the brightest "Spinners".
DREMPTY,
You get busted and resort to a personal attack.
I wouldn’t have expected better of you.
Any intelligent “Spinners” think the moon’s motion is the sum of a translation and a rotation, as bdgwx explained.
Too bad you can’t figure out that they are the same thing.
Sorry for your loss
bdgwx says:
”In figure 2B the body is indeed rotating about an external axis.
But that in no way is inconsistent with the fact that all points within that body have angular velocity about the bodys internal (center of mass) axis as well.”
Incorrect! Both cannot be true at the same time. A better way of putting it is the moon rotates around the earth and possesses angular momentum from that rotation.
The moon then has ”potential” angular momentum and a ”potential” rotation around its own axis should the forces of gravity between all objects in the universe were instantaneously shut off. So it can be reasoned that potential angular momentum is like other forms of potential energy and be capable of transferring to a different location.
It’s always a good idea to know the units of what property you are dealing with.
Momentum, energy, force and angular momentum all have different units.
kg-m/sec, kg-m^2/sec^2, kg-m/sec^2 and kg-m^2/sec.
You have been schooled, quiz friday, test at the end of the chapter.
Possibly in 2029 at the rate the material is being learned.
Price will increase at the discretion of the me.
Hint: don’t write potential angular momentum on your quiz or exam.
DREMT said: Any intelligent Spinners think the moons motion is the sum of a translation and a rotation, as bdgwx explained.
To be clear that is Madhavi’s explanation which I’m okay with. And as best I can tell Madhavi would also agree that the Moon exhibits rotation on both external and internal axis as well.
bill said: Incorrect! Both cannot be true at the same time.
And yet the math does not lie. There is angular velocity/momentum about both axis.
And the rotation about the Moon’s own axis is very real. The Moon really does have day/night cycles. The Moon really does change its orientation wrt to the distant stars on a regular interval. And we don’t have to invoke fictitious forces to explain the motion in this frame like we do if we allow the frame to rotate and point towards Earth.
bdgwx, you cannot have it both ways. You have to remember not to confuse curvilinear translation with rotation. Therefore, if you think the moon is translating and rotating, you cannot also think it is rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis.
DREMPTY,
They are equivalent, just two different ways two different scientific disciplines explain the same phenomenon.
I agree bobdroege. I don’t see what the big deal is in viewing it both ways. Madhavi seems to think you can decompose “plane motion” into translation + rotation. I’m okay with that. That does not preclude someone from treating the orbit as a rotation about an external axis. I’d be willing to bet that Madhavi would agree as well. Not that it matters since celestial mechanics scientists already define its orbit as a rotation and its spin on its own axis as a rotation.
Yes, you agree, and you are both wrong.
I refer you back to my question at 12:22 PM.
If you cannot answer with any motion other than one which would be described as curvilinear translation, you have to accept I am right. So far bdgwx had one attempt, but his answer was a motion that would be described as curvilinear translation.
So an object moving like the rectangle in Fig. 2(b) is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.
….as observed in the accelerated frame.
“How do you think an object would move that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, if not like the rectangle shown in Fig. 2(b)?”
Per Prof. Madhavi notes, that would look like the rectangle orbiting a central axis in her Fig. 2(a) that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass.
Fig. 2(a) is labelled as curvilinear translation, Ball4. Do you not understand again?
DREMPTY,
I’ll answer that
“How do you think an object would move that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, if not like the rectangle shown in Fig. 2(b)?”
The plate in 2(b) is not rotating around an external axis because it is attached to the point it’s rotating around.
It’s not rotating around its center of mass, that should be obvious.
Anyway the local axis that the Moon is rotating around is not necessarily through the center of mass.
bob finds a way to distort the truth and miss the point, as well as directly disagreeing with bdgwx, who wrote:
"In figure 2B the body is indeed rotating about an external axis.
But that in no way is inconsistent with the fact that all points within that body have angular velocity about the body’s internal (center of mass) axis as well."
But bob won’t argue with bdgwx, we already know that.
DREMPTY,
You don’t get to tell me who I argue with, I can argue with whomever I want.
I addressed an argument to you, if you don’t want to respond, then you lose the argument, or turn tail and run back to your mom’s basement.
Sure, bob…whatever you say.
thats the usefulness of frames. Stop the rotating frame and you can still see motion with a ball moving from the center off the mgr now showing its true non-rotating path. But do it with an orbit and unique motion is revealed as the rotation just stops.
A lesson in how to use frames and how not to use them. . . .I would think.
And “true non-rotating path” could be an excellent way not to use them properly.
bill said: Stop the rotating frame and you can still see motion with a ball moving from the center off the mgr now showing its true non-rotating path.
It’s “true non-rotating path” is straight in an inertial frame even though it is curved in a non-inetial frame. This seemingly paradoxical dichotomy is solved by the invocation of fictitious forces in non-inertial frames only. They are not invoked in inertial frames. Rotating frames (like that of the lan-lon coordinate system of Earth) are non-inertial and must invoke fictitious forces (euler, rectilinear, coriolis, centrifugal) to explain motion.
This is why when we measure 0 rad/s of angular velocity in the non-inertial frame that rotates so that the same radial line always points to the Earth it is generally considered to be less “real” than the 2.66e-6 rad/s we measure in the inertial frame where the same radial line always points to the same distant star.
We have been trying to explain this to DREMT, GR, and ClintR for months now. Maybe you can explain it to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force
I understand fictitious forces already. Thank you anyway.
Then stop implying that the Moon’s motion about its own axis wrt to the universe (inertial) is less real and wrt to Earth (non-inertial) is more real. It’s the other way around.
The moon’s motion is a rotation about the Earth/moon barycenter wrt to the Universe (inertial) and not about its own axis wrt to a zoomed in inertial reference frame that misses the forest for the trees.
bdgwx,
I just discovered Roy’s. Never thought it could be an outlet that produces Climateball classics. This thread is slowly becoming one.
The explanations that you, Bob, Tim, Nicolas, or even Ball provided so far have been more than enough. That’s not the problem. It’s a matter of interaction.
Consider a simple model, which I call the Engineer-Philosopher-Scientist Game. The Engineer beats the Scientist by his constant requests of imaginary details. The Philosopher beats the Engineer because he’s trained in silly word games. The Scientist beats the Philosopher with more fruitful explanations.
(That model predicts that a scientific explanation of Climateball would top this very model.)
The trick is to have on the Climateball field a Scientist and a Philosopher to skewer engineer-minded contrarians. Once Clint has no room for silly semantic arguments, he loses. I’m here to make sure he has no room for silly semantic arguments.
That won’t convince Clint or anyone. Who has ever been convinced by an online argument anyway?
Thank you for your comments. They rock.
W
Sure, as long as DREMT’s 11:27am zoomed in inertial frame is zoomed in such that the moon mass becomes a point mass which then cannot rotate about its own cg.
Ball4 misses the point, as usual.
What point would that be, kiddo, that you keep repeating Nikola’s interpretation as if it was a refutation or something?
OK, Willard.
We’re talking about the Moon’s own axis here. I don’t think you can reasonably claim that the Moon’s “own axis” is not its center of mass but at the barycenter of its orbit especially since for Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Titan, and every other astronomical it is through the center of mass.
And besides the Earth-Moon barycenter is still “zoomed-in”. The Moon is being drug along with the Earth, Sun, Milky Way, Local Group, etc. as well. In fact, the Moon’s motion wrt to the center of the Milky Way is more than it’s motion wrt to the Sun and dramatically more than its motion wrt to the Earth-Moon barycenter. So why stop at the Earth-Moon barycenter and not “zoom-out” further to the Sun or Milky Way?
Try this, kiddo:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/
That would be 25$.
Yeah, I’m trying to undercut Bob’s market.
Willard said: I just discovered Roys. Never thought it could be an outlet that produces Climateball classics. This thread is slowly becoming one.
The Moon rotation “debate” only scratches the surface of the nonsense that is posted here. Stick around…you’ll see stuff that’ll make your head spin…pun intended 🙂
…but not on its own axis. Lol.
bdgwx, you just need to stop far enough out that you can discern where the axes of rotation are, and how many there are, for the system in question. No need to go any further.
For the moon, there is only one axis of rotation, and it goes through the Earth/moon barycenter. The moon is not rotating about its own center of mass.
For the Earth, there are two axes of rotation, one going through the Sun/Earth barycenter, and another through the Earth’s own center of mass.
There wouldn’t be two axes of rotation for Earth if Earth continuously presented one face to the sun in DREMT’s language. In that case, the Earth would be merely changing orientation completely once per orbit.
That does it,
If I am going to have competition, I’ll have to raise prices and offer more solutions.
Anyone want to be part of the solution.
Don’t forget, I’m a chemist.
bdgwx admits: “The Moon rotation ‘debate’ only scratches the surface of the nonsense that is posted here.”
Here’s a partial list of such nonsense:
1) Two ice cubes can make an object hotter than one ice cube.
2) A 5000# boulder falling on your head won’t hurt because it has zero potential energy.
3) Jet airplanes fly backwards and sideways.
4) A ball-on-a-string rotates about its axis.
5) You can smash your hand with a hammer because force has no relation to momentum.
6) Opposite sides of Moon move with different velocities.
7) Gravity is a “force”.
8) All flux always adds.
9) All photons are always absorbed.
10) Reality is anything you want it to be.
bdgwx also has a penchant for making irresponsible attacks that he can’t support, such as:
“Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.”
1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?
> bdgwx admits
Contrary to you, Clint, Bob isn’t shy about what he holds.
You’re not in proper subthread, BTW.
bdgwx disappears out the back door again.
So now we know.
Gordon only took two physics courses and two math courses.
“I’d have gotten my butt kicked off both of my physics courses, and probably banned from both math courses for good measure.”
That’s not enough for an engineering degree by a fair shot.
It doesn’t even meet the pre-reqs for the course SGW is talking about.
Has Gordon ever told you where he went, Bob, or he’s just bragging empty-handed?
Nope
Begone, trolls!
Keep yapping, son.
You didn’t do it right.
First you open the spellbook, then light the candle, then chant begone Troll!
Spellbook 50 bucks
Candle 250!
It’s a majic candle!
Trolls, begone!
But what do we do when the fossil fuels run out?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science_and_environment
E,
I’ll let you know if it happens. In the meantime, Im doing my best to put the CO2 and H2O back into the air where they belong.
What do you intend to do?
Fossil fuels most likely will never run out, rather they will get prohibitively expenses to extract as supplies diminish. Alternative energy and synthetics will eventually replace most fossil fuel needs.
Climate change will always exist until our sun burns the earth to a cinder, until then humans/animals/plants will always adapt. Those that can’t will succumb to natural selection. Perhaps one day we will have the technology to control/adapt the climate, then we can fight each other on what that climate should be.
In the meantime, lets tell people they are too stupid to move to higher ground when the sea levels rise and offer expensive solutions that at best may slow the inevitable a few centuries.
I hope you’re not in charge of directing any COVID efforts, Billy.
Begone, troll!
Good morning, Mike.
Is it starting to get cold down under?
Begone, persistent delusional troll!
Why do you remind me of the old saying.
“Easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”
I appreciate that Entropic. In everything I try to understand human origins, history and behavior. I have to respect that we all do not think the same way, come from the same circumstances in life or even have the same abilities.
Capitalism provides opportunities to generate wealth/independence regardless of your background. Businesses will come and go based on the ability to serve the masses. Businesses that fail usually did not adjust to new technology or the loss of a resource or simply were not as efficient as another provider.
Socialism provides a better mechanism to give to the masses what the leadership thinks they need. Whether if the masses want it or not. It tends to lead to inefficiency and waste. Economic failures like Greece, Portugal, Ireland can be rescue by the German people, but as Margaret Thatcher said, Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money.
Given the range of existing philosophy, information and disinformation in our world today, I would have to say neither is going away anytime soon. As for the end of the world, that does seem inevitable, law of probability and all. I have no problems imagining a Gene Roddenberry like future however, socialism and capitalism did not die completely in that either. Gotta love the Ferengi.
Billy Bob
I put this up earlier as an answer to Gordon Roberson.
“Various measures of Left and Right.
The Left tend to All for one, one for all, the Right tend to Every man for himself.
The Left tend to run the country for the benefit of the poor, the Right for the benefit of the rich.
The Left wont let you better yourself financially the Right will let you die of diabetes because you cant afford insulin.
The Left will redistribute the wealth until its all gone, the Right wont redistribute it at all.
The Left tend to be liberal and happy with the idea of change, the Right tend to be conservative and wish things would stay the same.
Both sides are authoritarian. The Left want state control in the name of the people, the Right want state control in the name of the ruling class.”
I’m a centrist. I don’t regard extreme socialism or extreme capitalism as viable options.
I’m also a biologist. I know that there are basically two survival strategies.
1) Stay within the carrying capacity of your environment. This allows you to maintain a roughly stable population, constant access to renewable resources. Large mammals tend to follow this strategy.
2) Grow fast to maximise your population and resource consumption in the short term, then suffer a population crash when the resources are used up while a few survivors move elsewhere. Mushroom flies do this, because mushrooms lol up unpredictably and only last a few weeks.
To paraphrase Bill Bryson
“70” of the Earth is ocean. Half of the land is too hot, cold, wet, dry steep or lofty to live on. ”
At our current population that leaves us about two football fields per person for all purposes. Given that we already struggle to feed and supply our current population, and have nowhere else to go, you would think that we would be following option 1).
Instead we are busily following option 2) with nowhere to go when the current mushroom is used up. And they call us Homo SAPIENS!
Funny, most leftists believe their views are centrist. You don’t hear too many true conservatives calling themselves centrists. A centrist is a leftist in sheep’s clothing.
By the way, extreme capitalism? What is that? Crony capitalism is left, not right. Laissez-Faire, free-market capitalism is impossible to achieve as long as people exist. Leftists bureaucrats always meddle.
Entropic
It has always been difficult for me to identify what a left or right person is. On the extremes your list may be correct. Fortunately, these people are a small minority in the US. Unfortunately they become the poster child for either political side you may be on.
I am more of a policy/data analysis by education and profession. As a US citizen, I am more familiar with our culture here then in other countries.
For the most part many people I come in contact with here would like government to be in the background and only there to maintain order. Would you consider that right? Others I meet would like government to be more proactive in society. Left? And then a good portion of people fall in-between. Independents?
Perhaps I see the good in people, but for the most part the people I meet, friends and Family I have, would risk their life to save a duck crossing a busy road. They come in all flavors and political affiliations. Mine by the way leans libertarian at the national level, republican at the state level and democratic at the local level. But mostly from a policy analysis perspective.
> You dont hear too many true conservatives calling themselves centrists.
Only True Scotsmen can call themselves conservatives.
Stephen, Billy
American ideas of Left and Right tend to be distorted. By the usual academic and international measures measures you are all a long way to the right.
If you score the far Left as -10 and the far Right as +10, Trump’s Republicans are about +8 and Biden’s Democrats around +6.
I’m about -2.
I I’m not impressed with either side. Both Left and Right depend on growth, and growth depends on an infinite capacity to find new resources and get rid of wastes. On a finite planet you can’t do either for long without running up against limits.
If we plan to keep the current civilization running for more than another couple of generations we need to break away from growth altogether.
billy bob…”Socialism provides a better mechanism to give to the masses what the leadership thinks they need. Whether if the masses want it or not. It tends to lead to inefficiency and waste”.
***
I live in a socialist state here in Canada. We are doing just fine thank you. Every once in a while a capitalist will whine that he’s not getting as much profit as he expected and a socialist will whine that the capitalists are not paying their fair share in taxes and getting too much in the way of government handouts.
No one wants to go back to the days when capitalists ran the show and children were forced to work in coal mines. Or when global imperialist forces in China were selling them opium. Nor do we want to got back to the excesses in the UK when workers used inordinate powers to slack off. In effect, they were using socialist principles to get out of a fair day’s work.
As a unionist, I saw both ends of it. I saw company owners sign a contract in apparent good faith then do everything they could to undermine the contract. If I complained or took steps to amend their stupidity I inevitably got laid off. I also saw people join unions just for the money and conditions only to kiss butt to the owners.
It’s a far more complex situation than simply talking about capitalism versus socialism. Let’s not confuse socialism with the Draconian mess of Stalin, or to a lesser degree, the efforts of Castro. I have always excluded Mao from the pot because he and his original followers had to struggle to survive in the early days before they won out and kicked Chiang Kai Shek’s butt out of the country.
At least Mao had a vision…to free the common person in China from literal bondage. The wankers who run China today are nothing more than theorists who make themselves wealthy while imposing conditions that keep Chinese people in bondage. Nothing to do with socialism or capitalism.
You need to address the greed of humans and their desire to control others versus the struggle to oppose that kind of tyranny. Our efforts in that respect are still far short of what they could be for intelligent people trying to work toward a common goal.
entropic…”The Left tend to All for one, one for all, the Right tend to Every man for himself”.
***no idea what you’re talking about, you have some kind of idealistic impression of either. Your idea of ‘all for one and one for all’ must come from a comic book, never experienced it other than on a picket line, and for that day’.
“The Left tend to run the country for the benefit of the poor, the Right for the benefit of the rich”.
***again, pretty naive statement. Canada is run by a left-leaning government yet we still have many poor, especially poor children. Don’t kid yourself. Countries like Canada are run on a basis of appealing to the voters rather than giving a hoot about the poor.
“The Left wont let you better yourself financially the Right will let you die of diabetes because you cant afford insulin”.
More naivete. Here in Canada, a socialist state, no one gets in the way of anyone trying to better himself/herself. It’s a myth that modern socialists try to interfere with anyone bettering himself/herself. Many of them are millionaires and in some cases billionaires.
Here in the province of BC, we just voted a socialist government into power for the next 4 years, with a huge majority. They have not the slightest interest in preventing anyone from bettering themselves.
“The Left will redistribute the wealth until its all gone, the Right wont redistribute it at all.”
Where do you get this notion of redistributing the wealth? And where can you show an example of any country in the world that does so?
“The Left tend to be liberal and happy with the idea of change, the Right tend to be conservative and wish things would stay the same”.
This is where you are way off base. I am a Leftist and I was glad to support Trump, oppose AGW, and in many ways, side with the Right. That’s because those calling themselves Leftists are weenies whose heads are full of idealistic mantras.
The Democrats in the US are rife with eco-weenies and other stupid idealists who naively want to defund police and turn to corruption to get into power. From the time Trump won in 2016, they did nothing but find ways to undermine him, going so far as to create phoney charges about him colluding with Russians. When they knew they could not beat him fairly in an election they resorted to stuffing the ballot boxes to get in.
The world has moved far beyond your concept of socialism and fair capitalism. There are now global consortiums vying to take over the world’s economies and to impose Stalinst-type controls over people as witnessed in the current covid fraud.
Maybe you have missed their new mantra about ‘the new normal’. This is not about covid, it’s about ***holes using covid as an excuse to control people and impose their visions on others.
If we sit around and argue over socialism versus capitalism, they will steal democracy from right under us. Time to get off political arguments and cooperate for our mutual good, as in WW II.
> I live in a socialist state here in Canada.
You mean that Canada is rather a social-democracy, Gordon, just like most developed countries in the world.
I do appreciate the rest of your comment, however.
I’m a Trump Republican and I’d say most of us are +6. +10 means no government. I’m not there. Biden was probably a -3 most of his career but has now moved to about -8. He’s not North Korea, yet.
willard…”You mean that Canada is rather a social-democracy, Gordon, just like most developed countries in the world”.
The government here in BC, Canada now refer to themselves as social democrats. The name is the NDP, the New Democratic Party. They began life as the CCF, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. There was no doubt in anyone’s mind that the CCF were a democratic socialist party.
The CCF began with close affiliation to unions. Along the way, as intellectuals like teacher formed watered-down unions and Leftist university professors took an interest in the party, the intellectuals began moving the party away from its union roots, and with that, a movement into semantics. Democratic-socialism became social-democracy.
That’s what social-democracy is about, a capitulation to get votes. I have never heard a Canadian socialist party explain they have nothing to do with Stalinist type communism, they are far too scared to brooch the topic.
I think it’s all bs. I can no longer support this party, which has been infiltrated by special interest groups and intellectuals. They have lost the cahunas that got them there in the first place through civil disobedience to win a cause.
The late Harry Rankin, a former lawyer and social activist in Vancouver, Canada, wrote a booklet called ‘A Socialist Perspective for Vancouver’. No one could call Harry Rankin anti-democracy, he fought for democracy on a daily basis. In fact, he fought in WW II for four years. Harry was a socialist who put his money where his mouth was. Neither was he the type who was into handouts as a way of life.
When he graduated from law school and was called before the bar, they questioned him about his affiliation with communism….would he be willing to fight for Canada if called upon. Harry replied along the lines of, “What are you, stupid? I’ve already spent 4 years in WW II fighting for the country”.
Rankin made a point in his book about the NDP that opened my eyes. He claimed the NDP were not a socialist party, that they had become a small-c capitalist party. It took me quite a while to get that and to realize the party had become wolves in sheep’s clothing.
All the same, the right-wing media lambasted them every chance they got, associating them with Stalinist Russia, calling them Reds, Pinkos, and any other demeaning name associating them with Stalinist Communism.
No one today has any idea what Left means or what socialism means. That’s because the meaning has been stolen and diluted by posers and wannabees. There are idiots out there today calling themselves Marxists and not one of them has the slightest idea who Marx was or what he stood for.
The irony is that socialists are often referred to as Marxists yet Marx himself hated socialism. When his partner Engels tried to rename their cause to socialism, Marx balked and refused to go along. He associated socialism with a movement in Germany at the time wherein the wealthy gave handouts to the poor.
In many ways, that definition of socialism is still in use today. As far as the poor are concerned it’s ‘out of sight, out of mind’. They get handouts but no one gives a hoot about them other than that. There are right-wingers who would begrudge them the handout, something I have never been able to understand. The old stigma still persists that people are poor because they have not put in the effort.
Rather than using terms like Left, socialist or capitalist, I’d like to see people get it that it comes down to wanting to ensure other people get an even break in life. It has nothing to do with wanting to mess around capitalists or ruin the economy. neither does it have anything to do with the Robin Hood-type redistribution of wealth.
When I see the UN talking about world government wherein they can tax wealthy nations and redistribute the wealth to poor countries, it makes me nauseous. The UN should be focused on kicking the butts of the rulers of poor countries who would grab any redistributed wealth to the poor. Those ***holes are sitting at the UN trying to bend the rules.
Capitalists should talk to socialists civilly at times, and vice-versa, without sermonizing. Each party might find they have more in common than what they thought.
Gordon,
You Canadians are mostly full of shit. You can be socialists because the US has mostly protected your ass for 200 years. Your Army is about three small regiments and your Navy is a ship. Same with Europe. It is easy to be socialist when you don’t have to provide for your own defense. That leaves you a lot of money to spend on social programs. The Chinese are like the Swedes. They’re socialists but powered by Capitalism, minus a few of the individual freedoms. What is it about people? So many of them think they have the God-given right, the arbiters of morality, the masterminds, who can take from one and give to another in the name of “goodness?”
The Chinese aren’t really even socialists except that the Communist Party claims ownership of everything. There are no social programs, no egalitarianism. The Marxists just claim themselves to be the masterminds and therefore they rule.
The Chinese government is an oligarchy.
> All the same, the right-wing media lambasted them every chance they got, associating them with Stalinist Russia, calling them Reds, Pinkos, and any other demeaning name associating them with Stalinist Communism.
Climateball contrarians did not invent hippie punching, after all.
Thank you for these last comments, Gordon. It’s about time someone opens up and starts to talk like it’s a conversation between people.
Well this is a similar question to the one I asked and every spinner is afraid to tackle it.
At what point does a spinner moon rotating on its own internal axis become a non-spinner moon rotating on and external axis if one were to start filling in the empty gaps between the earth and moon.
Anybody who has a 2-axis theory for lunar rotation must be able to describe when it becomes a 1-axis theory ala a merry-go-round.
Non-spinners have no such bifurcation in their theory in need of precise boundaries between multiple rotational axes.
> It is easy to be socialist when you dont have to provide for your own defense.
I don’t think the Irak Occupation, the American War in Vietnam or just about most of the USA interventions in the Americas can be reasonably be called “defense,” Stephen. As for the Second World War, the USA ended up with most of the world’s resources.
Socialism is so easy that Muricans bankcrupted its population to bankcrupt countries that tried it.
stephen…”You Canadians are mostly full of shit. You can be socialists because the US has mostly protected your ass for 200 years”.
We kicked your butts in 1812, don’t make us come down there and do it again. And don’t let me embarrass you by pointing out that Canadians volunteered to fight in WW II long before you in the US did. Some of you Yanks were so embarrassed you came to Canada to sign up.
If the Japs hadn’t kicked your sorry butts at Pearl you’d never have come into WW II and you’d all be speaking German and Japanese today. You were not ready for war, underlined by your initial ineptness in the North Africa campaign, and if the Germans had defeated the UK and gotten their navy, the Germans and Japs would have walked all over the States.
You owe us one, so quit your whining.
Our army is small, too small for my liking, but we have done our share in Afghanistan. We were minding our own business on a range outside Kandahar when one of your hot shot pilots dropped a laser-guided bomb on us. At least you’re good at friendly fire.
Too bad all the old worthies, the US and Canadian vets are dying off, leaving upstarts like you to fictionalize history and reality.
Fiction is still cool:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/dialog-on-nature/
This transcript is based on a famous joke.
Click on “transcript.”
stephen…”The Chinese are like the Swedes. Theyre socialists but powered by Capitalism, minus a few of the individual freedoms”.
Just poking a bit of fun at you over the US and Canada.
China was in dire straights when Mao started his campaign. A bit earlier, Sun Yat Sen had tried to introduce democracy to China and it was vehemently opposed by Imperialists representatives from the UK, Germany, and the US. They liked it fine the way it was with no one having any rights and unfettered capitalism the rule.
Mao began adult life as an artist. He was a university student and he helped organize student revolts against the governing bodies. His father, a peasant farmer, detested his interest in education and art because he needed a body on the farm, along with Mao’s brothers.
The enforcers in Mao’s day were the Kuomintang, a load of Nazi’s who were even more brutal than the Nazis. At one point, Mao had to watch from a distance as they slowly executed his wife by strangulation. The guy had a right to be bitter.
However, he turned that bitterness into organized revolt. He was forced to flee with his revolutionary crowd into northern China where they holed up in the mountains. It was around that time the Japs invaded China and began systematically murdering them. The US were supporting Chiang Kai Shek, a petty tyrant who hoarded everything he got from the US for fear the warlords would get a hold of it and overthrow him.
Stilwell called him peanut, for his exaggerated bald head and he was Mao’s mortal enemy. The US liked the idea of him joining forces with them to help defeat the Japs, which Mao did.
After WW II, Mao prevailed and ran Kai Skek’s butt out of China. He immediately implemented reforms, giving women rights, implementing education and agrarian reforms, and got the country rolling. Later, when he was accused of the purges, he replied, “What else could I do”? He was dealing with a mass of ignorant peasants, some of whom had turned to wholesale robbery and murder, as well as warlords who would have overthrown him in a minute.
Modern China is nothing like that. They have lost their cause and they are fumbling with stupid theories created and implemented by the Communist Party. That Party is based on Stalinist thinking and Mao was thrown out of the Russian-style Chinese Communist Party. Nevertheless, he was put off by Western style democracy, and who can blame him? All he ever saw of the west was greedy Imperialists raping his country’s resources while feeding the people opium in return.
If they were serious, they’d drop all that crap about the Communist Party and introduce democracy. Mind you, there are some capitalist b***ards, like the Club of Rome, who like the idea of the common person having no say in how they propose to run the world. The Club of Rome think democracy is a deterrent to change.
Bill,
Spoken like a true philosopher who doesn’t wander far from his navel.
“At what point does a spinner moon rotating on its own internal axis become a non-spinner moon rotating on and external axis if one were to start filling in the empty gaps between the earth and moon.
Anybody who has a 2-axis theory for lunar rotation must be able to describe when it becomes a 1-axis theory ala a merry-go-round.”
Don’t need no theory, the laws of Newton fit fine.
Fill the empty gaps doesn’t affect the rotation of the Moon, it still rotates on its own axis and revolves around the Earth, same as a pony on the carousel, it rotates on its own axis as it revolves.
Gordon Says
I live in a socialist state here in Canada. We are doing just fine thank you.
Yes, that is why I refer to Thatchers comment that Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money. I am not against socialism at the local level and where budget constraints are in place. Socialism is inefficient because to please the masses you have to provide enough social programs and provide it to the common denominator. If you force people to pay for the buffet, they are going to eat even if not hungry.
But at the local level, they would compete with other local jurisdictions and would be forced to be more thoughtful on the design of social programs based on actual community needs.
Another problem with Socialism is unintended consequences.
As an example, Social Security in the US requires non-pensioned workers/employers to contribute about 10% of their salary to retirement. You receive a monthly benefit at age 62 (now 65) based on life-long contributions. The problems was blacks in USA had a life expectancy in the low 50’s in the infancy of the Social Security program. The result was a transfer of wealth from poor blacks (as more died before receiving benefit) to poor whites. And even though, life expectancy for blacks has improved over the years, whites still live about twice as long in retirement. Thus whites on balance receive more benefit than blacks. Does that seem fair to you?
Additionally, because of the bureaucracy involved, even whites would only expect a return on their money of about 2% and only if they lived into their 80’s. Talk about privatizing this and having you own your own retirement plan (like a 401k) and they draw cartoons of you pushing grandma in a wheelchair over a cliff.
But what they won’t tell you is that if Grandma put that 10% into a index fund for the S&P500, even on the worst 40 year period for the stock market she would retire a millionaire and be able to live off the dividends. Add her 401k into this, and she can cruise the world. And if by chance she would die before retirement, she could pass the balance to her children, spouse or her favorite charities.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
Spoken like a true philosopher who doesnt wander far from his navel.
At what point does a spinner moon rotating on its own internal axis become a non-spinner moon rotating on and external axis if one were to start filling in the empty gaps between the earth and moon.
Anybody who has a 2-axis theory for lunar rotation must be able to describe when it becomes a 1-axis theory ala a merry-go-round.
Dont need no theory, the laws of Newton fit fine.
Fill the empty gaps doesnt affect the rotation of the Moon, it still rotates on its own axis and revolves around the Earth, same as a pony on the carousel, it rotates on its own axis as it revolves.
==============================
so you believe chalked circles on the deck of merry-go-round rotate around their own axis while they aren’t rotating around the central axis of the merry-go-round. Yep its clear to me where your head is.
Bill,
Nope, never said anything like this
“so you believe chalked circles on the deck of merry-go-round rotate around their own axis while they aren’t rotating around the central axis of the merry-go-round.”
Nope, don’t believe that.
Something can rotate around more than one axis.
The part of the chalk circle farthest from the center of the merry-go-round moves faster than the part of the chalk circle closest to the center of the merry-go-round.
Therefore it passes the test for rotation around its own axis.
Yes, bob, something can rotate about more than one axis, like the Earth, which is rotating about both an external and an internal axis. Of course, a chalk circle drawn onto a merry-go-round cannot possibly be rotating on an internal axis. It is merely rotating about an external axis, in the center of the merry-go-round.
One axis for the chalk circle on the merry-go-round.
One axis for the ball on a string.
Two axes for the Earth.
DREMPTY,
Two axes for the Moon, as it’s the same as the Earth, just the speed of rotation is different.
No, one axis for the moon.
Yes Bob you are confounding the fact that the earth has two rotational axes and the moon has one.
Your problem starts with failing to identify that the earth’s rotational axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the earth’s spin axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the ecliptic.
Statistically this is a situation you are going to find nearly everytime. Only by rare coincidence will it be found to be identical thus according the 95% confidence principle the moon rotates on but one axis not just barely but probably above 99% confidence.
So if you don’t want to go along with that principle in science one has to completely abandon the effort to convince anybody that mankind is responsible for a significant piece of climate change.
bill,
First…Earth’s orbital axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic. It’s rotation or spin axis is 23.5 degrees wrt to the ecliptic.
Second…Earth’s inclination to the ecliptic is 0 only by definition and only because it’s orbit serves as a standard reference frame by which the other bodies are judged. This makes the relationship between Earth and the ecliptic a special case. It’s not 0 degrees by chance. It is 0 degrees because it was declared to be that way. If Earth were judged relative to the invariable plane it’s orbit would actually tilt by 1.57 degrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariable_plane
Third…the Moon’s rotation or spin axis is tilted 1.54 degrees wrt to its orbit.
Fourth…the Moon has angular velocity on 2 axis. This is known with 100% certainty. That is a statistically significant contradiction to your claim. In fact, I know of no natural body in the solar system that has no rotation about its own axis. Obviously artificial satellites will spin down to 0 rad/s so that they can observe distant objects.
"Fourth…the Moon has angular velocity on 2 axis. This is known with 100% certainty."
And that’s wrong, with 100% certainty. If the moon were rotating about an external axis, and rotating on its own axis, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Patently False. The Moon’s angular velocity is 2.66e-6 rad/s on BOTH axis. That is a mathematical fact. It is not disputable or is controversial in the slightest.
I have explained to you why the figure for angular velocity about the COM of the moon axis is wrong, multiple times now. What do you expect me to say when you keep pushing the same crap?
If the moon were rotating about both an external and internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That is just a fact about rotation. I proved that using the Madhavi text, but also you can use online transmographers and see for yourself. If you rotate an object about a central point, and about its own COM, all sides of the object are presented to the center of the orbit.
Correct bdgwx 3:53 pm; if our moon were rotating about an external axis, and rotating on its own axis more or less than once per orbit (Fig. 2(b)), then we would see all sides of the moon (or rectangle) from Earth (or O). DREMT is simply wrong and will continue to be wrong until DREMT understands Madhavi Fig. 2(b).
The troll appears…oh, forget it. Seriously, why do I waste my time?
DREMT still does not understand Fig. 2(b). DREMT should spend time doing so and argue with Madhavi.
If the moon were rotating about both an external and internal axis more or less than once per orbit, then we would see all sides of the moon from Earth (or O in 2(b)). That is just a fact about orbiting and rotation as Madhavi text showed in Fig. 2(b), and also you can properly use online transmographers and see for yourself.
If you orbit an object about a central point, and rotate it about its own COM once per orbit like Gordon’s coins, ball on string, our moon, one side of the object is presented to the center of the orbit. Like ftop_t shows for an orbiting object experiencing day/night cycles in the sunshine:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Go away, troll.
no u, kiddo
OK, Willard.
Thanks, kiddo.
Oh, by “OK, Willard” I was just acknowledging receipt of your comment.
Bill,
What a load of hogwash, let’s break it down.
“Yes Bob you are confounding the fact that the earth has two rotational axes and the moon has one.”
It’s not a fact that the Moon has only one, it has at least two.
“Your problem starts with failing to identify that the earth’s rotational axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the earth’s spin axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the ecliptic.”
That’s well known and easily googled
“Statistically this is a situation you are going to find nearly everytime. Only by rare coincidence will it be found to be identical thus according the 95% confidence principle the moon rotates on but one axis not just barely but probably above 99% confidence.”
Just statistical bullshit, the Moon’s orbit is tilted 5.14 degrees from the ecliptic and its rotational axis is also tilted with respect to the ecliptic, both easily googled and not identical. You could look up that figure. If you are going to bullshit me with statistics you’ll have to do better than that.
“So if you don’t want to go along with that principle in science one has to completely abandon the effort to convince anybody that mankind is responsible for a significant piece of climate change.”
Wow, are you a pole vaulter? That’s quite a leap from your statistical bullshit to there’s no climate change caused by mankind.
Care to try to bridge that gap. Son
bobdroege says:
”Care to try to bridge that gap. Son”
No! 20 times is my limit.
Bill,
Your premise is false, that means your conclusion is uncertain at a minimum, and not supported by your premise.
“Only by rare coincidence will it be found to be identical thus according the 95% confidence principle the moon rotates on but one axis not just barely but probably above 99% confidence.
The chances that the Moon rotates on only one axis is infinitesimal.
You can say something 20 times but if it is false all you are doing is meditating, philosophers like to do that don’t they?
Jeez, where have all the lukewarmers gone?
Bob, speak more clearly and make an argument. What premise are you claiming to be false?
Bill,
This one
“Your problem starts with failing to identify that the earths rotational axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the earths spin axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the ecliptic.”
and this one
“Statistically this is a situation you are going to find nearly everytime. Only by rare coincidence will it be found to be identical thus according the 95% confidence principle the moon rotates on but one axis not just barely but probably above 99% confidence.”
and this one
“So if you dont want to go along with that principle in science one has to completely abandon the effort to convince anybody that mankind is responsible for a significant piece of climate change.’
and this one
“so you believe chalked circles on the deck of merry-go-round rotate around their own axis while they arent rotating around the central axis of the merry-go-round. Yep its clear to me where your head is.”
And not the least is this one
“Yes Bob you are confounding the fact that the earth has two rotational axes and the moon has one.”
Any thing else you need?
bobdroege says:
”Your problem starts with failing to identify that the earths rotational axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the earths spin axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the ecliptic.”
1))) Wow you have all kinds of problems with science don’t you. Let me help you out.
It doesn’t matter if you are a spinner or a non-spinner. Close inspection will reveal the orbital axis (or orbital spin axis if you insist incorrectly) is perpendicular to ecliptic. The ecliptic is defined as the earth’s orbit. One could identify a Mars ecliptic as well but astronomy likes to use the earth’s orbit as a solar system wide ecliptic.
The moon’s orbit is tilted from the ecliptic. If earth were the sun and the moon a planet, moon’s orbit would be the reference point and the spins on the moon would be ~5 degrees away from being perpendicular to the orbit. The moon has another tilt from the ecliptic (earth’s orbit) due to having two significant gravitational influences, the sun and earth (Newton once calculated this from the relative gravity and distance of the moon as an explanation for that 1.54 deg tilt from the ecliptic.
So gravity creates the torque out of the moons momentum on the axis of the earth defining the rotation of the moon as an orbital rotation around the earth’s COM with some solar influence as well.
As I said the earth’s orbital axis which creates the seasons from a rotation around the sun is 23.5 degrees from its spin axis. If you work with objects this can be hard to see. So the best place to go see it is Uranus which has a 98degree tilt and some really awesome seasons.
————————
”Statistically this is a situation you are going to find nearly everytime. Only by rare coincidence will it be found to be identical thus according the 95% confidence principle the moon rotates on but one axis not just barely but probably above 99% confidence.”
2))) apparently you have never studied statistics. Statistics is simply a way of characterizing the likelihood of a yes or no answer. So the moon’s orbital axis is tilted 1.54 degrees from the ecliptic. A traumatic event such a collision of the moon capable of putting independent spin on it could happen from any direction. Assuming that 1.54 degree is the accuracy limit of our ability to measure the tilt of the moon’s axis that would mean the chances of a independent spin being the same angle as the moon’s gravitationally determined orbital rotation axis is thousands to one. For scientific certainty of 95% confidence it only has to be it 20 to 1. So there is little chance that the moon’s rotation was arrived at by an independent spin spinning down.
BTW this isn’t a premise its a fact.
—————————–
”So if you dont want to go along with that principle in science one has to completely abandon the effort to convince anybody that mankind is responsible for a significant piece of climate change.”
3))) this argument is just a mathematical test of consistency of principles. You accept AGW as science claims its 95% confident of some human warming. (20 to 1 being the odds scientists seek to be ‘certain’) So you can’t accept thousands to one as ‘certainty’ you certainly can’t accept 20-1 as it simply because you want to. Not being consistent is duplicitous and testing for that is a common auditor test. You have to give up one of the positions and state you need it to be more than thousands to one to reject both. There is no consistency otherwise. BTW, this wasn’t a premise this was a conclusion based upon what your various views of scientific certainty is based upon your many posts.
——————————–
”so you believe chalked circles on the deck of merry-go-round rotate around their own axis while they arent rotating around the central axis of the merry-go-round. Yep its clear to me where your head is.”
———————————-
4))) You dispute that? That interesting you need to explain why you dispute that because so far you haven’t said anything that would make that not true. BTW this wasn’t a premise it was a conclusion.
—————————-
And not the least is this one
Yes Bob you are confounding the fact that the earth has two rotational axes and the moon has one.
Any thing else you need?
——————————–
5))) this arises out of the observations in 1 above combined with the statistics in 2. From a statistical point of view it can be assumed that any orbiting celestial object with no axial spin has but one rotational axis. if it has two rotational axes then the orbiting object will show all sides of itself to the object it rotates. (per Madhavi)
If it does show all sides of itself to the object its rotating on then you can statistically claim (with certainty being thousands to one) that it has two axes (as the only way it could have one would be if the independent spin happened to be exactly perfectly in line the gravitational influences of the orbit.
Closing comment))) now I haven’t total ruled out the possibility that somebody could show something defining that rules the above out, as I do believe in this strange world anything can be possible. But it hasn’t been coming from the spinners in this forum who just keep recycling the tired, weak, and inconsequential arguments they have been able to think of.
“In the meantime, lets tell people they are too stupid to move to higher ground when the sea levels rise and offer expensive solutions that at best may slow the inevitable a few centuries.”
Or they move out and live on to sea level [and below sea level].
I would like to have freshwater lakes on the ocean. And low cost housing on the ocean. There is not much to this capitalism belief system if one can’t buy ocean property that covers 70% of the planet.
At the moment, I am wondering if there is anyway to reduce amount methane leaking out of ocean. A basic problem is lack exploration of the ocean- how much methane leaks out of ocean and where does leak the most per square km per year.
I guess all due to lack money in it. And if more people were living on ocean, there could more interest in such things.
Anyhow wondering if could huge balloon type structures in ocean which capture methane. Huge being say 1 km in diameter. And have so it move to cover hundreds square km, so square km per day or faster.
And methane hydrate deposits are “easily disturbed” do some disturbing when it’s over it. Though better to find somewhere where there is “naturally” a lot methane released per square km per year. Or would nice if one could predict earthquakes which would cause more release of methane.
Oh, here something:
“Very little methane seeping from the seafloor ever reaches the ocean’s surface due to a process known as aerobic oxidation of methane, which some scientists call a “biofilter.” Aerobic oxidation of methane is carried out by bacteria consuming methane in the water column, and oxidizing it to produce carbon dioxide. Aerobic oxidation is a critical factor in mitigating the impact of methane released from the seafloor on the atmosphere, but the resulting increase in carbon dioxide in the deep ocean could also acidify ocean waters,..”
https://schmidtocean.org/cruise/methane-seeps-at-edge-of-hydrate-stability/
So, it’s not that I want these bacteria eating the methane- and if prevented this somehow {which includes simply removing it] is going to be “a crisis” by not allowing the feeding these bacteria {they are probably food for something, which turn is food something else- like whales or something.
Of course if bacteria consuming methane, what is the concern accidently releasing methane if mining it with drilling or other ways to mine methane hydrates?
gbaikie…”I would like to have freshwater lakes on the ocean. And low cost housing on the ocean”.
Hopefully you mean low cost housing on the waterfront. I was visualizing houseboats floating on the ocean as a 100 foot rogue wave passed over them.
Would be making floating breakwaters which cancel any large or rogue waves.
And would have homes which float rather than homes you can drive around with, though also probably within the breakwater there would be parking and full hookup for houseboats and other boats.
And have beaches, parks, and baseball fields. And freshwater lakes. And small airport.
All floating in ocean several or a few miles off shore.
Wouldn’t have cars, but could have passenger ferries with car parking at the ferry land terminal.
And outside breakwater one could have relatively small area for surfing. And places to fish and diving parks.
gbaikie,
I see that as our near future (<50 years) as cost for land based homes goes up and ocean based homes comes down. It may take an Elon Musk like person to develop a community that was based in the Ocean. It would start off for the more adventurous and those with above average incomes. But like most places, you still need lower skilled workers in the community and would need subsidized housing.
I would believe the best approach would be to site it on the continental shelf in deep enough water that allowed the ability to submerge via a tether during violent storms and rogue waves. They of course would need warning systems and would be limited in size to small communities. The breakwater approach could work too. Several communities could be placed relatively close to have a diverse enough economy to be self sufficient. Ocean farming would need to be improved and fishing would need to be done in sustainable quantities. Some could be land based farming as well.
The breakwater is essential if you want low income housing- and you want things parks and lakes.
And you could a have “primary breakwater” which designed to mostly reduce really big waves, so over large region have the breakwater reduce the biggest waves {most dangerous waves} by 1/2 their size. And if dealing with a big region, modest size waves can develop from high winds within the large region. And a primary breakwater which 1/2 wave could good to reduce property damage in to homes on the shores. Though of course, surfers wouldn’t like it.
UAH TLT has a relatively small month-to-month correlation with the surface temperature. In fact, they only move in tandem about 60% of the time. With that said reanalysis is showing a modest increase in Mar from Feb. ENSO has been neutral for 3 weeks now. Was the 0.12C anomaly (0.09C excursion below the trendline) in Jan the bottom for this La Nina cycle?
It should be noted that the 1991-2020 anomaly is 0.142 lower as compared to 1981-2010 for Jan. So if Jan is the bottom (big if at this point) then its +0.12C anomaly is equivalent to +0.26C using the old baseline. We had a few predictions here in recent months claiming that we’d see a < 0.00C anomaly (1981-2010 baseline) come out of this La Nina. So far we aren't anywhere close to that.
bdg…had not looked that closely at the new zero anomaly on Roy’s graph. It does make the 18 year flat trend stand out better and it makes it apparent that the current warming began in 2016.
Whatever has been going on the past few years is not clear but one thing is apparent: there is no way CO2 or any other GHG could have caused it. Looking at the entire range of the graph, there is no apparent GHG signal in it.
swenson…”Are you scared, knowing that the Moon is continuously falling towards the Earth? Don’t worry. It won’t fall on your head!”
Every once in a while, when I see the Moon overhead, I say to it, “Stay up there Big Fella”. If it every lost orbit we’d all be joining the dinosaurs in extinction.
Of course, there are still a few dinosaurs amongst us…the climate alarmists and spinners.
This comment makes me surmise that you have a diploma in editoriology, Gordon.
Troll. begone!
Who died and made you King of this blog, Gordon?
Don’t forget to tell Bob where you got that engineering degree.
dullard…”Who died and made you King of this blog, Gordon?
Dont forget to tell Bob where you got that engineering degree.”
Do I detect envy in your comment? Envy that I can string together sentences and paragraphs coherently while you are limited to a few sentences that lack coherence or intelligence. I learned how to write at university while I was studying engineering.
You seem to know a lot for a newbie. Once again, we have some malcontent alarmist/spinner who thinks changing his nym will give him a fresh start. Unfortuntely, your fresh start is the same old, same old.
> Do I detect envy in your comment?
You can detect whatever you please, Gordon. As long as you read my comments before detecting anything you please, that’s fine.
The short of it is that this ain’t your blog, and you don’t have a say as to who gets to comment or not. Same for your lap swan or for the other kiddo whose handle misrepresents his role as moderator.
Be seeing you.
“Be seeing you.”
The Prisoner lives!
willard…”The short of it is that this aint your blog, and you dont have a say as to who gets to comment or not”.
Wherever did you get the notion that I think I have a say as to who gets to comment? It’s alarmists like Bindidon who appeal to Roy to moderate me off the blog.
I have stated several times my appreciation to Roy for allowing us such a broad range of commentary. I have no interest in blocking anyone’s comments.
I have expressed disdain for those who post here and disrespect Roy by using veiled comments as to the authenticity and validity of his data. I have never called for anyone to be banned.
There are people who check in once in a while and express dismay over us discussing the Moon’s alleged rotation about its axis. I guess they expected us to be discussing climate 24/7. However, the Moon discussion came out of the climate discussion, mainly alarmist thought versus skeptic thought.
I regard it all as a discussion of physics which is related to climate/global warming. It’s about the science and how it is perceived and applied. Occasionally we go off on a tangent like the current one on Left versus Right, but it’s all related somehow.
You can’t isolate the science these days from the politics.
Fair enough, Gordon. I probably disagree with most of what you said so far in this thread {1}, but I am starting to like you.
The point I’m trying to make about your engineering degree is that appeals to one’s credentials may look silly, especially when you can’t or won’t say more about them. Most commenters here display enough competence, sometimes too much for their own good.
If you ever wonder about mine, please rest assured that I’m a ninja.
Enjoy your evening,
{1} For instance, I once argued that science has always been political:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/07/27/science-has-always-been-political/
Willard
Ooooh! You are ATTP in person. Wooooah.
Now I better understand why you criticized Clive Best.
This poor guy just isn’t good enough for you, huh?
And I saw again: He pulls the fish out of the water… Perfect.
J.-P. D.
> Ooooh! You are ATTP in person.
No, I’m not. AT signs his posts with “and then there’s physics” and his author’s tag is
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/author/wottsupwiththatblog/
But I’m trying to make him write about the Moon thing.
Will keep you posted if that happens.
I doubt he’ll bother with the Moon thing. There’s like a handful of contrarian posters (mainly here it seems) that challenge it. The rest of the world accepts it. It’s not controversial in the slightest outside these few contrarians.
Just remember the not-spinners here would argue with Albert Fucking Einstein that the Moon doesn’t rotate.
I don’t think Willard is ATTP. He posts at ATTP, as Gordon Robertson posts at Roy Spencer’s blog, but presence is not identity.
FWIW, here’s AT’s own take on the “science has always been political slogan”:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/07/30/science-might-be-political-but/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Would be making floating breakwaters which cancel any large or rogue waves.
Would have homes which float rather than homes you can drive around with, though within the breakwater there could be parking and full hookup for houseboats and other boats.
And have beaches, parks, and baseball fields. And freshwater lakes. And small airport.
All floating in ocean several or a few miles off shore.
Wouldn’t have cars, but could have passenger ferries with car parking at the ferry land terminal.
And outside breakwater one could have relatively small area for surfing. And places to fish and diving parks.
gbaikie…”Would be making floating breakwaters which cancel any large or rogue waves”.
It would be some kind of breakwater that could cancel a 100 foot rogue wave. That’s the equivalent height of a ten story building and the impact of it due to the weight of water would be nigh impossible to deal with, I would think.
The breakwater for 100 foot wave does not need to be 100 feet above the waterline, but could need to be 100 feet under the waterline.
Or waves are being supported by water motion below the surface.
So about 10 meter {30 feet} above waterline should stop the 100 foot wave.
To give rough idea.
You need something stable. And buoy spars are known to be stable:
Wiki:
“A spar buoy is a tall, thin buoy that floats upright in the water and is characterized by a small water plane area and a large mass. Because they tend to be stable ocean platforms, spar buoys are popular for making oceanographic measurements.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spar_buoy
And significant aspect would be they need strong anchoring {to sea floor}.
What is tall and thin, if cylinder diameter is 10 meter across?
Roughly at least 40 meter high?
How mass is involve {needs large mass} 10 meter diameter disk is
78.53975 square meter and filled 30 meter length with water
78.53975 times 30 = 2,356.19 cubic meters of water or 2,356.19 tons of water.
And make a line of them for breakwater and anchor each one [with pile or screw anchor} have them with hemispheric cap which is 10 meter above the waterline.
Now you have make them cheap.
And how SpaceX make their 9 meter diameter cylinders is an example of pretty cheap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8s4vIuQLYI
More about strong anchoring and steel vs plastic.
Say cylinder wall were made of 1/4″ steel or 1/2″ plastic.
A 10 meter diameter cylinder has circumference of 31.415 meters.
And 40 meter high is made of a 40 meter by 31.415 by 1/4″ thick steel or 1/2″ plastic sheet “bent” into cylinder.
For volume of material. 1/4″ = 0.00635 meters:
40 x 31.415 x .00635 meter = 7.97941 cubic meters
And 1/2 plastic is about twice that: 15.95882 cubic meter.
The density of steel is about 8000 kg per cubic meter:
7.97941 times 8000 kg is 63,835.28 kg
In terms of weight, water is about 1000 kg per cubic meter.
63,835.28 – 7,979.41 = 55,855.87 kg.
Or for steel to float in water it needs displacement of air equal
to 55,855.87 kg.
Since plastic can be lighter than water it does not need such displacement of air to float.
A 10 meter diameter cylinder which 1 meter high has volume of:
5 times 5 times 3.14159 = 78.53975 square meter. Times 1 = 78.53975 cubic meter of displacement. Times density water of 1000 kg = 78,539.75 kg of displacement. Which is greater 55,855.87 kg
And 1.47 psig of air with push water 1 meter below the waterline.
So one needs less than 1.47 psig air inside cylinder to make the weight of cylinder float.
A simple way I would “explain it” is plastic needs 55,855.87 kg more force given by the anchor to “equal” the steel cylinder. Or plastic requires a stronger anchor. And 55 tons is a lot.
Cylinder needs a cap. Make 1/2 sphere or hemisphere
10 meter sphere has 314.16 square meters and 1/2 is 157.08 square meter. Times .00635 meter = 0.997458 cubic meter
Or could make it out 1/2″ plastic, 1.994916 cubic meter with say density of 900 kg per cubic meter, so 1,795.42 kg.
And cap is above the water. And cap could filled with floatation material so that long it’s attached to the steel cylinder, it’s unsinkable.
Let’s not consider the anchoring part of this. Put some air in it and put in the water. What have is something like an buoy spar- it’s stable. Say cap was couple meter above waterline, and you standing on top of cap, and feet were 7 meter above waterline.
And waves were 2 meter high. It seems your feet wouldn’t get wet, and you would about a stable as would you be standing on land.
And if you were on a boat, instead, it would be less stable.
Now if made wall cylinder thickness 1/2″ steel rather than 1/4″ steel, one has twice as much weight which needs to displaced:
55,855.87 kg x times 2 = 111,711.74 kg and 1 meter is 78,539.75 kg. And 1.5 meters is 117,809.625. Needing 1.47 psi times 1.5 of
2.205 psig. Or if anchor pulled down by about 55 tons the air pressure would need to be about 2.2 psi.
If made it out 1/2″ steel or anchored it, it makes it more stable against larger waves, as compared to 1/4″ not anchored.
How about comparing 1/2″ steel which 20 meter tall vs 1/4″ steel which is 40 meter tall- same mass of steel. The 20 meter tall is less like a buoy spar, it’s less thin compared to height. It’s less stable and doesn’t work well with bigger waves. And less massive, as the amount water inside it makes it more massive.
Doubled posted.
So, I thought I would mention such ocean settlements would be quite bit easier then a L-5 colony in space.
I am sort of fan of L-5 type colonies, but in nearer term, I think Mars settlements could be the first settlements in Space.
Though, due lack of exploration, it is not clear to me, that Mars settlements would be viable. And there many aspects which cause them to less viable and many aspects which make them more viable. And seems to me that if there is mineable lunar water or lunar mining in general, having the Moon being mined, would then make Mars settlements more viable.
I think that Earth ocean settlements might follow after Mars settlements. And problem with ocean settlement is mostly political- but also I think Mars settlements could use technology similar to what use in ocean settlements. And I think to have Mars settlements, you have launch rockets from the Earth’s oceans.
Of course for Lunar and Mars exploration {NASA lunar and Mars exploration programs] the launching from the ocean is not needed.
Anyhow I think early Mars settlements will involve making lakes on Mars, or perhaps focus on living underground. But whether lakes or tunnels, in either case one needs a lot water [and comparatively, cheap Mars water- about hundred times {or less} the price of Earth water] for there to be any Mars settlements.
Willard
If you are owner and redactor of the ATTP blog, I suppose that you are a well trained physicist, with a solid math education, like e.g. Nick Stokes.
So you might help me a bit in my layman’s read of Arbab I. Arbab’s article he wrote together with a few collaborators:
The planetary spin and rotation period: A modern approach
A. I. Arbab, Saadia E. Salih, Sultan H. Hassan, Ahmed Agali, Husam Abubaker (2013)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.4720
Somewhat later he published this one:
Spin – orbit coupling in gravitational systems
A. I. Arbab (2016)
https://tinyurl.com/pm2hzajn
I found these articles after having read some other ones concerning spin-orbit coupling, e.g. Gordon MacDonald’s ‘Origin of the Moon: Dynamical considerations’ he wrote in 1960 together with Walter Heinrich Munk, or Kirk Mc Donald’s teaching material about spin-orbit coupling.
Especially of interest was for me Mac Donald’s and Munk’s claim that not only planetary orbiting is born within stellar accretion disks, but their spin as well, and that moreover no orbiting celestial body can achieve orbital stability without spinning.
The so-called ‘Non-spinner’s on this blog pretend that satellites facing their primary with the same hemisphere all the time do not rotate at all, and moreover discredit tidal locking as nonsense – but of course without any scientific contradiction.
They comfortably keep saying instead: “I think they are wrong; prove me wrong!”, and think that their toy examples (coins, merry-go-round, ball-on-a-string, airplane, hammer…) sufficiently explain Moon’s absence of rotation about any interior axis.
*
Coming back to AI Arbab, who is professor for Experimental Physics at the Khartoum U in Sudan, his hypothesis is based on a correlation between ‘World-in-the-small’ and ‘Word-in-the-large’, here: that he describes between gravitomagnetism at the atomic level, and gravitational spin-orbit coupling for celestial bodies of any size.
As I lack deep training in Physics and math, I would enjoy you telling us your meaning about what he wrote.
J.-P. D.
> If you are owner
I’m not.
Next time, read a bit more before pontificating.
> pontificating
No idea why my fingers wrote that. I meant asking for room service or something along these lines.
In the spirit of inquiry, I’ll take that one back and will forward the paper to AT. Let’s hope that coaxes him to write about the Moon thing.
Sorry about that.
> the paper
The comment. Sigh.
Alright, I need tea.
Or something stronger.
If you are used to the conventions of scientific debate, this can be a very aggravating site.
Don’t worry about me, Entropic Man.
Abuses can become a form of poetry:
***
ARE YOU AS SILLY AS YOU APPEAR
Are you as silly as you appear?
You are confused about P (usually A), as opposed to Q.
I feel sorry for your confusion.
Don’t blame me for your ignorance.
If you are going to say that you really meant to say something different,
you should have thought before pounding your keyboard.
Carry on.
Entropic man
Jesus! Willard seems to be as condescending as Swenson aka Amazed aka Flynn.
Ce qui me paraît, ma foi, plutôt ennuyeux.
J.-P. D.
I’m not here to bring peace, Bidindon, but I bow to your mastery as far as condescension is concerned.
In other words, m’en crisse un peu de ce qui te parat.
Bindidon
If you read his comments on other websites like ATTP, Willard is a true egalitarian. He can be equally rude to everyone. Give him some rope because he’s a warmist like ourselves, rather than a sceptic or denier.
I suspect the choice of name is a joke. The full name of the meteorologist who runs WUWT is Willard Anthony Watts.
I personally find any rude and disrespectful behavior off putting regardless of who it comes from. Everyone should be treated with respect especially those that don’t return the favor and resort to name calling. D.A was certainly well informed regarding the science, but proved to be one of the most annoying posters on here. I believe that those who follow a science and evidence based approach to back their positions should be held to a higher standard than those that don’t.
I personally abide by Tit for Tat, but understand that it comes with a trade-off. My intolerance for passive aggression may not please everyone.
I also believe that, in Climateball just like everywhere else, manners maketh man, and I don’t mind physical play as long as the ball is involved.
Entropic man
” The full name of the meteorologist who runs WUWT is Willard Anthony Watts. ”
Thanks for the hint.
*
But… Watts never has been a meteorologist.
He was, like Robertson and other pseudoskeptic Contrarians filling this blog with with their daily nonsense, never willing to communicate about his alleged scientific education.
In fact: what remains is that he was a former weather reporter at WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana, later on at KHSL-TV in Chico, California and then in KPAY, a Fox News affiliate based in the same corner.
Fox News is the very first origin of his alleged ‘meteorologist in chief career’.
J.-P. D.
FWIW, “Willard” celebrates the memory of a guy who once said that “language is a social art.” I needed an email and that’s the first thing that sprang to mind. Alternatively, one could refer to the movie. Fist name ID is an old internet convention.
Tony’s not worth anyone’s time.
“I personally find any rude and disrespectful behavior off putting regardless of who it comes from.”
“Everyone should be treated with respect…
bdgwx, have you found some new morals? Do you now believe you can address your slanderous remarks:
“Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K.”
1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?
It’s far past time to clean up you messes. Don’t you agree?
It wasn’t just the SB law you called bogus. It was the radiative heat transfer equation and 1LOT as well. Actually the radiative heat transfer equation is derived from the SB law and 1LOT.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-542708
And you were the one that came up with the 231.7K estimate for Earth’s temperature here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-538992
Even though in another post you thought it was 303K here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-543995
You and you alone came up with these figures. None of us agree with them and I could not find any reference to them in any literature so scientists don’t agree with them either.
bdgwx, thanks for finally addressing this. It completely indicates you don’t have a clue.
In your first link, I was clearly indicating the “radiative heat transfer” was bogus, not the S/B Law, or 1LoT. You don’t understand physics, and can’t learn. So you have to make things up.
In your second link, I clearly referred to NASA. NASA gives the bogus “163.3 W/m^2” figure. That corresponds to an equilibrium temperature of a surface, insulated on the back, of 231.7 K. The figure of 163.3 W/m^2 came from NASA, you idiot. You just don’t understand any of this.
And your third link is me explaining why the “steel greenhouse” is bogus. That calculation would mean Earth had a temperature of 303K. Again, you didn’t understand it.
You’re an idiot. You can’t understand any of this. You have to resort to misrepresenting others.
That’s why this is so much fun. It’s easy exposing idiots.
(Do you ever get anything right?)
> In your first link, I was clearly indicating the radiative heat transfer was bogus, not the S/B Law, or 1LoT. You dont understand physics, and cant learn.
Here’s the whole comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-542708
As the Auditor once said, someone who is dishonest in big things will also be dishonest in little things.
I never know if they’re dishonest or incompetent. Maybe it’s both.
It really doesn’t matter because those that are honest and competent can easily figure it out.
"The so-called ‘Non-spinner’s on this blog pretend that satellites facing their primary with the same hemisphere all the time do not rotate at all, and moreover discredit tidal locking as nonsense – but of course without any scientific contradiction."
They rotate, Bindidon, just not on their own axes (about their own centers of mass). Personally, I do not reject or discredit the tidal locking mechanism itself. It’s just that tidally-locked moons are not rotating on their own axes.
DREMT
” They rotate, Bindidon, just not on their own axes (about their own centers of mass). ”
*
Give us a scientific proof for your claim.
That is, anything else than
– Tesla’s quick shot he never really proved,
let alone
– this all the time risible stuff like coins, MGR, ball-on-a-string, cannonball, hammer and all what you could invent in the future.
As I mentioned upthread, Moon’s combined orbit and rotation motions are by far too complex to be reduced to such simple-minded mechanisms.
Thus, your permanent appeals to Tesla’s authority, and hunter’s appeals to Prof. Matlapudi Madhavi’s authority concerning this irrelevant hint to curvilinear translations, are all simply useless.
Until then, the historical scentists
– Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer/Mädler, etc etc and
the contemporary scientists
– Habibullin, Eckardt, Rizvanov, Chapront, Migus, Calamé, Moons etc etc
keep all light years above your eternal scienceless blah blah.
J.-P. D.
OK, Bindidon.
Bindidon, when you’re finished worshipping all your supposed cult leaders you might try thinking for yourself, as in seeking reality.
A ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating about its axis. If it were, the string would wrap around it. I know you don’t like that simple analogy because it is REAL. You could actually do it yourself.
But, that would be too close to science for you, huh?
> A ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating about its axis.
Alright. Let the ball-on-a-string be the Earth, and the kid who turns and turns the Sun.
That implies that the Earth isn’t rotating on its axis, right?
Here’s a cool video I found that might be right in your alley, Clint:
https://youtu.be/OKXVRu6JL54
The Earth would wrap itself up in the string.
> The Earth would wrap itself up in the string.
Y tho
Because it is rotating on its own axis.
> Because it is rotating on its own axis.
How would you know?
OK, Willard.
See my response on March 30, 2021 at 4:24 PM.
OK, Willard..
See my response on March 30, 2021 at 5:19 PM…
OK, Willard…
See my response on March 30, 2021 at 5:42 PM
OK, Willard….
See your response on March 30, 2021 at 6:16 PM.
Exactly.
Bindidon says:
Especially of interest was for me Mac Donald’s and Munk’s claim that not only planetary orbiting is born within stellar accretion disks, but their spin as well, and that moreover no orbiting celestial body can achieve orbital stability without spinning.
The so-called ‘Non-spinner’s on this blog pretend that satellites facing their primary with the same hemisphere all the time do not rotate at all, and moreover discredit tidal locking as nonsense – but of course without any scientific contradiction.
================================
Bindidon before commenting on the non-spinner position you really should make an effort to understand it.
The non-spinner position is NOT that the moon doesn’t rotate its that it rotates on the earth’s COM.
That means there is no such thing as no rotation for an orbiting moon. (seems you are tripping up on the word spin as well because ‘spin’ and ‘rotation’ in essence as to physical attributes are the same thing.). All that has happened is for the purpose of clarity ‘rotation’ alone doesn’t describe which axis the moon rotates on and spin does by way being a traditional way of explaining things with clarity as to which axis is being referred to. By simple agreement rotating on an external axis could be called spen with the e standing for external.
Angular momentum can never be negative so therefore the moon if it does not appear to be rotating from the perspective of some star; it would not have zero angular momentum but in fact twice the angular momentum the moon has.
It would be your eye that was being fooled with one rotation in one direction arising on the axis of earth’s COM camouflaging a spin in the opposite direction on the moon’s COM. Physical examples of such ‘eye determined’ mistakes abound all around us.
I could go into my garage and easily build an example. In fact I could build it in a way that would not require bdgwx to put on the blinders to block out the orbital motion. I could do that by hiding one disk behind the other along with two motors. One each to spin their own disk.
That should make it clear to you what the non-spinner position is and why so many arguments depending upon the eye are completely unconvincing. It so bad that some have theorized specific historical events of the moon for the purpose of generating consistency with the blind eye. . . .like how the moon spun down to one rotation.
So if you want to represent the non-spinner position please first understand it and represent it correctly. Otherwise you are unwittingly building strawmen.
> So if you want to represent the non-spinner position please first understand it and represent it correctly.
Have you ever considered going first, Bill?
Beware that hiding behind our scoundrels’ robe does not look good on you.
No some months ago I started on this topic, against my better judgement, essentially never having considered the question.
I quickly saw and commented that the discussion was around a topic so esoteric that nobody could think of a reason for why the distinction was important.
That is likely to remain the case for a long time unless somebody invents something important. Give that guy if he shows up a Nobel Prize.
I remained doubtful of some of things DREMT and Tesla were saying as I became more interested in the topic. DREMT especially with his provision of the Madhavi text sealed my leaning toward the non-spinner position but still struggled with cannonballs and moons and planets entering an orbit.
then it occurred to me first that gravity is ubiquitous and apparently everything is trying to rotate around everything else. Then it started to make sense in the L=mvr, everything already possesses an angular momentum of truly immense ‘r’. Keep mass the same and reduce ‘r’ as in entering an orbit what is going to happen? And of course cannonball are going to also have the same angular velocity as the cannon barrel.
That leaves other spin in the category of being caused by past traumatic events.
So I have no problem going behind DREMT its clear he is far more disciplined in his open minded thinking than I am but I have the sense I am improving on my viewpoint. And with a good deal more of 30 years experience in investigatory work I have never been wrong about that sense. Investigators learn to ask questions and listen very carefully to the answers.
Gordon Robertson
“Whatever has been going on the past few years is not clear but one thing is apparent: there is no way CO2 or any other GHG could have caused it. Looking at the entire range of the graph, there is no apparent GHG signal in it.”
But what would the GHG signal be?
Allowing for the usual 25 year lag, the UAH warming between 1979 and 2020 would be due to the change in CO2 between 1955 and 1995. That is an increase from 310ppm to 345ppm.
Use the CO2 forcing equation, with climate sensitivity 3 and forcing sensitivity 3.7W/m^2/C.
5.35ln(345/310)3/3.7 = 0.46C
That is 0.115C/decade. The observed UAH trend is 0.14C/ decade. CO2 can account for 82% of the observed warming.
Ent, are you aware that that “CO2 forcing equation” is bogus?
It is anti-science. It is based on beliefs, not science.
It similar to the belief that passenger jets fly backwards.
> It is based on beliefs, not science.
You’re just saying stuff, Clint:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
He is justified in just saying stuff as thats about all that is available to the public. Obviously the public can’t go out and do a worldwide statistical study on the impacts of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere but they are indeed the guinea pigs in this experiment.
Actually you can derive the CO2 forcing equation in two ways.
1) Theoretically. You can derive it from the basic physics.
2) Empirically. You can measure the back radiation of different CO2 concentrations in an IR irradiated gas tube. You plot the curve of back radiation against CO2 concentration and find the formula which best fits.
Not surprisingly, you get the same formula either way.
1) I’ve seen the phony derivation. It’s based on the assumption that CO2 “adds” energy. The “derivation” starts with what it attempts to “prove”. That ain’t science.
2) Imagining some formula based on correlation ain’t science either. The same process works for pizza restaurants, cell towers, and the emergence of NASA. Yup, NASA causes “global warming”!
> It’s based on the assumption that CO2 “adds” energy.
Citation needed.
The expression ‘adds energy’ is sloppy. I believe the official theory is that it sequesters energy. But however you say it, none of that adds up to any kind of proof that CO2 is both necessary and sufficient alone to make things warmer.
OTOH, water vapor does appear to possess necessary and sufficient qualities to create a greenhouse effect.
> none of that adds up to any kind of proof that CO2 is both necessary and sufficient alone to make things warmer.
Natural scientists have dropped necessary and sufficient conditions a long time ago, Bill.
If you want a metaphysical discussion, all you got to do is ask.
W,
You wrote –
“Natural scientists have dropped necessary and sufficient conditions a long time ago, Bill.”
Really? Which natural scientists are you referring to?
Or do you just make unsupported assertions, assuming that people will accept your anonymous authority?
Keep at it, Willard.
> Or do you just make unsupported assertions, assuming that people will accept your anonymous authority?
Considering that all you hereunder is humor commenters without providing any support your silly claims, I doubt that’s a wise question for you to ask, son.
Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_essentialism
That’s the best Bill could go for, and it comes at a steep price.
Willard says:
> none of that adds up to any kind of proof that CO2 is both necessary and sufficient alone to make things warmer.
Natural scientists have dropped necessary and sufficient conditions a long time ago, Bill.
If you want a metaphysical discussion, all you got to do is ask.
————————————–
Haha, yes you are right the natural sciences dropped it. but its pretty hard to hear anybody admit it with all the ‘the physics is solid’ propaganda and the fact that physics is NOT a natural science.
Still no answers to the key questions:
How much, if any, of the recent modest warming observed in the climate is due to CO2?
How much of the recent modest warming observed in the climate is due to natural cycles a’ la King Canute?
What evidence exists that CO2 actually does cause climate to warm? Yeah, we have a theory but not a proven theory.
How much of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human emissions and how much is due to ocean off-gassing?
What is the ideal temperature anomaly for the earth?
Is warming worse than cooling in terms of human flourishing?
Formulae doesn’t answer these questions; formulae are but feeble attempts to model and do a poor job of it so far.
> Still no answers to the key questions:
None of these are key questions, Ken.
They’re mere sammich requests to peddle “but CAGW,” which is the central square of the Climateball Bingo:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
Nobody needs to answer your questions to realize that AGW carries risks, and with more uncertainty comes greater risks.
What evidence exists that CO2 actually does cause climate to warm? Yeah, we have a theory but not a proven theory.
It’s even worse than that, Ken. A theory can not violate the laws of physics. If it does, it gets tossed out. The CO2 nonsense has not been tossed out because it is supported by a cult.
You forgot the part where you show how AGW (which isn’t a theory, btw) violates the laws of physics, Clint.
Perhaps you should start with the basics, and tell us how blankets don’t warm?
Willard, you’re new here and aren’t aware of the rules I’ve had to impose.
1) I don’t attempt to teach physics to idiots. They can’t learn.
2) I don’t often respond to trolls. Responding only triggers more of their childish behavior.
I tend to obey my rules pretty well.
ClintR
“1) I dont attempt to teach physics”
“2) I dont often respond”
Good rules. They disguise that you are an emperor with no clothes.
> Ive had to impose.
I doubt you can impose any rule, Clint.
First, you’re not Roy.
Second, your own toy example cannot lead to a rule that can apply generally.
So keep saying stuff. You’re good at it.
W,
The usual witless response of alarmists –
“Citation needed.”
Or “Duh!”.
Or “Wow just wow!”
Or any number of other pointless inanities.
Oh dear, Willard, you are a slow learner, aren’t you? You probably haven’t accepted that Gavin Schmidt is not any sort of scientist, or that Michael Mann (who claimed to be a Nobel Laureate) is either a fool, a fraud, or just delusional psychotic.
Carry on avoiding reality. Nothing wrong with providing a source of amusement on this blog.
Good morning, Mike.
Blatantly misquoting me, while attempting a mixed metaphor!
You are desperate, Ent.
Riddle me this, Clint:
When was the last time you taught physics here?
W,
You wrote –
“Riddle me this, Clint:
When was the last time you taught physics here?”
Did you have to put in a lot of effort to compose compose pointless demands, or does it come naturally?
Why do you imagine that anyone would bother acceding to your demands? What if Clint decides not to provide an answer? Maybe you could smite him with your awesome mental powers!
Ho, ho, ho!
> Did you have to put in a lot of effort to compose compose
compose compose compose!
W,
Is that the best you can do?
If you are trying to be sarcastic, you are laying it on a bit heavily. Other people can read, you know. Some might even pardon my inadvertent redundancy. Who knows?
Of course, a delusional alarmist will use any excuse to avoid addressing reality.
It all gets really hard really quickly, doesn’t it?
Willard says:
”Nobody needs to answer your questions to realize that AGW carries risks, and with more uncertainty comes greater risks.”
Now you are in my bailiwick. Willard absolutely everything entails risk, including no change.
Properly categorizing risk has largely devolved down to standing up vulnerable 15 years olds who have been scared out of their wits by their parents and teachers.
there really is no serious effort ongoing to quantify risk from climate change, even if it could be done which it probably can’t.
About the only risk we can be sure of is the cure is going to harm the poor a lot more than the rich who are pushing for it.
Being very satisfied with the way things are tends to focus people a lot more on not changing the environment vs changing it.
> Being very satisfied with the way things are tends to focus people a lot more on not changing
One might also add that self-satisfaction is your middle name, Bill.
Funny you speak of quantification when all you’re doing is play Columbo.
Ken asked: How much, if any, of the recent modest warming observed in the climate is due to CO2?
IPCC AR5 WGI chapter 8 has the details.
CO2 = 1.8 W/m^2
WMGHGs = 2.8 W/m^2
Anthroprogenic = 2.3 W/m^2
Solar = 0.1 W/m^2
Total = 2.4 W/m^2
EEI = 0.8 W/m^2
TCR = Total – EEI = 1.6 W/m^2
1.6 W/m^2 produced about 1.0C of warming. That is a transient climate sensitivity of 1.0 / 1.6 = 0.63C per W/m^2.
Projecting 0.63C per W/m^2 onto the EEI gives about 0.5C of further warming for a total of 1.5C.
Therefore CO2 will contribute about 1.8 * 0.63 = 1.1C of the 1.5C once the climate system equilibriates to the current configuration. That is about 70%. Note that this conditional on the 0.63C per W/m^2 remaining constant. Evidence indicates that this value is probably not static and likely starts low and then increases as the climate system gets perturbed more and more. Ya know…the tipping points.
Note that there other anthroprogenic GHGs that contribute to the warming and anthroprogenic aerosols that offset the warming. Your question was focused on CO2 and so my answer was equally focused on CO2. Let it be known that ALL forcing agents matter though.
Ken asked: How much of the recent modest warming observed in the climate is due to natural cycles a’ la King Canute?
Maybe about 0.1C.
Ken asked: What evidence exists that CO2 actually does cause climate to warm?
There is so much evidence that no one person can possibly consume it all. However, for a brief (and I mean very brief) introduction to the evidence I recommend IPCC AR5 WGI. It is only 1500 pages so you can get through it in a reasonable amount of time. You can, of course, dive into the details by branching off into the numerous citations. And you can keep diving deeper branching off into their citations and so on.
Ken asked: How much of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human emissions and how much is due to ocean off-gassing?
Nearly 100%. Ocean and land are net sinks right now. They are actually suppressing the increase right now.
Ken asked: What is the ideal temperature anomaly for the earth?
It depends on what you want to optimize for.
Ken asked: Is warming worse than cooling in terms of human flourishing?
That is a complicated question. There are a lot of nuanced details that have to be considered here. But in general though I think most agree that warming would be less bad than cooling. No change would obviously be the best scenario. The devil is in the details and likely depends on what you even mean by “flourishing” to begin with.
W,
You wrote –
“One might also add that self-satisfaction is your middle name, Bill.
Funny you speak of quantification when all youre doing is play Columbo.”
Funny that you seem to think that obscurity implies wisdom.
If you disageee with a comment, wouldn’t it be better to provide some facts to support your disagreement, rather than just stringing random words together in an attempt to appear clever?
Of course, how you choose to waste your time is your affair. I may be under the false impression ion that you are endeavouring to learn, or at least to impart knowledge, rather than pointlessly trolling.
Feel free to correct me.
> Feel free to correct me
There’s no reason to fall for your silly jabs, son.
Can you name just one person who would be so foolish as to give an asshat like you anything to review?
willard parrots Phil Jones
Close, Bill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-633564
No cigar.
–Still no answers to the key questions:
How much, if any, of the recent modest warming observed in the climate is due to CO2?—
No one claims it is much and it’s not measurable. Some claim it’s at least .2 C.
And .5 C would not be much.
Let’s look at this claim:
“The global average atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2019 was 409.8 parts per million (ppm for short), with a range of uncertainty of plus or minus 0.1 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
There has many been warmer periods in last 800,000 years then the period we are in in the present, yet the claim is CO2 is highest level in 800,000 years.
Assuming there is some awareness, what seems to be imagined is there is going to delay response to this 409.8 ppm level of Global CO2.
And we noticed many idiots have been saying, that it’s already too late.
And this can only be seen as a religious belief.
Now we had warmer periods in the last 800,000 years, but everyone aware that the last 800,000 years, it has been the coldest in tens of millions of years.
So the scale of millions of years, we are presently, quite cold.
And we lot’s deserts and glacial ice to prove it.
Cold is deserts of sand and deserts of ice.
And warm has more water vapor. Even the religious doctrine of the greenhouse effect theory, agrees with this.
gbaikie said: No one claims it is much and its not measurable.
IPCC SR15 SPM A.1 – Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8C to 1.2C.
gbaikie said: There has many been warmer periods in last 800,000 years then the period we are in in the present, yet the claim is CO2 is highest level in 800,000 years.
Yeah. There almost certainly has been warmer periods in the last 800,000 and especially in the last several hundred million years. But remember…CO2 is but one of the agents that force the climate. The climate responds to the net effect of all agents. Different agents dominate in different eras. And sometimes agents offset the effect of others. We just happen to be living in a period where anthroprogenic GHG emissions are dominating over even anthroprogenic aerosols emissions and are the dominating factor driving the contemporary warming period.
LOL! Playing chameleon huh?
Just before Roy Spencer laconically tells us about March 2021’s anomalies for the Globe and its associated zones and regions, I wanted to zoom on a comment posted by S.K. (maybe Dodland?), in which we find a link to a graph made at Heller aka Goddard’s blog:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/USHCN1920-2020Maximumvs.Adjusted-2.gif
Having had the opportunity to see how wrong Heller sometimes managed to be with GHCN V3 evaluations, I thought that, at a first glance, Heller’s graph would be of the same vein.
No: this time, it isn’t.
The only reproach Heller can be made here is his endlessly repeated exaggeration with cleverly presented graphics that give the impression of publishers of temperature data being fraudulent all the time.
*
But in the kernel, the data evaluation sounds correct: either did Heller learn in between how to accurately average station data into a temperature series, or he managed to get some technical help by some well-trained ‘petites mains’, as we love to say in my native tongue.
Like for example the Third Viscount who, though having at best a degree in journalism, presents since years at WUWT highly complex guest posts, what lead even a Dr Roy Spencer to name him a ‘brilliant mathematician’. OMG.
*
In contrast to Heller, I prefer to show data using simple representations lacking intended visual manipulation, e.g. for the USHCN TMAX data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eWA7UXPrey8ec7wNUFDStAsh8u45oFPm/view
A similar graph can be produced for the TMIN data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zhzs_cXjj1DL2G6KNvVlNc4Li4LVki0f/view
*
And the proof that adjusted data clearly supersedes, wrt trends, its raw origin (itself nearly identical to the GHCN daily data set), is visible on a chart showing an ascending sort of the difference, computed for every station, of the trends for their adjusted resp. raw time series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qrcx9WzOUdyv1g405Z–kQYZaW_j2Lhi/view
*
We see that only about 30 % of the stations show a raw trend higher than the adjusted one. (For GHCN V3, if I well do recall: 45 / 55 %.)
*
One question nonetheless remains: how can all the people permanently appealing to Heller’s ‘authority’, think that these three charts are a proof for fraudulent data management by NOAA?
Neither Heller, let alone any one of his gullible followers, ever were able to give any verifiable proof for such a claim.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Your graphs are no use at all. Whether the data is pristine, or tortured beyond recognition, is completely irrelevant.
Process the data to your heart’s content.
If you can come up with something useful, be a nice fellow and let everyone know.
If you believe you can predict the future by detailed examination of the past, be prepared for scepticism.
I predict you’ll still come back tomorrow morning to bit some ankles, son.
As usual, Swenson aka Amazed aka Flynn writes his completely redundant, brainless blah blah blah blah.
How afflicting…
J.-P. D.
Binny,
In other words, you know your efforts are completely pointless, but you don’t want to admit it.
I understand.
> I understand.
I doubt it, son.
Binny surely knows that it’s completely pointless for him to respond to your completely redundant, brainless blah blah blah blah.
But not for me.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Care to explain how to read that chart Bin?
Is the last point on the x axis 1218 stations or the 1218th station?
hunter
1. March 30, 2021 at 7:01 PM
I don’t understand how you can ask such simple questions.
Read the graph again, all is in it.
*
2. March 30, 2021 at 7:06 PM
Why don’t you search yourself for an answer to what you ask?
Did the graph refer to NASA? Where the heck is that word in it?
I see USHCN.
How many stations are included in that data set?
You just would need to google for this name; the answer is somewhere below the very first link offered by Google.
Nur wer sucht, der auch findet.
*
hunter, no one who has to read such trivial questions should wonder about you persistently pretending that even in Chapter 9 of Steven Wepster’s dissertation, it is nowhere explained that Moon’s rotation axis is interior to it.
And against ALL odds, you continue to pretend that, though it was explained to you, see here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-639510
You are, like Robertson, incredibly superficial, and prefer to guess out of your uninformed mind rather than seek for information.
J.-P. D.
don’t know huh? LMAO!
Why don’t you search yourself for an answer to what you ask?
Did the graph refer to NASA? Where the heck is that word in it?
I see USHCN.
How many stations are included in that data set?
=====================
1218 picked out of the 20,000+
hunter
Now, you become really as dumb, stubborn and ignorant as Robertson.
While the 1,218 stations are all within CONUS, the 20,000 stations are WORLDWIDE, hunter.
Why does the portfolio ‘manager’ not stop blabbering about what he has no clue of?
J.-P. D.
Nevermind that GHCNv3 only has 7400 stations. It is GHCNv4 which expanded to 27,000 stations via a large digitization effort.
bdgwx
This has nothing to do with the usual polemic about GHCN.
It is simply that some people have no idea about what is USHCN, even though the acronym starts with ‘US’…
One day, they will tell us that the 200+ USCRN stations were picked out 20,000 as well.
Good grief.
Why do such people always write about their guesses, instead of informing themselves?
J.-P. D.
Bin,
You continue to dodge both questions.
1))) ”Today weather observers who make up the Cooperative Observing Program are a core of volunteers numbering over 10,600. There history extends back long before there was a National Weather Service. Of these, about 5,000 make up the “climate” network while the remainder of the network supports hydrology or meteorology.”
So how were the 1218 stations selected?
2))) Does the Xaxis data point labeled 1218 the 1218th station or is it 1218 stations.
Bill hunter said:
”1218 picked out of the 20,000+”
Bindidon says:
hunter
Now, you become really as dumb, stubborn and ignorant as Robertson.
While the 1,218 stations are all within CONUS, the 20,000 stations are WORLDWIDE, hunter.
==============================
You don’t have to go to so much ad hominem stuff to answer the question. You could say first ~5000 were picked as US stations then. . . .X were picked for y reason and so on.
But as I recall the US network was considerably larger than 5,000 so it seems there already had been a lot picking to get to the 5,000.
bill,
USHCN was commissioned circa 1987. The requirement at the time is that the COOP station had to be in service in 1987 and had to have at least an 80 year history. The stations that met this requirement was 1219 at the time. Over the years there have been 114 station deletions and 113 additions bringing USHCNv2 to 1218. These deletions/additions are the result of closures, relocations, and compositions. I recommend reading Menne et al 2009 for more details. I also recommend visiting the following site for more information. You’ll be able to download the source code that produces the data files from here as well.
https://tinyurl.com/5yt6b7u7
Thank you bdgwx
And can you explain why only 1218 stations are shown?
NASA says they used more than 20,000 stations. How were the 1218 chosen?
Have you ever looked for an answer to that question yourself, Bill?
W,
Have you ever considered that trying to make other commenters respond to your inane questions only makes appear to be a delusional alarmist?
Do you really care whether Bill has looked for an answer himself?
Maybe you are too stupid to try to find the answer yourself. No shame in that, of course.
Tell me what you don’t understand, demonstrate the efforts you have made to help yourself, and I will consider providing you with a factual answer.
You don’t need to thank me. I do my best to help out those less able than myself out of my sense of charity.
Look, son.
You’re not helping Bill right now.
If there’s one thing one learns when doing complex projects at companies like Boeing, is that if you got an itch, you scratch it.
Ask Bill about that.
Willard we don’t need a peanut gallery around here. If you know respond if you don’t know and don’t care move along.
W,
You wrote (at the end of your strange , irrelevant comment) –
“Ask Bill about that.”
You can’t seem to absorb the fact that I have no interest in dancing to your tune. I don’t know whether you are stupid, ignorant, or suffering from some form of cognitive impairment.
Feel free to obey your obsessive compulsion, if it makes you feel better.
I still do what I want. Accept reality, if you can. Or not, if you can’t.
Ignore him Swenson he has completely run out of interesting things to say but he keeps blabbering.
bill asked: And can you explain why only 1218 stations are shown?
There are 1218 stations in the USHCN dataset.
bill asked: NASA says they used more than 20,000 stations. How were the 1218 chosen?
NASA computes a global mean surface temperature. Therefore they use the global GHCN dataset.
USHCN is but a subset of US based stations only.
Also note that GHCNv3 has 7400 stations in the inventory. It is GHCNv4 through a large digitization effort that has 27,000 stations.
And I really don’t mean this in a disrespectful manner, but your questions are mind numbingly easy to answer. You could have gotten your answers in a matter of minutes just by googling and looking at the station inventory lists. My friendly advice here is to just try and research some of this stuff on your own first. If something doesn’t make then by all means ask questions.
binny…”Having had the opportunity to see how wrong Heller sometimes managed to be with GHCN V3 evaluations, I thought that, at a first glance, Hellers graph would be of the same vein”.
In Tony Heller you have a highly experienced analyst who has a degree in electrical engineering and who had worked on major processors like the i7 for Intel. As part of his work he was employed in quality control where he was the go-to guy to pick out errors in data that could have been very costly to Intel. They relied on his expert analysis.
So here we have Binny, a legend in his own mind, who uses an Excel spreadsheet and claims Heller is wrong in his analysis of GHCN/NOAA data.
Teh Goddard isn’t worth it, Gordon.
Start here:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/
Who is the guy that wrote the above.
Complete hogwash on the use of absolute temperatures. If you have a station recording 15F on March 3rd and the new location records it as 16f on March 4th after a station change you have a one degree increase in temperature that may or may not be real.
If you have the same station recording a +1 degree anomaly on March 3rd. On March 4th after the move its going to record a 2 degree anomaly. LOL!
Something similar can be said about the gridding. Gridding provides an opportunity for doing sensitivity analysis to maximize desired outcomes.
I have always liked James Hansen as James was impeccably honest and truly was concerned about global warming. So I read with great pleasure some of his comments about switching gridding patterns because the outcomes were closer to expectations. It was an article where James switched his gridding algorithm from an onshore influence to an offshore influence along coastlines. Well oceans are warmer than land, but land anomalies trends are greater than ocean anomalies trends. Now there is more. James lived near the shore on the east coast where offshore winds are more prevalent than on the west coast where I live. So in gridding it makes sense to me to not have grids that overlap coastlines. But that would be a real mess for models to deal with and make for much more complicated grid schemes.
I did similar forensics work. Taking given estimates and back computing to multiple variable, doing extensive sensitivity analysis on those variables to test if a suite of reasonable variables (with more work to define a range of reasonableness and connectivity of variables) could lead to the proffered estimate.
What you learn from such work when you have multiple variables ‘reasonable’ can occupy a very large range of potential outcomes.
Litigation support boils down to how its presented and judges and juries view which is the more reasonable or frequently a complete failure of one side to come up with anything reasonable at all.
Unfortunately that’s what science can tend to boil down to when harmful policy decisions have to be made. Its not science its advocacy with a paint by numbers color scheme of science on the surface.
This is why I favor transparency in everything with a large dose of independence via the civil service. The civil service provides a modicum of independence, and science paper standards of archiving and description of methods provides transparency so the analysis can be replicated. But we have these quasi labs without transparent controls where this dual effort of fairness, and truth can be made incomprehensible.
So what we end up with when somebody actually gets there hands on some of this stuff are the stupid smear job I just explained above.
In my experience gridding can produce more accurate results but should be based upon additional empirical data an approach like ARCGIS graphics with elevation in fine detail but it doesn’t seem likely to do much of anything for trends in temperatures which is only very loosely connected to static geography and the fact that trends need a real bias in station moves and that is probably mostly UHI effects, tarmacs, construction, smog, evaporation, and who knows what else.
Where I live I only have to travel a few yards to see differences in temperature of up to a couple of degrees based upon wind screens and the fact they can affect temperatures by changing wind currents for long distances. Permeable tree screens have been shown to affect wind velocity by 50% for distances of 10 to 20 times the height of the trees and buildings are even worse as they are not permeable. This is a large source of UHI. So better identification of that would be far more useful.
It may also be a major factor in multi-decadal climate change oscillations. Wind patterns over water can affect evaporation.
“On March 4th after the move its going to record a 2 degree anomaly. LOL!”
No bill, the anomaly is unknown at the start of recording in the new location. After the data series has enough points in the new location, only THEN will the anomaly start to be recorded for the new station.
Someone with your claimed experience should realize that but evidently not.
Girl, her name is Lucia, and you posted in that thread.
I guess you slept since then.
Ball4 says:
”No bill, the anomaly is unknown at the start of recording in the new location. After the data series has enough points in the new location, only THEN will the anomaly start to be recorded for the new station.
Someone with your claimed experience should realize that but evidently not.”
I am not referring to the compilation of anomalies for a single weather station Ball4.
————————–
Really Ball4 I didn’t know they did that. I haven’t looked at methods for a while. But what you are saying is essentially there is no reason to adjust mean temperatures for station changes. . . .while this discussion is about them needing to do so. Is that just a smoke screen?
bill said: But what you are saying is essentially there is no reason to adjust mean temperatures for station changes
Where did you get such an idea? Stations moves, time of observation changes, and instrumentations all happened. They all result in a shift of the mean temperature that is not climatic in nature. Of course we have to make adjustments to correct these issues. It would be unethical at best and fraudulent at worst if these adjustments were not made.
bdgwx says:
bill said: But what you are saying is essentially there is no reason to adjust mean temperatures for station changes
Where did you get such an idea? Stations moves, time of observation changes, and instrumentations all happened. They all result in a shift of the mean temperature that is not climatic in nature. Of course we have to make adjustments to correct these issues. It would be unethical at best and fraudulent at worst if these adjustments were not mad
=====================
bdgwx you are not being responsive to Ball4’s declaration that when a station moves they start all over and don’t record an anomaly until they have enough years of data to show warming at the new location. So under those circumstance why would you need to make adjustments for station moves?
bill sez: “I am not referring to the compilation of anomalies for a single weather station Ball4.”
Well you were for your made up silly single weather station case.
“But what you are saying is essentially there is no reason to adjust mean temperatures for station changes.”
Not me, bill is writing that.
“Ball4’s declaration that when a station moves they start all over and don’t record an anomaly until they have enough years of data to show warming at the new location.”
I made no such declaration.
bill writes: “I haven’t looked at methods for a while.”
That is fairly obvious. Bill ought to do so before writing comments.
bill h …”Who is the guy that wrote the above”.
A well-known climate alarmist called Lucia. He/she is typical of the alarmists genre, they invent math and physics to rebut perfectly good scientists like Heller/Goddard. Another one is Tamino, a legend, in his own mind.
Ball4 says:
”No bill, the anomaly is unknown at the start of recording in the new location. After the data series has enough points in the new location, only THEN will the anomaly start to be recorded for the new station.”
Perhaps you should explain what you meant Ball4. By ‘new location’ you must be talking about a single station move.
bobdroege says:
Girl, her name is Lucia, and you posted in that thread.
I guess you slept since then.
=================================
Wow! You guys just fire from the hip without paying any attention.
The post in question was authored by ‘zeke’. And in fact it was also criticized by Lucia.
and I didn’t post in there. The ‘hunter’ that posted in there is not me ‘bill hunter’.
A little byproduct of my USHCN data processing was, as made so often since years, a comparison of that data with UAH’s regional LT data for CONUS (the USA48 column in the zonal/regional times series):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nWrMEfkLVO5TnXoqwXEV5DLlkwioJrAC/view
This is the kind of graph Ignoramuses a la Robertson like to name ‘faked graphs made out of fudged NOAA data’.
Good grief.
J.-P. D.
binny…”This is the kind of graph Ignoramuses a la Robertson like to name faked graphs made out of fudged NOAA data”.
Not only faked by NOAA (the data) it is further faked by you. You won’t find a graph on NOAA’s site that follows the UAH data like that.
Willard wrote earlier –
“Perhaps you should start with the basics, and tell us how blankets dont warm?”
Oh, condescension! Oh, sarcasm! Oh, stupidity!
Willard is obviously delusional. Blankets warm nothing. Sources of heat do. Willard does not understand the different between a heat source and an insulator.
Willard is convinced that wrapping a blanket around a corpse will magically raise the temperature of the dead body.
What a silly fellow!
> Willard is convinced that wrapping a blanket around a corpse will magically raise the temperature of the dead body.
A quote to that effect would be nice, Mike.
Unless you have a very big telescope that peers into my brain?
W,
You wrote –
“A quote to that effect would be nice, Mike.” Who is Mike? Are you pretending to have the power to convert your fantasy into fact?
Why should anybody provide you with a quote? If you disagree with my assumption, just provide some evidence that I’m wrong.
If you agree that blankets don’t provide heat, what was the point of your fatuous statement –
“Perhaps you should start with the basics, and tell us how blankets dont warm?”
Are you a pretentious delusional alarmist fool, or just a fool?
> If you disagree with my assumption, just provide some evidence that Im wrong
How to reverse the burden of proof in one single step.
You’re an idiot, son.
Prove me wrong.
W,
The burden of proof? You are delusional. I am assuming you are talking about science, rather than the law. As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
It’s the basis of the scientific method. Alarmists seem to be ignorant of such science related matters.
If you want to call me an idiot, fine. Why should I care for the opinion of someone who is obviously delusional, and equally obviously my intellectual inferior?
Prove you wrong? Why should I bother wasting my time? You overestimate the importance I place on your good opinion. Another characteristic of dim-witted alarmists, in my experience.
Carry on.
So to recap ….
Swenson: You believe “x”
Willard: No I don’t believe “x”. When did I ever say “x”?
Swenson: Why should I prove you said “x”? Prove you didn’t say “x”.
Swenson slightly later: Look right here! You clearly said “y”. That proves you believe “x” even though you never actually said “x”.
Tim is off in his fantasy world again.
He can’t actually bring himself to quote words as written, so he creates an imaginary scenario.
He doesn’t realise that others have the capacity to read, and may not need Tim’s fantasy interpretations with their implicit obfuscation.
Tim appears unable to accept reality, so he substitutes his own delusions.
Faith, rather than fact.
> He cant actually bring himself to quote words as written
You really ought to beware your wishes, son.
W,
Are you reduced to stringing irrelevant words together?
Are you still convinced that I should take any notice of your bizarre pronouncements?
You wrote –
“You really ought to beware your wishes, son.”
Really? Why is that? Have you occult powers that could do me harm?
Give it a try. Let me know how you get on, because I certainly don’t feel any effects so far. Maybe you are only a legend in your own lunchbox,
Keep the humour coming.
To recap for those with poor critical reading skills.
My Paraphrase –> Swenson’s statement
You –> Willard
believe –> is convinced that
“x” –> wrapping a blanket around a corpse will magically raise the temperature of the dead body.
My Paraphrase –> Willard’s statement
When did I ever say x? –> A quote to that effect would be nice
My Paraphrase –> Swenson’s statement
Why should I prove you said x? –> Why should anybody provide you with a quote?
Prove you didnt say x –> provide some evidence that Im wrong.
You clearly said y –> [you sarcastically said] “tell us how blankets don’t warm” (meaning you believe “blankets do warm” )
And that is the core of the issue — creating and attacking strawmen.
Willard said nothing about a “corpse” or “magic”. Those are strawmen.
Willard did talk about ‘warming’ (= increasing temperature = ΔT), but you switched to ‘heat’ (= transfer of energy = Q). Another strawman.
You put words in his mouth and then attacked that false position, not the true position.
> Really? Why is that?
Consistency, son.
Everything you say or do can be said back or done to you in return on the Climateball field.
Just imagine if commenters started to ask to substantiate the crap you spout daily.
W,
More gibberish?
Reduced to cryptic delusional alarmist obscurity, are you?
Maybe if you learn to express yourself more clearly, you might realise how silly you appear to anybody who is not a delusional alarmist.
What is it you are trying to say?
Do you realize that once you start to gaslight there’s no turning back, son?
One more reason to warn you once again:
Please, do beware your wishes.
TF used to try to pretend he knew some physics. But now he’s given up that, and gone full troll.
He’s about as funny either way.
x, y, x, y, x….
(You just can’t make this stuff up!)
W,
You wrote –
“Do you realize that once you start to gaslight theres no turning back, son?
One more reason to warn you once again:
Please, do beware your wishes.”
Oooooh! First obscure gibberish, then a warning!
Should I be afraid, or should I be VERY afraid? Nope. Not worried at all. You might do better warning someone who respects your opinions. I am assuming you are just another impotent alarmist blusterer. What do you intend to do if I ignore your warning?
Nothing? Why am I not surprised?
Is it the concept of gaslighting that escape you, son?
Here’s how the You Make No Sense script works:
(ESTR) …
(VLAD) You are delusional.
(ESTR) …
(VLAD) Are you reduced to stringing irrelevant words together?
(ESTR) …
(VLAD) Are you still convinced that I should take any notice of your bizarre pronouncements?
(VLAD) …
(ESTR) Really? Why is that? Give it a try. Let me know how you get on, because I certainly dont feel any effects so far.
(VLAD) …
(ESTR) Maybe you are only a legend in your own lunchbox.
***
As anyone can see (perhaps not you, son, sorry about that), there is a double bind between the demands you make and how you preemptively dismiss anything replied to you.
I’m really sorry if a parent did that to you.
So in a nutshell, what you’re doing is quite simple, son: you create a way to always become the winner, at least in the windmills of your mind.
That’s an asymmetric strategy because the abuser does stuff that the victim does not.
Now, there’s no turning back from gaslighting for the simple reason that once you start trying to deny the connection to reality with your victims, you are entering typical Dark triad behavior.
That won’t win you any friend, son.
Need I go on?
I’ll let you search for “asymmetric information” all by yourself.
W,
Resorting to obscure psychobabble, are you?
You wrote (in part) –
“Now, theres no turning back from gaslighting for the simple reason that once you start trying to deny the connection to reality with your victims, you are entering typical Dark triad behavior.
That wont win you any friend, son.
Need I go on?”
You are confused. In your fantasy, it seems you think I am your son. You refer to some mysterious Dark Triad behaviour. Is this a real conspiracy theory, or part of your delusion?
You also seem to think that I care for your opinion. I don’t. If you are claiming that you are merely trying to help an anonymous person whom you have characterised as an idiot, then you are obviously suffering from a mental defect.
You ask me “Need I go on?”. Apparently you consider you need to go, so you have my permission. Go on as such as you like.
No adverse side effects from laughter as far as I am aware. Knock yourself out. Be my guest.
Yes a blanket can warm things. A dead corpse under an ordinary blanket not being one of them. But a dead body in a greenhouse yes.
Having spent 50 years building stuff with an emphasis on free energy architectural design reflecting my frugal Scottish blood. I get how it works.
> Its the basis of the scientific method.
You should not use concepts you barely understand, son.
As I said, you’re an idiot.
Prove me wrong.
W,
You’re definitely a slow learner. Or is your ability to comprehend English impaired?
Why should I accede to your demands?
If I don’t, maybe you could threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue! I still wouldn’t care.
I’ll repeat myself. Why should I care for the opinion of someone who is obviously delusional, and equally obviously my intellectual inferior?
Carry on.
> Why should I accede to your demands?
Consistency, son.
Nothing forces you to be consistent, of course.
W,
Stringing random words together might not make you appear wise and authoritative.
It may have the opposite effect, giving onlookers the impression that you are just another delusional alarmist troll, studiously avoiding discussing the nonsensical idea that CO2 somehow provides heat.
I don’t blame you. I understand why you would refuse to even address such a silly concept!
Carry on being silly. It suits you.
> Stringing random words together
yOU MaKe No SeNSe.
At long last.
Which part of “consistency, son” you do not get?
W,
You wrote –
“yOU MaKe No SeNSe.
At long last.
Which part of “consistency, son” you do not get?”
Well done – irrelevant nonsense, supported by confirmation of your inability to accept reality.
As I have implied before, just making pointless demands disguised as questions, will not engender respect from reasonable people. If you can’t be bothered providing a reason for me to answer your questions, I certainly can’t be bothered providing an answer.
That’s reality.
> just making pointless demands disguised as questions
Considering the number of pointless demands disguised as questions you can produce, son, it might not be wise to give away your strategy:
Asymmetric strategies rest on asymmetric information, you know.
W,
What are you blathering about?
“Asymmetric strategies rest on asymmetric information, you know.”
Do you own a random gibberish generator? I hope you are not trying to achieve the appearance of wisdom by trying for obscurity. It is not working terribly well for you.
What asymmetric strategies and asymmetric information are you muttering about?
Who cares, apart from you? You can’t even explain what you write, can you?
Sad.
Thank you for making more pointless demands disguised as questions, son.
Next time, keep the head up.
W,
You’re welcome. Is your fantasy taking over? You seem to think I am your son, now. Why not Mike, or Charlie, or some other imaginary persona?
You wrote –
“Next time, keep the head up”.
More commands? And if I ignore you, what then? Ho, ho, ho!
Impotent fool!
Don’t be so defensive, son. Twas friendly advice. Keeping your head up will help you see people coming on the Climateball field.
A pity you don’t know hockey..
Willard, please stop trolling.
This article sums it up best. The left’s Ponzi Scheme of Lies….
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/populism-isnt-dead-its-stunned
bdg…”I doubt he’ll bother with the Moon thing. There’s like a handful of contrarian posters (mainly here it seems) that challenge it. The rest of the world accepts it”.
The problem I have with you in particular and the Moon debate is that you refuse to listen to basic, sound logic. You rush off into mental spaces with your reference frames that have nothing to do with reality or physics.
You have yet to refute, using the science based on the scientific method, or basic logic, my reason for why the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis. This is not an opinion I am offering it is based on sound physics and mathematics related to a curve.
I laid out a simple model for you of the Moon orbiting the Earth in a simple, circular orbit. To track the Moon’s instantaneous angular velocity I used a radial line extending from the centre of the Earth through the Moon.
There is a condition, however, the same side of the Moon must always point to the Earth. That means you can draw an arrow from the Moon’s centre, down the radial line and it must always point to the Earth’s centre. If the near side of the Moon must always point to the Earth, then a tangential line where the radial line meets that side must be perpendicular to an inner circle traced out by that point as the Moon orbits.
If you do the same at the outer face of the Moon, which must always point away from the Earth, a tangential line perpendicular to the radial line at that point traces out an outer circle. The same applies to the Moon’s centre where it meets the radial line.
Now you have three points along that radial line, on a rigid body, that are forced to move in concentric circles. The instantaneous tangent lines of any point on the Moon along that radial line are always parallel.
If the inner face could complete a rotation of 360 degrees per orbit, it would have to rotate about the centre and by half-orbit it would be pointing away from the Earth.
You cannot defeat that logic using reference frames. If those three crucial points along a radial line through the Moon must always turn in concentric circles it is not possible in any reference frame for local rotation to occur.
The fact that you cannot see that, and that you must resort to obfuscations, tells me immediately that you are lost in your conditioned thoughts.
That is not intended as an insult, I am trying to somehow promote an insight into the way your mind is misleading you.
With regard to your comment about most people agreeing with you spinners, a journal editor once made the same point with Einstein. He tried to convince Einstein that several hundred scientists disagreed with him, to which Albert replied, “it only takes one to prove me wrong’.
So here you have it, I have proved you wrong and you cannot prove you are right using math and physics.
“If the inner face could complete a rotation of 360 degrees per orbit, it would have to rotate about the centre and by half-orbit it would be pointing away from the Earth.”
Wrong Gordon, our moon’s inner face remains facing the central orbital axis and rotates exactly once per orbit about the central axis of the moon. See here and try to apply your logic, your logic is demonstrated to fail, this is the one experiment needed to prove you are wrong just like a ball on a string does:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Our moon rotates once on its axis per orbit in the sunshine providing day/night cycles with one face staring at the central earthen orbital axis.
You have linked to something which proves you wrong, Ball4. Ftop_t’s Desmos work shows an object moving like a ball on string, with the same face always oriented to the center of the orbit, and only the external axis rotation slider is moving, in order to make that happen. There is an external axis rotation slider, and an internal axis rotation slider. If you have both moving at the same time, you see all sides of the object from the center of revolution.
Ftop_t has asked you twice now to stop misrepresenting his work.
DREMT, ftop_t’s elegant work represents itself & no one has refuted or misrepresented ftop_t’s insightful work. ftop_t’s great work refutes Gordon as the orbiting object is observed to rotate once on its axis per orbit just like our moon keeping one face to the central orbital axis while experiencing day/night cycles in the sunshine, ball on string, toy train, chalk circle & horse & atom “fixt” on mgr, Madhavi Fig. 2(b) rectangle, Teslas “fixt” ball M, and the last Kentucky Derby winner.
ftop_t’s work even features Gordon’s arrow: “That means you can draw an arrow from the Moon’s centre, down the radial line and it must always point to the Earth’s centre.” So Gordon and DREMT can learn how our moon’s motion actually works just by observing ftop_t’s excellent depiction of an orbiting object rotating once per orbit on its own axis keeping one face to the center as does our moon.
Ftop_t has asked you twice to stop misrepresenting his work. You won’t, because you’re a troll.
Gordon,
This is where your logic breaks down
“If the inner face could complete a rotation of 360 degrees per orbit, it would have to rotate about the centre and by half-orbit it would be pointing away from the Earth.”
After half an orbit the direction towards the center or the Earth has rotated 180 degrees because the Moon is traveling in concentric circles.
If the Moon wasn’t rotating, after half an orbit it would be facing away from the Earth, again because it is traveling in concentric circles.
Don’t forget that the farside of the Moon travels farther than the near side on those concentric circles you are so fond of.
bob continues to display his ignorance of physics and his disregard for reality.
Moon has the same motion as a ball-on-a-string. We know the ball is not really rotating about its axis, because the string would wrap around it, if it were. It’s an easy experiment anyone could do.
Idiots can’t learn and can’t accept reality. That’s why they’re idiots.
We know the ball is not really rotating about its axis more or less than once, because then the string would wrap around it, if it weren’t rotating on its axis once. It’s an easy experiment anyone can observe properly except for Clint R and a few others.
Clint R
We know the outside of the ball on a string is moving faster than the inside of the ball of string therefore the ball is rotating on an internal axis as it revolves on an external axis no more nor less than once per revolution or rotation.
Moon does not have the same motion as a ball on a string, the two axes for the Moon are not parallel, the two axes for the ball on a string are parallel.
Just another physics fact for you to deny, since you never took any physics classes. So that makes you ignorant, instead of an idiot.
But it is not evidence that you are not an idiot, that is still debatable.
A ball on a string has only one axis of rotation.
Wrong bob. The ball-on-a-string has the same motion as Moon in that the same side always faces the inside of the orbit. That’s called “pure orbital motion”. It’s orbiting without axial rotation.
The far side of Moon does NOT have move faster than the near side. Believing such just means you don’t understand motions. All parts of Moon move with the same velocity as its CoM. What if you were looking at Moon from outside the orbit? Your perceptions of its far side and near side velocities would then change. When you don’t understand motions, your beliefs can trick you. You’ve been extremely tricked, in many areas.
Without understanding motions, you can get very confused. I could teach you why your beliefs are wrong, but you couldn’t learn.
Clint R
Wrong and still wrong.
“That’s called “pure orbital motion”. It’s orbiting without axial rotation.”
Nobody but you clowns use that term, so it’s just bafflegabble.
The face of the Moon does not always face the Earth, you have that fact wrong.
“The far side of Moon does NOT have move faster than the near side.”
Yes it does, if you could “do the Math” you would know that, but you can’t “do the Math”
It looks like calculating the circumference of a circle is beyond your Math abilities.
“What if you were looking at Moon from outside the orbit? Your perceptions of its far side and near side velocities would then change.”
Nope, they wouldn’t change, because I know to use the proper reference frame, you don’t, that’s why you get the wrong answer.
I am looking at the Moon from an inertial reference frame. Hard for you to grasp that fact, but there you go, try it.
“Without understanding motions, you can get very confused. I could teach you why your beliefs are wrong, but you couldn’t learn.”
I am not confused, I learned my physics from reputable and accredited institution of higher learning. And no, you can’t teach me, because you are not an accredited teacher of physics.
You can teach bafflebarf, but that’s about all.
Wrong again, bob.
If you idiots really believed you were right, you wouldn’t keep twisting our words.
“The face of the Moon does not always face the Earth, you have that fact wrong.”
One side of Moon always faces Earth, with the slight variation due to Moon’s slightly elliptical orbit.
But, my wording was “…always faces the inside of the orbit”
You’re soooooo desperate.
Clint R
Smooth move exlax, but you were deliberately comparing the Moon to the ball on a string which has a face that does always face directly to the center of the revolution.
Maybe you didn’t say it then, but you are saying it now and you are still wrong
“One side of Moon always faces Earth, with the slight variation due to Moons slightly elliptical orbit.”
The face of the Moon also does not face the Earth because of the elliptical orbit, it also doesn’t face the Earth directly because it’s rotational axis is tilted with respect to the orbiting axis.
Your complaint is denied.
How you doing on that calculation of the circumference of a circle?
How about them reference frames, have you figured out what an inertial reference frame is and how to use it.
Did you study physics the same place as Gordon?
Come on give me some more bafflebarf!
Not very well I see.
No matter how much you attempt to pervert reality bob, the simple analogy of the ball-on-a-string destroys all your nonsense.
That’s why you have to keep making stuff up.
Clint R,
I am not the one who makes shit up, that’s you and your pure orbital motion.
You can’t do math, you don’t know physics, so you make shit up.
How you doing on that calculation of the circumference of a circle?
And you make more shit up, claiming a ball on a string is a valid model for the motion of the Moon.
No, it’s not, crack that physics book.
Wow, a 4-minute response time!
bob is really getting desperate now. The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string has all his nonsense sliced, diced, dried, and baked.
And poor bob still doesn’t understand the simple analogy is about orbiting without axial rotation. It was never meant to be a perfect model of Moon. It’s just that both the Moon and the ball-on-a-string keep the same side facing the center of the orbit.
Clint R,
It’s not even close to being perfect, it is so flawed it’s actually useless.
Still having problems with calculating the circumference of a circle?
Hell if you can’t do that, what can you do?
A ball on a string has only one axis of rotation..
…as viewed in the accelerated frame.
No, a ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, period. Regardless of reference frames.
That is incorrect DREMT, Tesla proved you wrong as he showed “relatively” reference frames do matter. The ball on string is proven to have 2 rotational axes in inertial frame radii r,R (as in Fig. 2(b)) and one rotational axis radius R in the spinning frame of the string as Tesla shows you in Fig. 6. I know relativity is hard but Tesla gets it right and proves you wrong.
One axis of rotation, regardless of reference frames, as per Madhavi Fig 2(b) and Tesla.
…and Tesla in the spinning frame of the string and spokes “relatively” speaking.
He said “relatively to their axes” and by “their” he was referring to the balls themselves. He never specified any motion relative to the spokes as you seem to imagine. All you ever do is misrepresent people.
That’s wrong DREMT; it is you misrepresenting Tesla as can be seen in formula for E of the “relatively” frame where he drops the radius r of the ball in the spinning frame solution for E. The ball is not observed rotating on its r axis in that frame so the energy represented by radius r is zero & radius r is that of the ball. That energy is included in E for observed inertial frame where Tesla correctly includes rotational energy in E on both r,R radii, two axes.
DREMT’s physics incompetence stands out courtesy of Tesla’s correct momentum and energy E analysis for Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 spinning frames on radius R of the spokes and the string.
All you ever do is misrepresent people.
> The problem I have with you in particular and the Moon debate is that you refuse to listen to basic, sound logic. You rush off into mental spaces with your reference frames that have nothing to do with reality or physics.
Logic usually isn’t about mind states, Gordon, unless we’re talking about doxastic logics, but I doubt physics need that kind of exotic tools.
But speaking of sound logic, I will note this:
It’s really hard to offer an impossibility proof with a model. Unless you can get your hand on a categorical model, all you’re usually establishing something like a proof of concept. That does not imply anything regarding any other model we can produce.
In other words, that you can find a way to construct a physical model in which the Moon does not rotate does not refute other models, especially the current one in which the Moon does.
More importantly, if it happens that the *fact* is that the Moon rotates on its axis, then so much the worse for your model.
As a lousy mathematician once never said, e pur si muove!
Hope this helps.
Willard, please stop trolling.
bill hunter…”NASA says they used more than 20,000 stations. How were the 1218 chosen?”
Both NASA GISS and Had-crut get their data from NOAA. Here’s an explanation of the 1218 stations directly from NOAA. Note that you have to search the Wayback machine because NOAA no longer reveals their chicanery.
http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Robertson
You are exactly as ignorant about weather stations as is hunter.
For hopefully the very last time: the 1,218 USHCN stations are ALL located in CONUS, Robertson.
Thus you can stop your dumb chicanery claims right now.
{ Btw, one has the impression that even for NOAA, Alaska doesn’t seem to really belong to the USA. }
J.-P. D.
Earlier on, Tim Folkerts in an attempt “To recap for those with poor critical reading skills.”, wrote –
“You clearly said y > [you sarcastically said] “tell us how blankets dont warm” (meaning you believe “blankets do warm”).”
Should I thank Tim for his sterling efforts to turn reasonably clear English into Timese, under the guise of helping those with poor critical reading skills?
Probably not. I think I can understand my thinking better than Tim’s largely incomprehensible attempts to substitute his interpretations of what I wrote.
Tim’s fantasy world is richly bizarre. No wonder he prefers it to reality.
To make is simple.
The original claim includes an active source of thermal energy (a living, breathing person) … you got rid of that source (a corpse).
The original claim said “warm” … you changed that to “heat”.
You changed the conditions. You claimed W believed something he did not say.
Why?
T,
Here is what Willard wrote –
“Perhaps you should start with the basics, and tell us how blankets dont warm?”
Only in your fantasy does his witless attempt at a gotcha contain a reference to a living breathing person.
I have answered his question, it appears. Blankets don’t warm – nor does CO2.
Back to your richly bizarre fantasy, Tim. Obviously, reality is too much for you.
You know and I both know that the “original claim” far predates this thread. Claims about “blankets warming a person” or “insulation warming a house” *always* include active metabolism or an active furnace. These claims *never* include the blanket or the insulation “heating” anything (not in the thermodynamic sense of heat = Q).
I don’t know why you keep changing the problem to something other than the intended question, by removing the active source of thermal energy.
T,
I see. Ignoring what alarmists write, and substituting what you think they should have written is proper procedure, is it?
Raymond Pierrehumbert wrote “Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.”.
Tell me Tim, what did he really mean? What active furnace or active metabolism would cause the insulating effect of 400 ppm CO2 to cause surface temperatures to rise over recent times?
If you want to complain that Pierrehumbert really meant something else, he also wrote –
“The temperature of your house is intermediate between the temperature of the flame in your furnace and the temperature of the outdoors, and adding insulation shifts it toward the former by reducing the rate at which the house loses energy to the outdoors.”
Are you trying to say that climatological insulation is different to normal insulation, and that Pierrehumbert is confused?
He might even be as confused as you are!
I have always for many years heard it characterized as a blanket warming a dead body.
Obviously there is a heat source it just doesn’t cool. Heat gets under the blanket and the blanket doesn’t amplify the heat.
If the blanket is transparent the body will heat slower due to imperfect transparency. As Dr Woods showed, a dead body under a blanket transparent to visible light (and higher frequencies) but opaque to IR will warm even more slowly (sunlight is 50% IR).
Both examples will warm to the same temperature assuming both blankets have the same insulation value. Objects that absorb light cannot warm anything warmer than the absorbing object. . . .2nd law of thermodynamics.
“Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.”
Yes. That is what he really meant. Insulation is insulation. CO2 is “insulation”, making it more difficult for heat to escape.
And he meant the sun is the furnace. He shouldn’t have to remind peopel that there is a sun continuously providing energy. Your analogy of a corpse is like an earth with on sun.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Yes. That is what he really meant. Insulation is insulation. CO2 is insulation, making it more difficult for heat to escape.”
1))) that is the theory but the effect has never been measured other than the existence of GHE which isn’t necessarily caused by GHG though it is well established that it important to what does cause it.
”And he meant the sun is the furnace. He shouldnt have to remind peopel that there is a sun continuously providing energy. Your analogy of a corpse is like an earth with on sun.”
You forget the Dr. Woods experiment where the greenhouse does warm but not because it blocks the exit of IR. If a multi-layered GHE using nothing but GHG actually warmed anything there should have been a very large difference inside the greenhouse that blocked IR vs the one that did not. Its my opinion you can’t just wave your hand and say that the atmosphere is not a greenhouse, clearly the IR opaque glass forms an additional layer. Now I am not saying this makes it impossible but you need more to establish it than what is available.
A further comment on the policy side:
People in the know are aware of the uncertainty. Thats why there is so much discussion regarding the supposed need for a policy position of post normal science where the rulers determine what the best science is. Then that prevails until proven false to the full satisfaction of the rulers or they get voted out of office, provided the people even have control of their own elections anymore.
From my perspective that is a push for returning to a form of authoritarianism. Back to the days where Kings ruled supreme. The same policy held by tribal chieftains thousands of years ago, where minorities and individuals were subject to whims and wishes of those in power. Its fully consistent with socialism of all genres as socialism is the replacement for all religions. It spells the end of personal initiative and personal freedom. If it isn’t OK with the State it simply won’t be allowed. Getting guns out of the hands of those appalled by this direction is one of the top imperatives, using some other pretense to accomplish it.
Sure you will likely be able to pray to the God of your choice still as long as you don’t become a nuisance. . . .a heretic. . . .a denier. . . .ignorant. . . .undeserving. . . .unworthy of a job. . . .your speech becomes objectionable or worse false, or something of that ilk.
If that sounds far fetched perhaps you should study the history of civilization.
TF,
You wont’t like this definition, I suspect –
“The act of covering something to stop heat, sound, or electricity from escaping or entering, or the fact that something is covered in this way”
Note the “. . . escaping or entering . .. “.
Delusional alarmists refuse to acknowledge that insulation is used to prevent the ingress of heat (as in cold rooms, refrigerators, firemens’ protective clothing, etc.), as well as keeping things warm.
They can’t even figure out why thermometers need Stevenson screens to insulate them from the direct rays of the Sun.
Poor deluded alarmists! Try perverting reality again, Tim. Let me know how it works out for you.
“refuse to acknowledge that insulation is used to prevent the ingress of heat ”
Poor ignorant Swenson, once again unable to understand the actual heat transfer involved in GHE, or relevant analogies.
But always ready to expertly take down an argument that literally no one is making! Good job!
For the record, these are things that literally no one is claiming to be true, thus don’t need to be attacked with Kung Fu:
1. that insulation can’t keep things cool as well as warm.
2. that CO2 is a heat source.
3. that the GHE, and all useful analogies involve insulation of unheated things.
Willard asked –
“Can you name just one person who would be so foolish as to give an asshat like you anything to review?”
Why do you assume that all scientific papers are written by fools? I don’t know what an asshat is, and if someone requests that I review a paper, maybe they don’t know, either.
The authors of papers I have been asked to review may have been fools for all I know, in one respect or another. Certainly, some have made decisions which have been to their ultimate disadvantage. Foolish? Perhaps.
Maybe you should refine your gotcha. I could name authors of papers which were given to me to review, but why should I, given that you think they are fools anyway.
Maybe you could address the alleged heat producing properties of CO2, for a diversion.
No?
Poor sheltered Flynn/Swennie
You don’t know what an asshat is? Look in the mirror.
It’s someone who wears his ass for a hat!
b,
Reverting to puerile attempts at insults, are you?
Typical behaviour from an ignorant alarmist. Is that really the best you can do?
No wonder people laugh at you!
I suppose you think you got fired because the management was jealous of your brilliance. Really?
Robertson
As usual, you are completely ignorant about what you write, regardless what it is about (temperature series, Eart’s energy balance, Clausius, Moon’s spin, Einstein, viruses, etc etc etc).
*
You just need to look at
https://tinyurl.com/dhbd2txn (tinyURL’d because of ncd-c in the link)
{ Unluckily, NOAA keeps desperately CONUSian, and produces here anomalies based in Fahrenheit instead of Celsius. You can’t transfrom F anomalies into C anomalies. In 2021!!! That’s really incredible. }
Then you
– download the time series in CSV format;
– load it into a spreadsheet calc;
– transform the absolute F data into absolute C data;
– compute the baseline vector for the reference period 1981-2010 out of the C data;
– compute the anomalies wrt that baseline;
– print a chart with the NOAA plot together with the UAH ‘USA48’ plot the data for which you find in Roy Spencer’s link on top of the thread.
That’s all. I won’t be exactly similar, because it is nowhere indicated that the NOAA data is USHCN (it is probably NClimDiv data).
*
But you aren’t even able to do such a simple job. And you pretend to be or to have been an engineer, Robertson?
I get a big, big, big laugh.
J.-P. D.
Robertson (ctnd)
As one of my former university professors said decades ago:
” Who is not able to contradict, soon will start to discredit. ”
He was plain right, Robertson: you show exactly the miserable behavior he was talking about.
Here ios what NOAA originally shows at its ‘Climate at a Glance’ page, when
– selecting ‘National’ average temperatures for all months, and
– processing the data as explained above:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12xp9K6bMF2MOrC21Dlg6ADQG-wKS-tQI/view
Trends in deg C/decade for 1979-2020:
– USHCN raw, GHCN daily: 0.14
– UAH USA48: 0.18
– USHCN adj: 0.29
– CAAG: 0.27
all trends around +- 0.05
Thus, the data shown in absolute form by NOAA has, in anomaly form, a trend even lower than that of USHCN adjusted.
*
You are no more than an absolutely incompetent boaster who, cowardly hidden behind a faked name,discredits and denigrates the work of others BECAUSE being unable to do it yourself.
I can’t recall any former engineering colleague having ever behaved as dumb as you do.
J.-P. D.
Biden and the left are doing the coup de grace with the debt. They are burdening the country with so much debt so that they can be standing on the pile of rubble at the end, declaring themselves Kings of the pile. They of course will live in luxury while everyone else squirms around in the pile.
No complaints when Trump did it, transferring a bunch of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.
Speaking as a member of a middle class family, I can say I did not directly give the wealthy more of my wealth under Trump. I did however pay less to the federal government and I did use the extra money to tip higher at restaurants and save for my daughters college. Not sure if you consider bartenders and wait staff wealthy or maybe your implying restaurants owned by the rich benefited. Either way, it resulted in lower unemployment and poverty prior to the Covid19 pandemic. So not sure what I would complain about.
The increase in the debt, which is what SPA was complaining about.
Anyway it’s your tax money going to pay the rich people who own the US debt.
Precovid additional debt by Trump was similar in current dollars to previous presidents, including Barrack Obama. The debt related to Covid was bipartisan effort to assist those impacted by Covid and to accelerate vaccine development. What SPA seems to be complaining about is Biden/Left going beyond the typical and in a non bipartisan fashion.
As far as my tax money, approximately 1/3 goes to FICA for social security/medicaid/medicare and disability, 1/3 to the military and remainder for debt and other operations of the federal government. A very small amount goes to supporting other countries. The rich people owning US debt are not getting the greatest return on their money. A good portion of US debt is owned by middle class people and other countries.
The rich subsidize me because they don’t pay a fair share of taxes, they pay the lion share.
Your estimate of the percentage of the US federal budget that goes to the military is faulty.
And there are valid reasons for Obama’s and Biden’s spending increases, but Trump’s tax cut were for grift.
The top 10% pay 75% of the tax burden. Biden and the Democrats have put spending in overdrive. Already way outspending Trump. Trump was in government for four years. He inherited a system that Biden and Pelosi and McConnell have built for 50 years.
The Republicans want to do $1 trillion infrastructure. Biden wants to do $4T. You can’t outspend the leftists.
Biden believes the government creates jobs. He says Green Energy Plan will create 10 million new jobs. Biden and the leftist Democrats see their utopia within reach. Just a little more spending and we’ll be there.
Bob
You are correct, military is closer to 22%. The military spent $750B and there was $3.42T in revenue. But I sometimes just look at income/FICA taxes and not consider Corporate Taxes, excise, other revenues.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-spending-by-country#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20the%20U.S.%20spent%20%24750%20billion%20on,The%20United%20States%20%28%24750%20billion%29%20China%20%28%24237%20billion%29
https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2020-federal-budget-summary-of-revenue-and-spending-4797868#:~:text=The%20fiscal%20year%20%28FY%29%202020%20federal%20budget%20outlines,%242%20trillion%20more%20than%20the%20%241.08%20trillion%20budgeted.
I think we agree that the taxes implemented under Trump administration was a gift. However, I recognize that it is a gift from the rich and not from Trump. By my calculation the per person annual tax burden is about $10,000 give or take so my family of 4 would have a fair share of $40,000 in taxes. I thank the rich for subsidizing that fair share and the additional $3000 subsidy I received with Trump. But I don’t thank Trump or even voted for him. I do thank the rich.
As far as Obama’s spending increases and Biden’s proposed increases being valid. I just don’t see it. Obama cut taxes as well, and spent money on bank bailouts, Simpson Bowles, ARRA and ACA. My taxes went down modestly, my annual healthcare insurance premium went from $2640 to over $7,200 in three short years and then Blue Cross cancelled my policy because it did not be federal criteria under ACA. So I don’t think I can thank Obama. Will have to wait for Biden’s results before assessing.
Sorry, got out of the thread, that was a reply to bobdroege
I am not an economist by any stretch, but I think others might argue that a 2 trillion dollar infrastructure expenditure might result in an additional tax receipts of 2 trillion.
Indeed. Thats why the dems refused to negotiate with him. . . .and also as a retaliation against Mitch McConnell for blocking their socialist programs.
Does this work like spamming comments or blocking IPs?
Willard, please stop trolling.
The smoke and mirrors really gets obscure with IMF Special Drawing Rights. Apparently there is now another 500 billion being created out of thin air. Anyone with savings is going to get wiped out as the dollar gets inflated into nothingness.
–bdgwx says:
March 31, 2021 at 7:52 AM
gbaikie said: No one claims it is much and its not measurable.
IPCC SR15 SPM A.1 – Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8C to 1.2C.–
Human activity does not equal CO2 emission. No one claims global CO2 levels of last 100 years have caused about 1 C.
And no one has precise global temperature of pre-industrial period. Some will say during coldest decades within say last, 400 to 500 years, it was 2 to 3 C colder than recent decades.
–gbaikie said: There has many been warmer periods in last 800,000 years then the period we are in in the present, yet the claim is CO2 is highest level in 800,000 years.
Yeah. There almost certainly has been warmer periods in the last 800,000 and especially in the last several hundred million years.–
+100 million years ago, Earth was a different Earth due to changes due to plate tectonic activity. Though there has significant change in last 50 million year, but in terms say around 20 million years, one could say Earth changed significantly, less. And during last 34 million years, Earth has been in an icehouse climate {caused plate tectonic and changing geological factor] And within this Late Cenozoic Ice Age the last 800,000 years has had the coldest global temperature. Perhaps the coldest Earth has ever been, though some imagine Earth has had snowball periods, and this were true, a snowball Earth would be a colder period. I think the geothermal energy of Earth would prevent a Snowball Earth. And I think Earth geothermal energy is significant factor that prevents runaway effect from glaciation growth. And of course most of Earth’s geothermal heat is from the ocean {ocean covers 70%, ocean floor is young, and per square km average the ocean emits more geothermal heat}. And runaway cooling from growing ice sheets is largely thought of as something most confined to land or near it, I tend to think more related to “polar sea ice” or when much larger area of Earth {which is the oceans] are covered with ice.
gbaikie
” And of course most of Earth’s geothermal heat is from the ocean {ocean covers 70%, ocean floor is young, and per square km average the ocean emits more geothermal heat}. ”
Is that one of your usual guesses, or are you able to show us a proof of what you pretend?
*
Anyway, geothermal heat is below 1 W/m^2 on global average, and even if it was 10 times higher below the oceans, that would still be 10 W/m^2.
So what!
J.-P. D.
“Anyway, geothermal heat is below 1 W/m^2 on global average, and even if it was 10 times higher below the oceans, that would still be 10 W/m^2.
So what!”
Yeah, it’s sort of like the doubling CO2, huh?
{but it’s different}.
Why do we have a cold ocean?
The answer is that cold water falls.
And in terms of watts per square meter of cooling how much if averaged over the entire ocean?
That’s unfair question, because no one knows.
But the good news is that eventually, it probably will be measured.
What about the tropical ocean heat engine, how many watts per square meter of the entire ocean is warmed below, say below 1000 meters of ocean depth.
One could assume this known. Because it’s claimed:
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent.”
So, we are suppose to care about global warming and more than 90% of it is warming the ocean depths.
I believe the story is doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square meter. So 3.7 watts times .9 {or more} = 3.33 watts per square meter {or more} heating ocean??.
But if want heat to remain, it is better to heat from bottom than from the top. Or 30% of heat which deeper will last longer than warmed water nearer the surface. So might say 3.33 times .3 = 0.999 watts per square meter.
Or the cargo cult is very excited about .9 watts per square meter warming in the ocean depths.
Though it’s probably incorrect estimate.
Global warming or cooling is not something which happens quickly.
We are not going to die in 12 years from global warming.
We been cooling for about 5000 years.
What was the ocean temperature, 5000 years ago?
Can get back to that temperature in a 1000 years?
gbaikie said: Human activity does not equal CO2 emission.
I answered the CO2 attribution question directly above. My main point was addressing your comment that “no one claims it is much and its not measurable”. IPCC AR5 WGI documents how much and how it is measured. IPCC SR15 provides an updated and concise declaration of the total anthropogenic effect. You can easily use the AR5 WGI attribution and infer that 0.7C of that 1.0C is CO2. Note that this is only the TCR. The ECR of 1.5C would yield 1.1C from CO2. Refer to my post above.
gbaikie said: And no one has precise global temperature of pre-industrial period. Some will say during coldest decades within say last, 400 to 500 years, it was 2 to 3 C colder than recent decades.
Regional shifts may have been 2 or even 3C like from the MWP to the LIA, but globally the decadal temperatures have been confined to relatively narrow range until the industrial revolution.
gbaikie said: And I think Earth geothermal energy is significant factor that prevents runaway effect from glaciation growth.
Geothermal is about +0.1 W/m^2. Most of that is radiothermal with only about +0.01 W/m^2 due to tidal dissipation.
Anyway, keep in mind that this long term multi-million year decline in temperature has occurred as solar output has been increasing. In fact, solar radiative forcing increases by about 2.0 W/m^2 ever 100 million years. So why was the Earth so much warmer in the past? This is the crux of the faint young Sun problem. To solve the problem scientists have to consider ALL radiative forcing agents including CO2 which has been declining over multi-million year timescales. Again…it’s not just about solar and CO2 though. There are a lot of other factors in play both in the distant past and today.
b,
You wrote –
“So why was the Earth so much warmer in the past? This is the crux of the faint young Sun problem. To solve the problem scientists have to consider ALL radiative forcing agents including CO2 which has been declining over multi-million year timescales.”
The faint young Sun paradox exists only in the imagination of those who refuse to accept that the Earth remains more than 99% molten. Even at present, the solid crust averages about 10 km thick, against the other 6300 km underneath which has not cooled enough to be solid – after four and a half billion years or so.
If you want to keep denying reality, go ahead. If you want to believe NASA, that “CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth’s Temperature.” is science, go right ahead!
Others share your fantasy.
Good morning, Mike.
Given that the surface was molten, what was the mechanism that resulted in a solid surface with an average temperature of say, 290K, given that the present average surface temperature might be 288K?
W,
You certainly are besotted by the mythical Mike, aren’t you? Is he the fount of all human knowledge in your mind?
Is your question serious? Convince me you are too ignorant to understand cooling, and I will have a good laugh at your expense!
Or, maybe really believe that I am the only reliable source of the knowledge that you claim to be seeking. If so, how much are you prepared to pay me to provide the knowledge which you are seeking so desperately?
Sorry about the missing “you” in my previous comment.
I blame it on excessive chortling.
You’re all forgiven, son.
My conclusion is that after four and a half billion years, CO2 in the atmosphere at any concentration, and four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight have not prevented the planet from cooling.
Don’t you agree?
W,
So you weren’t just pretending to be stupid. You just ask pointless questions for no particular reason, being unable to control yourself.
Good for you!
One word to describe a drop in temperature is cooling. The mechanism by by which this occurs is obviously beyond you. My previous offer stands.
By the way, have you figured out why you cannot distinguish between your son, and someone apparently named Mike? Why would you think I am either?
As to whether I agree with you or not, why should I bother answering? Facts are facts, whether I agree or not. Your opinion is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, as is mine.
Thanks for the admiration, though.
I am a little confused by your use of the word “serious”.
Would you be so good as to provide a definition of the word as you use it. Are you really seeking agreement to a statement, or are you inserting a nonsense word to imply sarcasm?
Thank you.
Live well and prosper.
W,
You are more than a little confused. You are confusing me with someone who cares what you think.
Why should I?
Going further, what insane fantasy prompts you to imagine that I would deign to answer one of your pointless and irrelevant gotchas?
Ho, ho ho!
Enjoy your fantasy world.
Would you mind expressing yourself in such a way that the words communicate your thoughts clearly, concisely and correctly?
I apologise if you suffer from a disability that prevents you from expressing yourself clearly. If so, you have my sympathy. In future I will ask you what you meant to say, rather than what you said, if that is your desire.
Thank you for your explanation.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I want another source than IPCC. UN is not a science body. Further, UN is about political agenda and to often that means truth is not front and center.
I would like our governments to follow Peter Ridd’s advice about conducting quality assurance to test, check, and replicate what IPCC produces.
Ken
The IPCC use expert reviewers for quality control and peer review.
If you have relevant expertise you could become one yourself. Past ARs have included a number of sceptics.
https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/10/11/wg2-ar6-first-order-draft-expert-review/
The IPCCs job is to publish periodic reviews of the current state of science relating to climate change. It’s intended audience is government policy makers.
It does not do research. That is done by academic and government scientists worldwide.
You dont have to rely on the IPCC to filter the science for you. Go directly to the published papers in the journals.
Ent, if it were about science, the IPCC would never have been formed.
It’s all about political agenda, including perversion and corruption.
https://www.dw.com/en/un-climate-panel-head-rajendra-pachauri-quits-after-sex-abuse-complaint/a-18276983
And, don’t forget “Climategate”, even though you want to.
EM,
Would you believe the conclusions of the paper “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”?
Would you accept the paper as representing valid science? I suggest you read the paper before you respond. Assertion is not fact. Neither is speculation.
Your link contains –
“All IPCC reports undergo two stages of review. A First Order Draft is reviewed by experts.”
Richard Feynman wrote –
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it
The IPCC is a pointless waste of time. Maybe you can provide evidence of anything the IPCC has done which has provided any measurable benefit to humanity, although I doubt it.
Gullibility and cultist beliefs are unlikely to assist the search for scientific knowledge.
entropic…”You dont have to rely on the IPCC to filter the science for you”.
The IPCC cherry picks papers that favour the AGW theory. Ask John Christy of UAH what he thinks. He served on IPCC reviews as a lead author and a reviewer. In the Climategate emails, Phil Jones bragged that he and his partner Kevin would block a paper co-authored by John Christy.
The IPCC are a load of biased, cheating b****rds.
The IPCC are most unreasonable. They cherry pick papers which are coherent, consistent and consilient.
Exactly Ent. Attempting to pervert reality is most unreasonable.
E,
Like this piece of egregious nonsense, perhaps?
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”
Go on. Name the dimwitted IPCC members who thought this was science.
On the other hand, the IPCC states –
“The WGI assessment provides scientific information relevant for the global community to meet the challenge of climate change.”
Unfortunately, nobody can actually identify any which has occurred as a result of the IPCC. Your local psychic is just as useful, and a whole lot cheaper. If you disagree, an actual example or two would help.
What insane fantasy prompts you to imagine that E would deign to answer one of your pointless and irrelevant gotchas?
Gordon, actually the IPCC has been improving out of the criticisms received. That’s how governments and institutions work.
Certainly remains a lot of cherry picking mostly after the document leaves the hands of the larger body of scientists and becomes edited by nations and leading authors in the executive summaries.
But when you look at the underlying science that has been improving by a great deal. You can find stuff like 50% of a carbon pulse leaving the atmosphere in perhaps as little as 10 years. In the executive summary they will say many thousands of years but here they are focused on removing every bit of extra carbon added the atmosphere in the past 150 years on the assumption it was all added by man. A non-concern worded as if it were a concern. Removing 50% of the pulse would be plenty sufficient if and when bad stuff actually starts happening.
Thats an example of executive summary cherry picking. Another is the continued presentation of model output after multiple rounds of IPCC AR reports showing them to be overstating the concerns.
In the hey day of climate alarmism, Ben Santer was able to draw a projection line off 17 years of observed warming that actually matched the model predictions.
That was in AR3 published several years after the slowing of warming had already started making it out of date before it finished its rounds of political editing.
Santer had 30 years of data to work with but chose to select the most recent 17 years as evidence that warming was accelerating and would continue at that level in sync with projected human emissions.
Back then Republicans were on board as they do endorse science much to the denial of democrats. But they got conned by the biases, objectives, purpose, and methods of appointment, authoring, and a whole lot of other quite unrestrained ways of bringing forth bias into science.
Several years later before the next report folks realized they had been conned. A commission was created to review the procedures of the IPCC in hopes of preventing a repeat. The Commission issued a report of recommended ways to improve the situation many of which the IPCC adopted but the IPCC rejected the idea of making leading authors independent of the outcome.
Yes independence is really important. Its why the civil service works so much better. If they made the IPCC to bring independence considerations into the selection of leading authors the IPCC process would be much improved again and likely bring the language of the executive summaries in line with the body of science rather than leading author cherry picking.
The IPCC rejected the recommendation arguing they wanted to continue the biased selection because they wanted to be able to select the most qualified scientist as leading author and didn’t want to hog tie him by disallowing him from advancing his own work. . . .which obviously they were regarding as the best work.
LMAO!! Anybody that buys that I have a really great bridge for sale that will make you a ton!
Ken, you can go directly to the publications and review them yourself. The IPCC does little if any research. They just collate what is available.
That would be ‘collate, sort, and selectively feature’
Those dastardly rich people pay 75% of the tax.
Stephen…”Those dastardly rich people pay 75% of the tax”.
In your dreams. A Canadian small businessman once told me that if a businessman pays any taxes there is something wrong. He was talking about write-offs used creatively. Canadian corporations are taxed somewhere around 18% while a union tradesman with higher wages is taxed around 35%. Overall, Canadian workers are taxed up to 50% when all taxes are taken into account.
Bigger than corporate tax breaks is the handouts they get from government. You talk about the cost of social plans like medicare. If the US government stopped doling out handouts to corporations, and they taxed them fairly, the US would have easily enough money for full medical coverage for every person in the US.
bill hunter…”reflecting my frugal Scottish blood”.
According to Billy Connolly, our Scottish blood is blue. He bases that, in part, on the fact that we tend to turn blue when we dip an ankle in the North Sea, as we prepare for swimming.
I have further proof. Whenever I watch the Scottish international soccer team, their abject lack of talent and ability turns me blue. There was a day when we stood among the best in the world talent-wise…Kenny Dalgeish, Denis Law, et al.
I wondered what happened. When I was visiting Scotland a couple of years ago I stopped to watch a soccer practice. Talked to the coaches who were watching and told them of training regimes I had endured as a younger man. They both looked somewhat astounded and assured me you could never get young players to train like that today.
You mentioned John Christy.
He showed a graph of CMIP5 data to Congress which has become notorious as an example of disingenuous misinterpretation.
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=243
If the paper Jones and Trenberth were trying to block was as bad, they were doing science a favour.
Clean up your own cesspit before criticising others.
E,
No doubt you regard this sort of nonsense – “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature” as science.
As to Jones and Trenberth, Jones is a self appointed climatologist (PhD from the Department of Civil Engineering), and Kevin Trenberth is a meteorogist who suffers from the delusion that ocean water heated by the Sun sinks, and doesn’t cool.
Some people are stupid or gullible enough to hold these people up as examples of climate experts!
Climate is the average of weather. Even you can calculate averages, I hope. Not much skill involved.
On God’s Earth System Climate Control console are eight control knobs.
They are labelled Plate tectonics,Solar insolation, Milankovich cycles, Impacts, Albedo, Volcanoes, Land use and greenhouse gases.
There are dials showing the setting for each control knob and another showing the overall effect.
The first six are set to neutral or slight cooling.
Land use is slightly positive and CO2 set to 0.18C/decade. Since the CO2 is the only knob set to produce significant warming, the dials for CO2 and overall warming both show 0.18C/decade.
Ent believes: “Since the CO2 is the only knob set to produce significant warming…”
CO2 does NOT “produce significant warming”, Ent.
You do not get to make up stuff. You do not get to change reality to fit your false beliefs.
I particularly like William Happer’s paper about ‘Radiation Transfer’ that briefly appeared on the President’s website. Here is a link to it. https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/
After reading, it should be clear to anyone of ‘technical common sense’ that CO2 does not produce significant warming.
Good catch:
https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/
How’s that for a control knob, Ken?
That paper did not appear on the President’s website. It did, however, contain the Presidential seal without authorization or approval. The paper actually appeared on the website https://www.ceres-science.com/ and this blog briefly and until the The White House Office of Science and Technology ordered their removal.
Regardless, the paper is contradictory to your claim that CO2 does not produce significant warming. In fact, the paper says that 2xCO2 produces +3 W/m^2 of radiative force which differs from the canonical and well supported value of +3.7 W/m^2 by 19%. What this means is that Happer believes CO2 is a significant contributing factor to the contemporary warming era. He provides no reference or evidence for his +3 W/m^2 value.
Yes, without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a lifeless snowball with all water frozen.
Apparently you missed the bit where H2O is described as a greenhouse gas that absorbs a much greater percentage of the radiation than does CO2.
> Apparently you missed the bit where H2O is described as a greenhouse gas that absorbs a much greater percentage of the radiation than does CO2.
Quoting it would be nice, Ken. Here’s what a quote looks like:
That beautiful passage does not mention how H2O would be the True Control Knob. In fact that idea would not cohere to the passage where Bill tries to minimize the Tyndall gas effect by appealing to clouds:
So let’s recap Bill’s propositions:
(P1) Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a lifeless snowball with all water frozen.
(P2) Doubling the concentrations of greenhouse gases, a very substantial change, reduces the radiation to space by only a few Wm-2
(P3) Cloud cover further diminishes the influence of greenhouse gases
I duly submit that people with technical common sense (whatever that means) might see that P1 and P2 contradict themselves and wonder how from P3 we can infer that H2O is the True Control Knob.
More string basses might be needed.
Ken said: Apparently you missed the bit where H2O is described as a greenhouse gas that absorbs a much greater percentage of the radiation than does CO2.
Nope. We understand H2O’s potency quite well no thanks to Happer. We also understand that CO2 is a non-condensing gas whereas H2O is condensing.
BTW…here is a peer reviewed publication that quantifies the radiative effects of both CO2 and H2O.
https://tinyurl.com/ye5hp37b
W says:
Good catch:
Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a lifeless snowball with all water frozen
https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/
Hows that for a control knob, Ken?
=============================
Willard that’s pitifully stupid. Have your forgotten that mean global temperature has little to do with the mean temperature by latitude. . . .and a lot of physical chemistry science like Henry’s law that is going to ensure beyond any doubt a huge amount of water vapor in the atmosphere along with what is it 280ppm of carbon dioxide as well?
Bottom line with the issue at hand things couldn’t be worse that the late 19th century.
Remember W, a realistic perspective is imperative or you are in danger of looking like a Chicken Little. Control knob my arse! This idea is totally discredited yet you are still being conned?
Bill,
You can’t spell climate sensitivity, but even if you did you would not know when to stop.
Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near -18C instead of 15C.
To me that’s a big difference.
Live long and prosper.
Willard says:
Bill,
You can’t spell climate sensitivity, but even if you did you would not know when to stop.
Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near -18C instead of 15C.
——————————-
Your post just shows how badly and poorly you have been inculcated Willard.
Without GHG there would be no clouds and no ice sheets. the only way those things are created is converting greenhouse gases into ice.
So without the albedo provided by greenhouse gases the global mean temperature of the earth would be approximately +5.5C
Bill uses an SAT word a lot recently. But he uses it like ‘educated’.
He is clearly not ‘inculcated’, as in uneducated on these matters.
I’m curious where the 5.5C value comes from.
The 5.5 degrees from the mean 341watt/m2 that shines on the surface of the planet.
Of that 341 watts about 102 watts is reflected by clouds representing a negative feedback to the effect of GHG in the atmosphere creating clouds and ice sheets and covering sea ice with snow.
You see removing the GHG also entails removing the negative feedbacks related to it.
That means an equilibrium temperature of 278.5k instead of the 255k that results from ice crystals arising from water vapor
and reflecting light away from the planets surface.
Significant negative feedbacks are an obvious factor in any radiation budget if you are paying attention to anything but 15 second soundbites.
Sure you can say the equilibrium temperature is 255k if the clouds and ice don’t change. But it seems pretty disingenuous to say that clouds would still exist that also preceeds the ice sheets.
Hmmmmmmm?
“Of that 341 watts about 102 watts is reflected by clouds..”
That’s clearly off bill, clouds & clear sky reflect about 75 (in about the same amount) and the surface about 25 of your 102.
Clouds are not GHGs so when you remove the GHGs, as you write, you do not explicitly remove clouds. Surface albedo would increase as temperatures fall and all sky albedo decrease so when the 255K is mentioned the assumption always is these changes balance for no change from current albedo. Sure, you can get another number than 255K or 278K (5.5C) depending on different albedo assumptions.
Meant to say clouds, snow, and snow covered ice sheets as they are all a product of water vapor. I say that later in the paragraph.
Entropic:
You say:
“On God’s Earth System Climate Control console are eight control knobs.
Land use is slightly positive and CO2 set to 0.18C/decade. Since the CO2 is the only knob set to produce significant warming, the dials for CO2 and overall warming both show 0.18C/decade.
———
So you conclude that CO2 is the culprit?
Thought you had taken more entropy pills but no I looked at the date:
April 1st
You should have a word with Bill Happer, TonyM:
https://climateball.net/but-semantics/
W,
Why would he bother?
Happer is wrong.
Res ipsa loquitur.
this is actually a great example of academia without real world application experience.
Take a conceptual idea like rotation and split it up into two compartmentalized rotations, or just considering as separable from another rotation and considering as so.
then to fix it from scientists destined for real jobs you need courses in kinematics to reassemble all the conceptual ideas into a package they can’t be separated from.
LOL! I just looked behind me and saw a Star Trek episode playing where the Triskelions kidnap Kirk and some of the crew.
The Triskelions are just brains with no bodies that disposed of their bodies to achieve higher levels of thinking. But they are instead totally backwards. Perfect timing!
Willard:
Are you suggesting removal of all CO2 causes a snowball effect?
It certainly will be lifeless on the surface without CO2; but “snowball” is too daft to comment on. Guess one could speculate that life could have evolved via a silicon route.
You are right Tony. The mean temp would be about 5.5c but life would be gone. Both from the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere, the lack of fresh water, the incredible diurnal range of temperature from well above boiling to more than a 100C below freezing.
Ent, let’s consider some reality.
Christy and Spencer are involved in research and science. They are constantly attacked by anonymous trolls like you, attempting to pervert reality.
You’ve even gone so far as to claim passenger jets fly backwards!
Clean up your own cesspool before criticizing others.
“Christy and Spencer are involved in research and science.”
Christy, in particular been involved in publicly presenting biased,selective and politically convenient versions of that science at the behest of the Republican party.He’s even been caught at it, as I pointed out.
Like other sceptic scientists who have allowed themselves to be subverted by the political Right and the fossil fuel lobby,it has affected his scientific credibility.
Ent, hiding behind a screen name and claiming that passenger jets fly backwards means it is YOU that has NO credibility.
Your criticism of others only adds to their credibility.
Clint R,
Jet planes circumnavigating the earth don’t fly backwards but they do constantly change direction.
Didn’t you take Geometry?
A circumnavigating jet is an example of “pure orbital motion”. It always has one side (bottom side) facing the center of its orbit. Just like the ball-on-a-string, or Moon.
It’s not hard to understand, except for idiots.
Clint R,
Kinda hard to get it if you can’t multiply three numbers together, especially when one of them is two, another one is pi.
Don’t you think?
Your pure orbital motion is usually referred to as synchronous rotation.
And it’s rotating.
Sorry you had such a sorry ass education.
Wrong again, bob.
There is NO “synchronous rotation” in “pure orbital motion”, because there is NO axial rotation.
It’s not hard to understand, except for idiots.
Clint R,
Not if “pure orbital motion” is what the Moon is doing, because the Moon is in synchronous rotation, and it is rotating.
You could figure that out if you could multiply the distance from the center of the Earth to the far side of the Moon times 2 * pi and compare that to the distance from the center of the Earth to the near side of the Moon times 2 * pi.
But you can’t, because your lack of education doesn’t hurt me none.
You can’t read the writing on the wall.
Clint R/DRsEMT the troll keeps repeating his same old argument about the Moon’s rotation, comparing it with a ball-on-a-string or a Merry-Go-Round. Trouble is, those simple mental models are only 2 dimensional, whereas the Moon’s orbital motion is in three Dimensions.
HERE’s a slightly modified schematic from Wikipedia. The graphic shows the Moon’s 3D orientation wrt the Earth when on opposite sides of the Earth. Take notice of the line between the Center of the Earth and the Center of the Moon. Notice that when the Moon is on the opposite side of the Earth, said line intersects the Moon at a different latitude than when it’s on the other side of the orbit two weeks later. Of course, we can’t see that side, which will be dark at the time.
To actually see the effect, one first view or photograph the Moon when it is Full, then wait 6 months when the Full Moon will occur on the opposite side of the orbit. Astronomers have performed this “measurement” for centuries, which is why we are certain that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
The “non-spinners” ball-on-a-string model would need to move the attachment point of the string on the ball slightly every revolution to accomplish this same visual effect. Not a chance in Hell kids, give it up…
Your Box is locked, Eric.
The ball on a string is not meant to be a model of the moon’s motion. The ball on a string is just a simple analogy for “pure orbital motion”, or “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Nobody is arguing that the moon’s motion isn’t full of complexities and oddities due to the competing gravitational pull from the Earth and sun.
What is your model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”, Swanson?
Wrong again, bob.
If Moon were actually rotating about its axis, we would see all sides from Earth. Just as passengers would know if the circumnavigating jet actually rotated about its axis.
If the ball-on-a-string were rotating about its axis, the string would wrap up.
It’s not hard to understand, except for idiots.
E. Swanson, I remember you now. You’re the one that was going to learn how to use a mop, after you graduated from “broom school”.
Did you ever graduate?
Hint: If Moon is not rotating about its axis when viewed from Earth, that means it is not rotating about its axis in 3-dimensions.
> The ball on a string is just a simple analogy for pure orbital motion, or orbital motion without axial rotation.
An analogy for an orbital motion without axial rotation does not an argument against an orbital motion without axial rotation make.
To borrow Bill’s favorite modalities, to prove that P is possible does not make P necessary.
> An analogy for an orbital motion without axial rotation does not an argument against an orbital motion without axial rotation make.
Erm. An analogy for an orbital motion without axial rotation does not an argument against an orbital motion with axial rotation make.
More tea.
E. Swanson
”The “non-spinners” ball-on-a-string model would need to move the attachment point of the string on the ball slightly every revolution to accomplish this same visual effect. Not a chance in Hell kids, give it up…”
Nobody said that the moon is attached by a string Swanson. If you desire for the physical properties of all objects in the universe to fit identically to a physics model you could discard all physics. It has become more than obvious the desperation of you guys to win an argument. Lets just say astronomers consider the moon to rotate on its own axis out of tradition left over from ancient times when gravity was not understood, followed by centuries of trying to figure out the cause of all the moons apparent motions when in fact they are more akin to relative motions of the observer.
As to the ‘string’ theory you are focused on. The moon is attached by infinite strings throughout the universe with gravity acting on the moon from all directions of variable intensity. The effect of virtually all of the ‘strings’ isn’t measureable. Right now the motion induced by two strings have been measured to my knowledge.
> Right now the motion induced by two strings have been measured to my knowledge.
Where?
I don’t see any measurement here:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
Nor there:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
At best there’s a toy example, but there’s no measurement in sight.
Bill,
“Lets just say astronomers consider the moon to rotate on its own axis out of tradition left over from ancient times when gravity was not understood, followed by centuries of trying to figure out the cause of all the moons apparent motions when in fact they are more akin to relative motions of the observer.”
Lets just say that is incorrect, Newton’s theory of gravity and Cassini’s laws of motion of the Moon were both late 17th century works.
And no relative motion poppycock.
Wrong again, bob.
Cassini didn’t have any “laws” that stand up to the scientific method. Cassini’s “laws” can be easily debunked with something as simple as a ball-on-a-string.
He should have studied Newton to understand orbital motion.
It’s not hard to understand, except for idiots.
Is there a Ball-in-String Generalized laws, Clint?
That’d be a shame you can’t, or we can generalize Cassini’s.
DRsEMT wrote:
I don’t have a model for such motion regarding the Moon. I think the center of mass of the Moon orbits and the Moon’s spherical mass rotates around the CM once an orbit. It’s blindingly obvious that the “axis” of the Moon’s orbit is a vector which points in a different direction from that which describes the Moon’s rotation.
You Flat Earth guys have claimed that every particle of mass in the Moon moves in concentric circles (actually, ellipses) around the the Earth-Moon barycenter, but that’s wrong because the poles exhibit orbital tracks which are not concentric with the motion of the center of mass.
Trollard, I assume you’re addressing me, since you used my name. But your comment is incomprehensible. Either you’re just learning English, or you’re drunk. I have to guess at what you’re attempting, since you can’t express yourself properly.
Apparently you found a link you can’t understand or even read. So you assume it somehow “proves” something, but you don’t know what you believe it “proves”. You’re just grasping at straws. Throwing out anything you can, to protect your cult.
You must have attended the same troll training as Bindidon, Norman, and SGW. That’s the technique they all use. It seems everything you attempt reveals what an idiot you are.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Swanson, DREMT didn’t ask for a model of Moon. He asked for your model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Ours is a ball-on-a-string, a merry-go-round horse, a runner on an oval track, or similar examples where an object makes an orbit but does not rotate about its axis.
You don’t have one. Ours are the only ones that work. You’re dodging reality.
Why run from reality?
What is your model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”, Swanson?
How do you think an object moves that is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis?
Clint,
On the one hand, I see there generalized Cassini’s Laws.
On the other, you don’t show any generalized Ball-on-a-String Laws.
As you have none of the things an engineer needs, and are not prepared to pay the engineer anything at all, it is highly likely that an engineer would suggest that you stop wasting his time.
Feel free to waste as much of my time as you can. I find your comments quite amusing.
Live well and prosper,
Trollard, you don’t know the difference between a real Law of physics, and some astrological nonsense. Newton was the first to demonstrate that “pure orbital motion” would always have the same side facing the inside of the orbit. No further generalization was needed.
And, you couldn’t even spell “engineer” without the help of spellcheck.
I waste my time responding to you, as it suits me. Mostly, trolls are ignorable.
Therein lies at least one problem, Clint. Your grasp of English is obviously defective. You should have written ”Landé.”
When a scientist hasn’t a clue, he admits it.
When a contrarian hasn’t a clue, he becomes ever more shrill and strident, expressing his belief that he actually knows everything, and the fact that Nature is uncooperative merely shows the stupidity of Nature.
I hope I have assisted you to correctly understand that you should not invoke Newton’s name in vain.
Live well and prosper,
Ignorant, incompetent, and ignorable.
Not doing very well, are you Trollard?
> Not doing well
You tell me, Clint.
Here’s what’s I have on the table:
doi.org/10.1086/110825
What do you got?
Nothing.
Why must I raise you?
Nevermind. Let’s do it:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2005.11.024
Your move.
Trollard, you don’t know anything about those links. You just find stuff to throw at the wall.
Idiot trolls like you are dime a dozen.
Linkies beat spit, Clint.
All you got is spit.
Spit on, my friend!
Come back when you’re thirsty.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The DRsEMT/ClintR sock puppet demands:
Model? As in Mathematical? OK, I would use the same mathematical description as is used for artificial satellites, which is, motion of the CG along an orbital track and zero spin in inertial space. And please note that the Moon rotates in inertial space.
Swanson neatly dodges giving any real answer. The moon appears to rotate on its own axis from certain specific inertial frames. From other inertial reference frames it is plainly visible that the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not about its own center of mass.
E. Swanson 8:52 am, an answer to DREMT’s 2:02pm question is illustrated in Prof. Madhavi’s course material as in Fig. 2(a) for the orbiting rectangle motion. The 2(a) rectangle shown is in “orbital motion without axial rotation” i.e. one inertial axis of rotation on radius R.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
The ball on string motion is Fig. 2(b) with two inertial axes of rotation r,R radii about O and c in Tesla’s notation. DREMT just doesn’t understand inertial and accelerated frames. Madhavi’s wording is imprecise which DREMT exploits. Tesla then goes on to show in the spinning string frame there is only axis R, his ball M is not observed to rotate on its own axis radius r in that spinning frame.
Fig. 2(a) is “curvilinear translation, without axial rotation, regardless of reference frame”.
Fig. 2(b) is “rotation about an external axis, without axial rotation, regardless of reference frame”.
No DREMT, Tesla has proved you physically wrong using different rotational energies E for his two frames “relatively” to each other.
Tesla used the word “relatively” twice in his third paper arguing that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. In neither usage of the word was he referring to reference frames.
Nothing in your comment proves Tesla’s two different formulas for rotational energy E physically wrong, go argue with Tesla’s physics.
Tesla agreed that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, and Tesla never mentioned reference frames.
Willard says:
> Right now the motion induced by two strings have been measured to my knowledge.
Where?
I don’t see any measurement here:
==============================
Isaac Newton was reported to have done it.
“Fig. 2(b) is ‘rotation about an external axis, without axial rotation, regardless of reference frame’.”
And the TEAM is on record knowing full well that the Moon, is NOT doing the motion in Fig 2b.
Because as they know very well by now, this very same source defines ‘rotation around an external axis’ as all parts moving in CIRCLES around an axis.
Thus the TEAM ignores this very inconvenient fact, because, well, lets face it, these people have no integrity.
“Tesla agreed that..”
And they keep going with non-expert authoritarianism, while ignoring Newton, the true expert on this subject.
In another Senior Moment, I mistakenly posted the wrong link to my graphic of the Moon’s orbit. So, in a belated effort, HERE IS THE PROPER LINK.
Not that the “Non-Spinner” cabal will understand…
Seen and discussed before.
“Christy, in particular been involved in publicly presenting biased, selective and politically convenient versions of that science at the behest of the Republican party.Hes even been caught at it, as I pointed out.”
Ad Hominem is a great way to avoid the truth and does not make a legitimate argument.
Adressing arguments is more potent indeed. For instance, here’s where John got :
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
Compare and contrast:
… where John got caught red handed, that is.
I gave you evidence that he deliberately presented misleading evidence to Conress.
Ad hominem is like libel.
Libel is falsely accusing someone of something in print.
If the accusation is true it is not libel.
> Ad hominem is like libel.
It rather works like a smear campaign, and true smears are still smears.
Here’s how I see it. In Climateball, to attack an authority is fine when relevant. Scientists do that all the time. To ask oneself “who’s that guy” is a good heuristic.
That’s just an heuristic, however, and is seldom decisive.
In other words, when Gordon starts comment like that:
it’s perfectly fine to question John’s credibility.
The same applies to the IPCC or any authority.
Willard, please stop trolling.
EM feels so guilty about the biases he expresses in here he has become motivated to try to drag others down with him.
Nice Kafka trap, Bill.
Well played!
Its not really a Kafka trap Willard. Thats because all the things he is accusing Christy of off his SS reference at 2:24AM are done routinely by the IPCC and science that EM routinely endorses.
1. Average together data from different data sets, 2. not include uncertainty cones, 3. not individually show pattern of each individual dataset, 4. not include every dataset available.
So it is a Kafka trap only if there is a question of guilt.
I point at
[1] it is a Kafka trap only if there is a question of guilt
and at
[2] EM feels so guilty about the biases […]
That is all.
He should feel guilty as the sort of stuff he condones on the warmist side is far more egregious than what John does or for that matter the recent efforts of the IPCC and the IPCC cherry picks in the executive summaries but does a credible job in the Chapters I have read in the main body of the report.
Another point is John and Roy are a single team producing work in their expertise. Others similar to John and Roy prepare reports like the UK Met. Each report is supported by its authors, called on for testimony. The other side is also afforded the exact same opportunity to express their opinions. Thats how science works and thats why it works as well as it does.
In comparison the IPCC is anti-science. It becomes effectivity a committee that rules on the best science. Politicians wrangle to get their guy in the top editing role. Then its all packaged up as the ‘main’ word of science and anybody who doesn’t agree is labeled a heretic or denier. Thats how science was working in the 17th Century. The Inquisition put Galileo under house arrest and barred him from publishing anything.
In 2009 we had teams of IPCC authors trying to do that with anybody they deemed a denier and ultimately the science is packaged and promoted with one line of thought. Its only slightly better than the Inquisition of the 17th century in that publishing isn’t completely barred. They just bury it in thousands of pages of text and don’t feature it. Then institutions that benefit handsomely from a perceived need to fix the world make it difficult for those labeled as deniers from publishing anything.
Science doesn’t work well that way. If you buy that approach then it won’t be long before they reintroduce the rack. It will run as far as it can. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Area weighting aka gridding has nothing to do in itself with any kind of manipulation, unless you intentionally misuse it, as might be anything else misused as well.
It has to do with the inverse, namely to prevent (possibly unintended self-)manipulation when averaging – for a region, some latitude bands or the Globe as a whole – all station measurements directly into a time series.
Look for example at the GHCN daily data set, which consists of over 100,000 stations worldwide, of which over 40,000 measure temperatures.
About half of them are located in CONUS: thus, nobody should wonder about CONUS stations completely dominating all others, letting the Globe look like CONUS’ backyard.
*
Here is a distribution of all GHCN daily temp stations over a 2.5 degree grid (the grid size chosen is the same as UAH’s):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17ZgjmYUL43320EoLQ5bL0Hs3aYwas-gt/view
and here is the top 20 of a descending sort among all grid cells, wrt station population:
43.75, -78.75: 364 (stations)
38.75, -76.25: 331
48.75, -123.75: 325
41.25, -73.75: 318
43.75, -71.25: 298
38.75, -121.25: 274
41.25, -111.25: 271
38.75, -78.75: 258
41.25, -76.25: 244
43.75, -73.75: 231
46.25, -121.25: 227
43.75, -81.25: 225
41.25, -78.75: 217
38.75, -81.25: 215
48.75, +08.75: 209
46.25, -71.25: 209
36.25, -83.75: 206
46.25, -73.75: 203
36.25, -81.25: 200
41.25, -71.25: 199
Latitude and longitude are those of the cells’ center.
19 of these 20 cells are in CONUS (some of them having a few stations in Canada); the one with bold emphasis is located in Southern Germany.
*
When you perform area weighting, you first average station data on a per grid cell basis, and then, in a second step, you average all grid cells into the final time series.
Thus, for e.g. the Globe, you move from a competition between 20,000 CONUS stations and 20,000 out of it, into a competition between about 170 CONUS grid cells and 2000 out of it, what is quite near to the land surface ratio between CONUS and the Globe.
*
I recall having made 2 years ago a GHCN daily based, worldwide evaluation of the number of daily maxima per station per year, starting from a graph posted on this blog, made by John Christy for CONUS and using the USHCN data set.
1. CONUS, without area weighting
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGV5LfKw_lFKNdZMlq15ZHz6sA1CA294/view
2. Globe, without area weighting
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GMuNs9ptRzDd7KxFQbKv0o5ySR5VNc9b/view
3. Globe, with area weighting
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFdltVVFSyDLPM4ftZUCEl33GmjJnasT/view
The difference between the charts (2) and (3) is precisely due to the lack of weighting in chart (2), what lets it look quite similar to chart (1).
*
As said: you can intentionally misuse any data processing technique. That is not a reason to basically discredit them.
J.-P. D.
“Regardless, the paper is contradictory to your claim that CO2 does not produce significant warming. In fact, the paper says that 2xCO2 produces +3 W/m^2 of radiative force which differs from the canonical and well supported value of +3.7 W/m^2 by 19%.”
I would suggest reading it again. The compelling argument is about how there is 91 Wm-2 variance just in the annual orbit around the sun. In that context its very difficult to make the case that an additional 3 Wm-2 is going to make much difference.
I think you are conflating the oft bandied about 3.7 Wm-2 caused by human emissions to date with the discussion of how doubling CO2 will cause an additional 3 Wm-2. If I’m not mistaken these are two separate measurements.
Further, the evidence of his 3 Wm-2 is seen in the Schwarzschild flux projections in the last diagram at the end of the paper. I’ve seen other sources make the same argument; its not a controversial statement.
> The compelling argument is about how there is 91 Wm-2 variance just in the annual orbit around the sun. In that context its very difficult to make the case that an additional 3 Wm-2 is going to make much difference.
Apparently you missed the bit where Bill says that without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a lifeless snowball with all water frozen.
A lifeless snowball with all water frozen would make a difference to me.
What about you?
W,
Only in your fantasy, W.
Your fantasy ice remains frozen in direct sunlight on desert rock at temperatures in excess of 50 C.
Real ice melts.
Your fantasy oceans freeze right through. Real oceans dont – even when air temperatures drop to -50 C.
How divorced from reality are you?
> Your fantasy ice remains frozen in direct sunlight on desert rock at temperatures in excess of 50 C.
You might as well say:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/29/week-in-review-science-edition-39/#comment-782284
Yes, the very same comment I quoted earlier.
W,
I say what I wish. You can say what you wish.
I wrote –
“Your fantasy ice remains frozen in direct sunlight on desert rock at temperatures in excess of 50 C.”
Man up! Disagree if you want to look even more stupid. Don’t beat around the bush. If you believe that removing CO2 from the air causes a reduction in temperature, just say so.
But you won’t, because that is ridiculous.
Maybe you could claim something else – try saying increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes the surface hotter. Keep a straight face while saying it.
You can’t can you? Equally ridiculous.
Ho, ho, ho.
You are listening to an echo of your own fantasy, rather than anything I said.
Real science it ain’t. Keep avoiding. You’ll get into less trouble that way.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ken said: I would suggest reading it again. The compelling argument is about how there is 91 Wm-2 variance just in the annual orbit around the sun. In that context its very difficult to make the case that an additional 3 Wm-2 is going to make much difference.
That 91 W/m^2 figure is the value perpendicular to the surface and at TOA. The absorbed solar radiation variation is actually 91 / 4 * 0.7 = 16 W/m^2. That’s from perigee to apogee. The variation from the annual mean is thus +/- 8 W/m^2. In January it is +8 W/m^2 and in July it is -8 W/m^2. This variation nets out to 0 W/m^2 of force since the secular change in solar flux as a result of Earth’s orbit neither increases or decreases significantly especially over decade or century time scale. In other words, this variation does not perturb the annual mean Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) to change. In summary…the variation is actually +/- 8 W/m^2 with an annual net of 0 W/m^2.
Contrast this with 2xCO2 which applies a constant and persistent +3.0 W/m^2 (Happer’s figure) force. In other words a pulse of 2xCO2 instantly changes the EEI to +3.0 W/m^2. And the EEI stays positive until the climate system responds with a temperature increase until OLR and ASR are once again balanced and the EEI goes to 0 W/m^2.
Or presented in another way that should be intuitive to understand.
With 1xCO2 the variation is -8 to +8 W/m^2.
With 2xCO2 the variation is -5 to +11 W/m^2
Ken said: I think you are conflating the oft bandied about 3.7 Wm-2 caused by human emissions to date with the discussion of how doubling CO2 will cause an additional 3 Wm-2. If I’m not mistaken these are two separate measurements.
They are the same metric. +3.7 W/m^2 is the radiative force for 2xCO2. This comes from the formula F = s*ln(C/Ci) where s is the sensitivity parameter, C is the new concentration, and Ci is the intial concentration. The sensitivity parameter s estimated to be 5.35 from Myhre 1998. 5.35*ln(2) = 3.7 W/m^2.
Happer’s +3.0 W/m^2 figure is for 2xCO2 as well. We can reverse engineer Happer’s sensitivity parameter like this s = F/ln(2). Thus the Happer sensitivity parameter is s = 3/ln(2) = 4.3.
We just don’t know how he got 4.3 because he doesn’t discuss it or provide any references. This is the kind of thing that would have certainly been caught in peer review.
Ken said: Further, the evidence of his 3 Wm-2 is seen in the Schwarzschild flux projections in the last diagram at the end of the paper. I’ve seen other sources make the same argument; its not a controversial statement.
The problem is that there are no details on how he arrived at 3.0 W/m^2 from the Schwarzschild flux. Also, keep in mind that the Schwarzschild equation is from 1905. It’s great. It provides a theorectical basis for explaining the GHE and even estimating the magnitude of the effect in terms of radiative force. Mhyre (and others) go above and beyond with far more complex radiative transfer scheme. I recommend reading the works of Plass, Manabe, and Myhre for details on these radiative transfer schemes. Again…this smoke and mirrors approach and failure to cite significant works in the field including Schwarzschild’s own paper aside from being very unprofessional would have been caught in the peer review process. In other words…this paper is very low quality.
bdgwx, you reveal your ignorance of physics again.
The change in solar input that you smugly choose to ignore is REAL energy. Your “CO2 radiative forcing” is bogus. It is not new energy into the system. It can NOT raise system temperature.
How many times has this been explained to you?
> How many times has this been explained to you?
When was the last time you explained it, Clint?
In fact, when was the last time you explained anything?
The real question is, When did an idiot ever learn anything?
W,
Go on. W. Disagree with Clint. Grow a backbone.
Show a replicable experiment which quantifies “CO2 radiative forcing”, if you can.
Computer models are not experiments.
You’re a gullible cultist. Face reality. Climate is the average of weather, whether you like it or not.
If you are truly interested in learning more, son, you might start with John Tyndalls relevant lectures and books. He actually experimented with the physical properties of gases, invisible and visible radiation, and provided real life instances of what his experimental work showed. His lectures in particular were aimed at the curious lay person, and very well explained.
W,
Pity you can’t actually show an experiment which purports to quantify “CO2 radiative forcing”.
As a matter of fact, the phrase “CO2 radiative forcing” does not appear in any of Tyndalls’s writings – anywhere.
Not only that, but you can’t even state what “CO2 radiative forcing” means, in any way that a reproducible experiment could be formulated to test this mythical idea.
You sound like one of the dimwits who thought Tyndall was writing about degrees of heat when he was referring to degrees of movement of a needle comprising part of the mechanism of a sensitive galvanometer.
Off you go, now. Back into your fantasy, where “CO2 radiative forcing” is a valid scientific term.
Or you can just keep pretending that you actually have a factual basis for your cultist ramblings. The choice is yours.
Funny you never responded to this comment, Mike:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/12/are-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity-values-biased-low/#comment-796853
You usually can find ways to return to your abusive ways.
W,
Funny? That must be why I’m laughing! Glad you agree.
Who is Mike, and to what should he respond? Does he treat people in cruel or violent ways?
What is it to do with me, and what makes you think I would be interested?
<3
W,
More attempts at implied wisdom through cryptic obscurity?
As long as it gives you satisfaction, keep it up. Your actions don’t seem to be harming anyone. Nothing wrong with harmless fantasy.
Maybe you could bring some facts to the discussion, rather than fantasy and fanciful notions.
Cheers.
W,
You still don’t understand, do you?
Until you can state clearly what it is you are supposedly discussing, and why, it is pointless to waste time on the matter.
What facts are you presenting, and what is their relevance?
Here are some facts for you. Thermometers are instruments designed to measure degrees of hotness. CO2 does not increase the degree of hotness of a thermometer, unless it is itself hotter. Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist, and Michael Mann is a faker, a fraud, a scofflaw and a deadbeat.
Discuss.
Ho, ho, ho.
The Moon – somewhere between spin and no spin, really!
I suddenly rediscovered today this interesting web corner:
https://www.thoughtco.com/revolution-geography-definition-1434848
It is a bit of interest because, while publishing absolutely heretic stuff from the point of view of the Holy Church of the Celebration of Moon’s Non-Spinning, it is nonetheless not quite on the Spinners’ side:
” Does the Moon Rotate?
The moon does not rotate because it is gravitationally locked with the Earth.
The moon has synched up with the Earth in such a way that the same side of the moon is always facing the earth.
This is why the Moon always looks the same. It’s known that at one point the moon did rotate on its own axis.
As our gravitational pull on the moon got stronger the moon stopped rotating. ”
Oh oh oh.
I mailed last year a comment about that unscientific nonsense to the web site, but it was clear to me that they wouldn’t change their opinion even by half a ‘femtometer’.
C’est la vie, n’est-ce pas?
J.-P. D.
W quoted –
“Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near -18C instead of 15C.”
What an idiotic speculation. The concentration of CO2 in air has never been shown to make the slightest difference to the temperature.
However, even if it did, portions of the Earth in the tropics receiving 1000 W/m2 from the Sun at 5800 K would be unfrozen. Ice simply refuses to form if the surface is 80 C or so. Nowhere would the oceans freeze through. They sit on bases which are above freezing.
Antarctica might be icebound, but wait – it already is!
Iceball Earth is a fantasy. Even Tyndall, nearly 200 years ago, was careful to point out that if there was no atmosphere at all, at night the surface would be nearly as cold as the unlit surface of the Moon.
At night, not during the day.
Some people are so gullible.
> Even Tyndall, nearly 200 years ago, was careful to point out that if there was no atmosphere at all, at night the surface would be nearly as cold as the unlit surface of the Moon.
A quote might be nice.
Here’s what a quote looks like, son:
https://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/home/article/16543412/chinas-change4-to-take-the-far-side-of-the-moons-temperature-for-the-first-time
W,
You wrote –
“A quote might be nice.”
Read what Tyndall wrote, if you want. Quote away as nicely as you wish. If you are too lazy or incompetent to look things up for yourself, don’t blame me!
I notice you haven’t actually disagreed with me. That’s because I’m right, isn’t it?
Come on, W! Man up, disagree with me, tell me why, provide some facts! Let others see whether there is any substance to you!
Otherwise, people might think you are nothing more than a stupid troll.
You might care to rephrase your essentially meaningless question. It assumes facts not actually in evidence. If I understand what you trying to imply in your odd contrarian fashion, the answer in reality is you go first. I dont believe you are interested in increasing your knowledge at all. Correct me if Im wrong, of course.
W,
No, I don’t care to rephrase anything. Why should I?
You assert that “in reality” I should “go first”! You are a very, very, slow learner. You just refuse to accept that your desires pale into insignificance compared with my own. That is reality.
You wrote “I don’t believe you . . .”. Good for you! You have my permission to believe anything you want. Am I supposed to alter my actions because of your bizarre beliefs?
Ho, ho, ho!
You might care to buzz off, read Tyndall, get back to me, and quote Tyndall’s experimental results which support your contrarian position.
Cheers.
W,
Or I might not.
Actually, I definitely won’t. Why should I?
Dancing to the discordant cacophony of a strange delusional anonymous dimwit is unlikely to improve the situation of either myself or the dimwit.
Get back to you? In what alternate universe is that likely to occur? You really believe your fantasy, don’t you?
Carry on.
You still haven’t managed to actually specify what Tyndall actually said, and where.
If you are too lazy, incompetent, or spineless to clearly state what you read, and where, then your obscure comments just seem to be bizarre attempts to appear clever!
Oh well, to each his own, son!
W,
You wrote –
“You still havent managed to actually specify what Tyndall actually said, and where.”
Why should I?
Anybody who is interested can read for themselves. It’s not hard to find. I notice you have linked to the title, edition, and publisher of a book by Tyndall which contains (obviously) the passage to which I alluded. Thanks for that. Saves me the trouble of doing it myself.
Why you are so insistent that I quote something which you have already read is a mystery. Do you believe that your desires are important to me?
Thanks for copying my words and phraseology. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, apparently, I accept flattery from anyone. Why not?
> Saves me the trouble of doing it myself.
That’s you who actually did, Mike.
You’re not the kind of chap who clicks on links, do you?
Here is the link, once again, this time in explicit form:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/29/week-in-review-science-edition-39/#comment-782284
Click on it.
W,
You wrote –
Click on it.
And if I don’t, what then? Lightning bolts to strike me dead? You may be believe you are omnipotent, but I don’t. Whose belief should I accept? Hmmmm, tough question – not.
Still insistent that I am Mythical Mike. You have abandoned Mythical Charlie and Mythical Son, I suppose that shows something.
What are you trying to say? Maybe you suffer from some mental impairment that prevents you from expressing your thoughts clearly – a type of aphasia, perhaps.
If so, I can offer some tips. Provide your initial confused thoughts to someone like myself. You obviously admire the clarity and effectiveness of my writing style (demonstrated by your attempts to copy it). This person could no doubt help you to express your thoughts in writing in a more effective way. Unfortunately, if you happen to suffer from aural aphasia as well, you might as well go back to your fantasy. There, at least, you are powerful, wise, and respected. Unlike reality.
> And if I dont, what then?
Then you won’t be able to ascertain that it is you who indeed wrote:
Hence why I wrote “[sic]” in my original rendition after “assum.”
***
Have you ever wondered what emerges from exchanges in which you always ask for stuff without ever giving anything in return, Mike?
Nothing.
Unless we count the number of your abuses, but can we really count them?
If infinity did not exist, mathematicians would need to invent it to be able to list all the abusive comments you made in your Climateball career.
Peace.
W,
it’s your fantasy. I don’t have to participate if I choose not to.
Good luck with flogging a dead horse. Iwon’t bring it back to life. Neither will wrapping a corpse in a blanket.
I’m sure you won’t do anything, Mike.
You never do.
W,
Aha! The light finally dawns (except you still think I am Mike, your fantasy companion).
Took you a while, didn’t it?
Now to see if you can actually put what you have learnt, into practice.
“Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near -18C instead of 15C.”
What seems to be missing in the quoted statement is the understanding of water vapor and its role as a greenhouse gas. Without water vapor, temperatures would be near -18C.
Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas but its a bit player. The first 400 ppm are contributing 30 Wm-2.
The point of Happer’s paper is the the next 400ppm (ie when and if we get to 800 ppm) will result in an additional 3Wm-2 … which equates to noise in the signal and won’t have much if any effect on the climate.
> What seems to be missing in the quoted statement is the understanding of water vapor and its role as a greenhouse gas.
I actually quoted what Bill said of clouds, Ken:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-652049
You’re just trying to have your cake and eat it.
I’ll leave to other commenters the joy of paying due diligence to your claim for now. I did more than my part for the week, and you’ll move along the Contrarian Matrix in a few hours:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
Don’t expect that kind of room service every day, guys.
W,
You wrote –
“I did more than my part for the week, and youll move along the Contrarian Matrix in a few hours:”
Really! Oh so humble! Oh so omnipotent!
What was your part? Can’t quite express it in words?
It doesn’t matter – at least to anybody who isn’t an alarmist climate cultist. That would include the rest of the world’s population, I assume.
Carry on
> Really! Oh so humble! Oh so omnipotent!
Are you a betting man, Mike, and how much can you comfortably afford to lose?
Before you respond, you might like to search for “key questions” in this page.
W,
Still infatuated with Mythical Mike. What makes you think he would be any more inclined to answer your pointless and irrelevant questions than I would?
You wrote (presumably to me) –
“Before you respond, you might like to search for “key questions” in this page.”
On the other hand, I might not. Why should I bother?
Keep making suggestions and demands. I will keep rejecting both.
Have fun.
Ken said: The point of Happers paper is the the next 400ppm (ie when and if we get to 800 ppm) will result in an additional 3Wm-2 which equates to noise in the signal and wont have much if any effect on the climate.
Regardless of the magnitude of the noise 3 W/m^2 is still the signal because it is constant and persistent. And at 0.5-1.5C per W/m^2 that would result in 1.5-4.5C of warming. This is true regardless of the signal-to-noise ratio.
I will say that based on observations of the total heat uptake the noise actually looks to be quite low on annual time scales. It is low enough that a +0.87 W/m^2 +/- 0.12 EEI is easily discernable. See Schuckmann 2020: Heat stored in the Earth System.
ken…”“Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near -18C instead of 15C.”
What seems to be missing in the quoted statement is the understanding of water vapor and its role as a greenhouse gas. Without water vapor, temperatures would be near -18C”.
***
What’s missing is that gases constituting no more than 0.31% of the entire atmosphere could never warm the atmosphere by 33C. The greenhouse theory is simply wrong.
The warming obviously came from the 99% of the atmosphere made up of nitrogen and oxygen. Solar energy heats the surface, part of the heat is transferred to those gases and they rise when warmed. As Wood pointed out many years ago, because those gases cannot radiate the heat away, they retain the heat and that retained heat causes the warming.
That’s how a real greenhouse works with the exception that glass blocks the nitrogen and oxygen from rising, allowing those gases to warm even more. There is no glass, or its equivalent, in the atmosphere, which is akin to running a greenhouse with the roof removed.
We have been mislead by climate modelers who found it much easier to apply the Navier-Stokes differential equations describing the flow of gases using only radiation from greenhouse gases. There are no computers with enough power to model conduction/convection, therefore science has been mislead into thinking that absorp-tion and radiation by trace gases is responsible for warming the atmosphere, and cooling it.
> Read what Tyndall wrote, if you want.
No link. No quote. Nothing.
***
> I notice you haven’t actually disagreed with me.
Have you disagreed with me, son?
Good morning, btw.
W,
I see. So you are stupid, as well as being lazy and incompetent.
You still haven’t accepted that I do whatever I want. Others may applaud your incompetence and laziness – your stupidity and gullibility, even!
But hey, your dimwitted ilk believe a consensus of idiots can turn faith into fact.
Others can make up their own minds. I wish you well.
For further information, maybe you might care to read (or reread) his “Heat considered as a mode of Motion” – the 1905 edition contains a few footnotes recording his changes of mind relating to matters left in the text. I assum [sic] this avoided the cost of resetting the body of the book.
W,
You still haven’t managed to actually specify what you disagree with.
If you are too lazy, incompetent, or spineless to clearly state whether you disagree with me or not, and why, then your obscure comments just seem to be bizarre attempts to appear clever!
Oh well, to each his own, kiddo!
> You still haven’t managed to actually specify what you disagree with.
I might not.
Actually, I definitely won’t. Why should I?
Dancing to the discordant cacophony of a strange delusional anonymous sockpuppet is unlikely to improve the situation of either myself or the sockpuppet.
Referring to the work of Tyndall, for example, demonstrates that either you have not read Tyndall’s work, or you didn’t understand it.
W,
As I said before, imitation is apparently the sincerest form of flattery.
I feel flattered. Thanks for the encomium.
Keep it up!
My pleasure, Mike.
It’s really hard to mimic such flagrant lack of self-awareness. You only can do you:
Don’t ever change.
You’re doing Tyndall’s work.
W,
You wrote –
“You only can do you: ”
Indeed.
I hope you celebrated April’s Fool properly, Mike.
Still a few hours until its end here.
Swoon.
W,
Some might think you are lapsing into incomprehensibility.
Trying to give the impression of cleverness through obscurity, are you?
Too clever by half, I’d say.
When your spirit is not in the least clouded, when the clouds of bewilderment clear away, there is the true void.
Thank you for the negative feedback.
W,
I (and maybe others, who knows) might appreciate your Musashi quote more if you could demonstrate some relevance and understanding. Unlikely.
Just another irrelevant and random quote plucked from the internet, as far as I can see.
You’re most welcome to my comments. If it makes you happy, so much the better.
You may have inadvertently responded to what you wished or thought I had written, rather than to what I actually wrote. Rather than repeat myself, maybe you could read my words, slowly, possibly sounding them aloud, if you have any difficulty comprehending simple English. Is English not your native tongue?
If you still cannot understand the Musashi quite, I can attempt to explain it to you. Clouds. Negative feedback.
Live well and prosper,
W,
Once again, thanks for the flattery by attempting to imitate me.
Unfortunately, it won’t get you anywhere. if that was your intent.
As to Musashi, cryptic obscurity is no substitute for erudition. You look like a chimpanzee appearing to possess human characteristics, by aping human mannerisms.
Imitate me all you like – it won’t make you any smarter. Just another chimp trying to look human.
Thanks, Mike.
Trollard, please stop trolling.
More of Tesla’s nonsensical ramblings concerning his Figure 5, with my comments in bold:
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. [So far so good] Now, in fixing the ball to the spoke, the change of angular velocity is only ω; [correct] therefore, [No. There is no 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. [Wrong! An addition velocity w would cause the ball to rotate clockwise at a rate of 2w with respect to the inertial reference frame. To make his statement true, Tesla reverts to the non-inertial reference frame of the rotating arm and his proof consists of merely declaring this as fact. Tesla insists on using a non-inertial rotating reference frame throughout this article] 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.[Thanks for your opinion, Einstein] I am well aware that, according to the prevailing opinion [No. It’s the prevailing science. Tesla is the one stating his opinion], when the ball is free on the pivots it does not turn on its axis at all [True]and only rotates with the angular velocity of the frame when rigidly attached to the same, but the truth will appear [it never does appear. He published this nonsense in a magazine. His opinions were never scientifically vetted in a proper manner] upon a closer examination of this kind of movement.
skeptic…”[Wrong! An addition velocity w would cause the ball to rotate clockwise at a rate of 2w with respect to the inertial reference frame. To make his statement true, Tesla reverts to the non-inertial reference frame…”
You are a boneheaded idiot and you’ll never understand this because you lack the ability to think independently. Tesla does not need to talk about reference frames because none are required. He’s talking plain physics and it is you who is wrong because you don’t understand plain physics.
If a body that can rotate is screwed down so it cannot rotate about its axis, IT CANNOT ROTATE!!! Why are you so dense that you cannot grasp that simple fact?
If a body that can rotate is screwed down so it cannot rotate about its axis, IT CANNOT ROTATE!!! relative to what it is attached by having been screwed down. The body can still rotate in the inertial frame as shown by the ball on string rotating once on its own axis per orbit. That ball cannot rotate relative to the string to which it is attached similar to Tesla’s ball M being attached to the spinning spokes.
ball4…”The body can still rotate in the inertial frame as shown by the ball on string rotating once on its own axis per orbit”.
Camel dung!!! If a body designed to rotate on an axis is bolted down so it cannot rotate, it cannot rotate in any reference frame. The ball at the end of a string has its rotation about its COG constrained by the string.
As astronomer Wal Thornhill once pointed out about string theory, it works in every other universe but our own. That’s your problem, you live in a parallel universe where rotating masses which are prevented from rotating can still rotate in your parallel universe.
You are a boneheaded idiot and youll never understand this because you lack the ability to think independently.
Your independent thinking came up with the boneheaded idea that the crescent moon is caused by the earth’s shadow!!! Have you ever recanted this false belief? No.
You obviously have never taken an engineering class in dynamics/mechanics/kinematics in your life or you would not make the erroneous statement regarding the impossibility of the ball screwed tight to the rotating arm not being able to rotate about about its own axis. Plus your comment regarding reference frames is just plain ignorant.
So according to Gordon, if I stood at the center of a rotating merry-go-round, and had my feet glued to the floor, I would not be rotating on my own axis, because it would be impossible for me to rotate wrt to the floor!!!! How stupid is that??? This is what Tesla stated concerning the ball that was screwed down to the arm:
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
The prevailing opinion was that the ball rotates on its own axis when rigidly attached to the frame. And that is still the prevailing opinion, only it is not an opinion, it is a fact. Look at the following Purdue University mechanics problem:
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=80BA8BA13FEC03B0!2052&ithint=file%2cpptx&authkey=!AER-b8FVoR8gLQM
The disk welded to the arm on the right rotates on its own axis and has rotational kinetic energy, whereas the disk on the left does not. You don’t get this stuff because you were never educated in this area of physics. Your so called independent thinking is independent of any science whatsoever.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the left” in the above gif. The “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the right”. The two motions in the above gif are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames.
Also, if you take the movement of the “moon on the left” to be comprised of one single motion, as do the “Non-Spinners”, then that motion is “rotation about an external axis”. If you take the movement of the “moon on the right” to be comprised of one single motion, as do the “Spinners”, then that motion is “curvilinear translation, in a circle”.
If you take the movement of the “moon on the right” to be comprised of two motions, as do the “Non-Spinners”, then those motions are “rotation about an external axis”, in the counter-clockwise direction, with “axial rotation” in the clockwise direction, once per orbit. Those that have the capacity to mentally add two motions together should be able to see that.
In the reality of relativity, the “Non-Spinners” see from their attached accelerated reference frame “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the left” in the above gif Fig. 2(b). The “Spinners” see from their unattached inertial frame “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the right” or Fig. 2(a). The two motions in the above gif are seen from two different reference frames, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” position is completely due to observing from two different reference frames.
The two motions in the above gif are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the position of the two groups transcends reference frames.
No DREMT, Tesla proved you are wrong in that “relatively” matters. Go argue with Tesla’s physics proof of rotational energy E using r,R and you will lose that argument too.
The two motions in the above gif are completely different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the position of the two groups transcends reference frames.
No DREMT, Tesla proved you physically wrong.
Nothing and nobody can prove what I said wrong. It is simple, basic, irrefutable logic.
Tesla did prove you physically wrong. Nothing in your comment proves Tesla’s two different formulas for rotational energy E physically wrong, go argue with Tesla’s physics.
Nothing and nobody can prove what I said wrong. It is simple, basic, irrefutable logic..
Please stop trolling, kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ball4…”In the reality of relativity, the Non-Spinners see from their attached accelerated reference frame…”
****
We are not observing from another reference frame, which would be an illusion. Reference frames exist only in the human mind so your frame of reference is illusory. We are standing in one spot, causing a ball on a string to rotate about our heads and observing that the ball cannot possibly rotate on its COG because its attached to the string.
SGW, orbiting does not mean axial rotation. Moon is only orbiting, it is NOT rotating about its axis. After all these months, you still get “orbiting” confused with “axial rotation”.
The ball-on-a-string, swung in a circle, always keeps the same side facing the inside of the orbit. That is a model of “pure orbital motion”. It’s the same basic motion as a runner on an oval track, a wooden horse on a merry-go-round, a passenger jet circumnavigating Earth, or Moon.
Tesla was a genius. You make yourself look like an idiot, trying to debunk him.
Tesla does get the physics right for the rotational energy E of the ball on string observed from the spinning string frame, Tesla uses only R, the radius of the spokes to calculate E.
For the rotational energy E of the ball on string observed from the inertial frame, Tesla uses both R,r, the radii of the spinning ball ( r) & the spinning spokes ( R) to calculate E.
DREMT, Gordon, and Clint R are all debunked by Tesla’s elegant physics formula for E.
Obviously not, since Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, and Tesla never mentioned reference frames.
Troll4 admits his argument is about “reference frames”. That’s his “escape hatch”. He believes he can retreat without admitting he’s been an idiot.
But, the reality is, it is NOT about “reference frames”. If the ball were really rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it in either “reference frame”. So Troll4 is still wrong, even using his “escape door”.
Nothing’s changed. Troll4 remains an idiot. But, I’m willing to accept his concession, since he’s got NOTHING anyway.
If the ball were really rotating about its axis more or less than once observed inertially, then the string would wrap around it. See Tesla’s Fig. 6 and rotational energy E “relatively” discussion for the mathematical physics proof so go argue with Tesla. You will lose that argument too.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, and Tesla never mentioned reference frames.
Tesla mentions “relatively” and shows the object’s rotational energy E is different in his two frames contrary to your argument. Go argue with Tesla to lose that argument too.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, and Tesla never mentioned reference frames..
Nothing in your comment proves Tesla’s two different formulas for rotational energy E physically wrong, go argue with Teslas physics.
I do not need to argue with Tesla, since Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, and Tesla never mentioned reference frames.
Tesla argued that the moon (ball M) does not rotate on its own axis in the accelerated frame as proven by his two different rotational energies E for ball M in the two different frames “relatively” to each other. Nothing in your assertions can disprove Tesla’s physics, so go argue with Tesla’s two different physical formulas for E.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, and Tesla never mentioned reference frames. Try saying something different in future. You are never going to convince me, or anyone else reading, that Tesla did anything but argue that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. So just give it a rest.
> Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis
Nikola argued that it’s possible to consider the Moon as not rotating on its own axis.
FIFY
If you say so, Willard.
Here, kiddo:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
As anyone can read, Nikola only argues from possibility in that piece.
“The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.”
w….”As anyone can read, Nikola only argues from possibility in that piece”.
Tesla is actually pointing out the error in the belief system that the Moon rotates on a local axis.
> Tesla is actually pointing out the error in the belief system that the Moon rotates on a local axis.
Where?
> The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.
And where does Nikola demonstrated that the Moon does not rotate on its own axis, kiddo?
Something tells me you’re not trained in reading arguments.
It’s actually as simple as that one quote. If you get it, you get it. If you don’t, you don’t. Oh well.
Not really, kiddo.
And your quote is not even from the article I cite.
Sorry you didn’t get it.
The quote is from his first article, and says it all.
Sorry you didn’t cite it, kiddo.
The quote only says that Nikola can say stuff.
Check back the demonstration. Report.
I don’t need to cite it since you already linked to it further up-thread.
The moon rotation debate is the simplest debate there ever could be. It is all over in a couple of sentences or so. So the “Spinners” have to obfuscate. Boy, do they obfuscate. I’m happy that the issue has been settled in the preceding 100,000 comment discussion that has taken place here over several years. The moon does not rotate on its own axis.
> I dont need to cite it since you already linked to it further up-thread.
I’m asking you for a cite because we both know you’re being economical with the truth, kiddo.
Here’s how the paragraph starts:
Just like I said. An argument from possibility.
I love all the theatrics…what is your point, exactly? And no, I am not being “economical with the truth”. Here is the quote in even more context, I have no problem with it:
“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. Volumes have been written on the subject and many erroneous arguments advanced in support of the notion. Thus, it is reasoned, that if the planet did not turn on its axis it would expose the whole surface to terrestrial view; as only one-half is visible, it must revolve. The first statement is true but the logic of the second is defective, for it admits of only one alternative. The conclusion is not justified as the same appearance can also be produced in another way. The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.”
> what is your point, exactly?
I told you many times already, kiddo, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-648892
Look. The paper you’re not even citing is only a few pages long, and we’re concerned with the first of its three parts.
There are ten paragraphs to read.
It’s really not that complex. I’m sure you can piece Nikola’s argument together if you make the tenth of the effort you made in this thread trying to play the ref.
Oh, and get yourself a real nick.
Good luck.
“It’s really not that complex.”
Agreed. In fact that’s what I tried to tell you a few comments ago. You’ll get there.
OK, kiddo.
Yes.
test
nate …from a much earlier post of yours at which my browser stopped for some reason. You were referencing an even earlier post of yours.
“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”.
These quotes came from a textbook offered via Brown University, I think it was.
Firstly, in most engineering courses, in electrical engineering, students are incorrectly taught that electrical current flows from positive to negative. Some of the texts, but not all, reveal that the definition is a convention that dates back to 1925. They have known since then that electrical current is comprised of negative charges carried by electrons that can be passed electron to electron at much higher speeds than the electrons themselves can move through a conductor.
It is not possible for an electron to flow through a conductor from positive to negative yet these engineering texts continue to preach that bs. They have even developed a pseudo-particle that does not exist, the positive test charge, and assigned it a mass. So, please don’t preach to us about the validity of textbooks.
In the quotes supplied by you above, this quote, “Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position”, is completely wrong. Translation has nothing to do with parallel lines, it is simply the movement of a mass or particle from point A to point B. How it gets there is immaterial to the definition of translation.
If someone wants to specify that the mass/particle got there via a straight line, and the mass/particle was not rotating at the same time, that is called rectilinear translation. It follows as a natural fact that every point in the body will move in parallel lines at the same velocity/acceleration, but translation is not dependent on that observation. Parallelism of particle motion, and each particle having the same velocity, is a consequence of linear translation without rotation, not a definition of it.
If the mass/particle was rotating at the same time, the translation could be linear but none of the particles would be moving in parallel. In fact, some of them, in a rotating mass, some of the time, would be moving relatively in the opposite direction to the COG of the mass. That situation is not covered in the textbook’s general and incorrect definitions.
The statement that “every line in the body remains parallel to its original position” is just plain wrong. That would apply to rectilinear translation if a non-rotating body started on the x,y axis at 0,0 and moved in a horizontal direction. Or, if a non-rotating body started at 0,0 on the y-axis and moved vertically. It would also apply if a non-rotating body moved along a straight line that formed any angle with the x- or y-axes.
You need to be clear that the parallelism and same velocity is a consequence of such linear translation for a non-rotating body, not a definition of it. That becomes abundantly clear when you consider translation along a curve. It is not possible for a mass to move along a curve and keep its particles moving parallel to their original position.
In their wrong-headed approach in the textbooks, they are trying to emulate the motion of a mass performing non-rotating rectilinear translation and applying it to a curve, As a result they have come up with absurd examples of curvilinear translation that do not cover the general translation of a mass along a curve.
As I pointed out to Skeptic, curvilinear translation has to cover all instances of translation along a curve. Just as rectilinear translation is the translation of a mass/particle from A to B along a straight line, curvilinear translation is the translation of a mass/particle from A to B along a curved line.
The clowns who created the definitions you supplied obviously have no idea that parallelism on a curve is dependent on the instantaneous tangent line at any point on the curve. The tangent line at any point on a curve is perpendicular to a radial line from the instantaneous axis of that curve. The velocity of all particles in a mass are represented by the angular velocity of that radial line.
In examples given in such textbooks, they offer idiotic contrivances like a bus with passengers in which the wheels have been removed and replace by levers attached on the other ends to axles. Presumably, the passengers remain upright throughout the turning of the levers but they certainly do not move along parallel paths that remain parallel to the original position.
Each particle of the bus and the riders on it are moving along a curved path. The riders are allowed to remain upright due to the bus wheel axles being attached to a rotating lever bearing, as on a Ferris wheel.
Seriously, if that’s the best treatment they can give curvilinear translation, they need to get out of the textbook writing business.
Gordon, for curvilinear translation observed from the inertial frame see the orbiting rectangle’s motion in Prof. Madhavi’s course material Fig. 2(a).
For that orbiting rectangle to also be rotating on its own axis observed from the inertial frame see Fig. 2(b).
If you want to observe the rectangle in Fig. 2(b) not rotating on its own axis, then just attach yourself to the rectangle and observe the world spin about you while observing the orbiting rectangle does NOT spin about its own axis.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Fig. 2(a) is “curvilinear translation, without axial rotation, regardless of reference frame”.
Fig. 2(b) is “rotation about an external axis, without axial rotation, regardless of reference frame”.
Fig. 2(a) object is “orbiting curvilinear translation on axis R, without axial rotation on axis r, in inertial reference frame”.
Fig. 2(b) is “orbital rotation about an external axis R, with internal axis axial rotation on r, in inertial reference frame and orbital rotation about an external axis R, with no internal axis axial rotation on axis r, in accelerated reference frame” as proven by Tesla formula’s for rotational energy E in the two frames “relatively” to each other.
You evidently will never get this DREMT, more astute readers just need study Tesla’s formulas for R,r rotational energy E, they are different in the two frames, inertial and his “relatively”.
Madhavi warns readers not to confuse curvilinear translation with rotation. If you believe that in Fig. 2(b) the rectangle is rotating about its own center of mass as well as about point O (the external axis) then it follows that you think an object that is rotating about an external axis without rotating about its own center of mass moves as per Fig. 2(a)…in which case you are confusing curvilinear translation with rotation.
If you say so, kiddo.
OK, Willard.
Yes, Im fine, thank you, kiddo.
Glad to hear it, foetus.
OK, kiddo.
Yes, OK.
Glad to hear it, kiddo.
OK.
[Mr_Creosote_Explodes.gif](https://www.turboimagehost.com/p/64675492/Mr_Creosote_Explodes.gif.html)
ball4…”If you want to observe the rectangle in Fig. 2(b) not rotating on its own axis, then just attach yourself to the rectangle and observe the world spin about you while…”
I have no interest in tricks played by the mind on itself. In the real world, we live on tangential planes on a rotating globe that is orbiting the Sun. There is no way for me to remove myself from that reality and view it from another reference frame without doing it mentally.
My reference frame is my tangential plane and what goes on it it wrt observation. I don’t care that I am rotating around the N-S axis at 800 mph, where I live, and that the Earth is hurtling through space at several thousand kph.
On my tangential plane, a ball attached to a string and whirling around my head cannot turn around its COG because the string wont let it without the ball wrapping itself around the string. No matter what frame you use to observe it mentally, it cannot rotate about its COG for the same reason.
“‘Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position’, is completely wrong. Translation has nothing to do with parallel lines, it is simply the movement of a mass or particle from point A to point B. How it gets there is immaterial to the definition of translation.”
Ok, Gordon disagrees with standard Engineering textbook definitions.
Cant offer an alternative definition from a legitimate source.
Where have a heard this song before?
Oh right.. its the theme song of the Moron Team.
Oh no! Dude who’s mostly wrong about climate won’t have soapbox to push his absurd views about climate!
Alabama climate skeptic booted from EPA science board
https://www.al.com/news/2021/03/alabama-climate-skeptic-booted-from-epa-science-board.html
Proving once again, it’s all about agenda, not science.
Given that John and Roy have never revealed several important foundational aspects about their newest Version 6 products, I suggest that John’s dismissal was a reasonable action. For example, how did they “fix” the early MSU channel 3 data which they previously rejected due to the many days of missing data? And, how did they derive their equation used to calculate the LT product?
Swanson, yoo’re missing the big picture. You’re focused in on the minutia of how UAH is providing the satellite results. But, you should be asking how they are able to force global surface temps to match their results. Many long-term cold records were recently smashed in North America. There’s obviously something sneaky going on, huh?
Have you graduated from “broom school” yet? Did you learn how to use one?
In a post a couple of months ago I showed that even an incredibly small change to the weighting function can have a large impact on the trend.
For example, using the current weighting function…
LT = 1.548*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS
…we get a trend of +0.1378C/decade.
But using an ever so slightly changed weighting function…
LT = 1.548*MT – 0.538*TP – 0.010*LS
…we get a trend of +0.1446C/decade.
Just by increasing MP by 0.01 and decreasing LS by 0.01 we changed the trend by 0.007C/decade.
Obviously the trend is hyper sensitive wrt to the weighting function.
bdgwx, Yeah, and we still don’t know the method used to produce that equation. I worked on reproducing a similar equation using the RSS weighting curves, which RSS posts on their web site. Just tinkering with various combinations trying to make a graph of the results minimize the stratospheric component produced these result:
ES TLT v1 = 1.49*TMT – 0.49*TP
ES TLT V2 = 1.553TMT – 0.553*TP
ES T-2 = 1.3*TMT – 0.26*TTS 0.04*TLS
HERE’s a graph of the last attempt to combine the RSS curves, along with that using the UAH v6 weighting. The Black curve is the US Standard Atmosphere profile of temperature vs. pressure height, which is used by RSs to produce their weighting surves.
It is clear to me that Spencer or Christy should reveal how they came up with their equation. For example, we don’t know what weighting curves might have been used and the details of their production.
Swanson, there is NOTHING Spencer and Christy could do to bring you to reality. You reject reality, as do the other members in your cult.
That’s the beauty of the Moon issue. It’s such a simple thing to understand, yet your cult goes to extremes to deny that reality. Your cult even believes passenger jets fly sideways and backwards!
Do you know how to use a broom yet?
Woops, I posted a bad link for my graph. Here’s the correct one.
Your post is interesting and relevant so I decided to copy my response into the March blog post.
swanny…”I suggest that Johns dismissal was a reasonable action”.
And I think you’re being a stupid ***hole. There was no legitimate excuse for dismissing John.
You’re begging to be corrected, Gordon.
Do you have access to this site’s admin tools, by any chance?
tmg…”Alabama climate skeptic booted from EPA science board”
The climate Nazis, the same Nazis who rigged the last election, have gotten rid of the only scientist on the board with integrity, and the guts to tell it like it is.
These are the same Nazis who have conned us on covid based on the claims of epidemiologists using unvalidated computer models. No known virus has ever showed up out of the blue and still been raising havoc more than a year later. And it’s not happening. The number of deaths worldwide due to this alleged pandemic are in the order of a few one hundredths of 1% in any population.
The world is being run by Nazi sickos and this has to stop. There is no room in science for politicians to harass genuine scientists like John Christy.
Robertson
For those who insult others with ‘Nazi’, and moreover spit out their disgusting lies about virus attacks, there is only one word to describe them: asshole.
It’s a shame you weren’t legally sent into a dictatorship as real as what millions of Germans experienced from 1933 to 1945.
But… maybe COVID19 manages to get us rid of you. That would be an enlightenment, Robertson!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, attempting to censor was definitely a technique used by Nazis. Your constant attempts to censor puts you in that grouping. You are anti-science and anti-reality.
You’re one of the biggest Nazis on this blog. You share that distinction with several others….
binny…I use the word Nazi only to emphasize a similarity in mindsets. The Nazis were extremely brutal but it’s not their brutality to which I refer, it’s their single-mindedness and belief they had the answers for everyone.
That’s why I feel justified in referring to ‘climate Nazis’ and the current mob of politicians who mindlessly deprive people of their democratic rights and freedoms based on untested theories and unvalidated models.
I presume you are aware of Josef Mengeles, a Nazi who performed horrible medical tests on innocent people against their wishes. That’s what lead to the Nuremberg Code and it’s law about informed consent. The wording is similar to the following:
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.”.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199711133372006
In many regions of the world today, people are forced to take covid tests and vaccines without their written or informed consent. Even in places where it is optional, those people are being ostracized by the introduction of vaccination passports without which their democratic freedoms are seriously compromised.
There is an agenda.
Lots of conservatives and industrialists keen to play down the damage coming from climate change.
They are unwilling to pay a small economic cost now to avoid a larger economic cost in the future.
Ent, you poor lost soul. Down playing the hoax is a reaction to wild-eyed Alarmists claiming there is danger from CO2. It’s a reaction to idiots that belong to an anti-science cult.
Spitting fighting words once again, Clint?
Desperately attempting to defend your anti-science nonsense again, Trollard?
Funny how kiddo never says you’re trolling, Clint.
Willard, please stop trolling.
OK, kiddo.
Yes, I’m fine, thank you, foetus.
Glad to hear it, kiddo.
Have you ever thought of taking a real nick?
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Comments aimed at troll Willard are not examples of “trolling”. They are examples of “anti-trolling”.
Then you should revise and resubmit your affectionate nickname for me, Clint.
Trollard, please stop trolling.
No U, kiddo.
Trollard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
FYI,
DREMT has an OCD disorder where he needs to post the last word. Even if it’s gibberish.
Apparently that is why he goes around at the end of the month when people have mostly disappeared posting ‘please stop trolling’, and ‘OK’.
After repeatedly getting his arguments debunked, again, this ‘last wording’ gives him some weird gratification.
entropic…”They are unwilling to pay a small economic cost now to avoid a larger economic cost in the future.”
Not that at all. No one in his right mind wants to cow tow to a theory that has not a shred of scientific evidence to support it. The entire theory of catastrophic global warming is based on unvalidated climate models which have been programmed with garbage physics.
“Lots of conservatives and industrialists keen to play down the damage coming from climate change.”
We haven’t had the damage yet, and last hundred years seems better than than 100 years before it.
And IPCC says no one can actually predict the future of global climate. {but I believe I can- more or less}.
It’s roughly going to be about same as it has been for next couple decades. Global climate just does not change much within such short time periods of a couple decades.
I might even agree roughly with idea that there has a significant change within this relatively short period of time of about 100 years, so much so, that seems we will probably have a bit less change in next hundred years.
It does not seem like we will likely double CO2 within 50 years and don’t think the increased levels of CO2 have caused much warming.
I can predict other things.
First we have been in ice age or icehouse global climate for last 34 million years. And there no chance of leaving this state which has remained for 34 million years, any time within short time periods of a thousand years. Nor does seem a full blown glacial period with spring forth within 1000 years. But returning to something like the Little Ice Age is quite possible within 1000 years and could creep further towards have serious ice sheet in temperate zones in couple thousand years thereafter. Or roughly continue what has happen for the last 5000 year, slow gradual cooling tread. Or possible we start to get as warm as warmest time in the last interglacial period, Eemian. Or get to meters of sea level rise over centuries of time.
But does not seems like much going to change in next couple decades or even within 50 year. But I think we might know a lot more about global climate in decade or so.
gbaikie …”It does not seem like we will likely double CO2 within 50 years…”
As is evidence by the current hysteria about covid, we have leaders in this world who simply cannot think clearly and who are influenced by an appeal to authority.
It was pointed out in a newspaper article recently that our Canadian Prime Minister was a high school drama teacher and before that, a snowboard instructor. He is also from a privileged wealthy class where image is far more important that truth.
The politicians don’t care what real science says, they are only interested in getting the votes from special interest groups who are equally stupid and who have no interest in truth based on the scientific method.
A major snowstorm in South Dakota.
My only complaint is how you talk about there being a linear trend when the data is not at all linear. The statistics here are not as straight forward as you believe as temperature is in fact a cumulative sum of energy gained minus energy lost. As such temperature is highly autocorrelated and closely resembles a random walk.
Temp(t) = Temp(t-1) + Var
Apply a linear trend to something which so closely resembles a random walk makes no sense from the standpoint of statistics and time series analysis. If you want to properly analyze trends and make a stab at a forecast you need to difference the data.
Also, you need to plot your global average together with ENSO. Nino region 3.4 will suffice. A careful analysis will show global temperatures follow ENSO with a lag of 4 to 6 months. The correlation is statistically significant.
I am a retired Quality Engineer who holds a BS in Mathematics.
P.S.
I have a great deal of confidence in your results in general. I replicated your data for the lower troposphere for the tropics using a representative sampling of 76 complete station records from BEST source files. I used a screening process based upon seasonal standard deviations for the region to flag outliers and just plain old bad data. BEST source data have a lot of really bad data.
Mark…”My only complaint is how you talk about there being a linear trend when the data is not at all linear”.
Doubt that you’ll hear from Roy this far into a thread. I am not trying to speak on Roy’s behalf but I have tried to address the use of a linear trend at UAH. I have guessed that UAH is forced to use such a trend based on scientific protocol.
In the paper produced by UAH on the UAH 33 year report, they try to explain parts of the trend. What I am seeing in their words is that the linear trend is simply a number-crunched average, possibly based on the expected protocol.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2011/November/Nov2011GTR.pdf
Mark
Temperature datasets have three main components.
1) The random walk. Weather controls the temperature on short time scales and this creates a pattern of temperature variation which resembles an autocorrealated random walk.
2) Constraints. The probability of a particular size of variation decreases as you get further from the mean. Plot the data from one station or averaged over a number of stations and you get a normal distribution.The result is that temperatures change, but within confidence limits.
3) If there is no long term cooling or warming trend the mean temperature stays the same and a linear regression trend will be flat.
If there is cooling or warming there will be a long term change in the mean temperature underlying the short term variation and a linear regression will show this.The
The dilemma is that the internal variation for UAH is larger than the decadal trend.Internal variation from weather (and particularly ENSO) makes the 95% confidence limits about +/-0.3C. The long term trend ia 0.14C /decade. It takes four decades for the long term trend to show clearly above the noise, and we only have four decades of data.
entropic…”Temperature datasets have three main components”.
You are implying that statistics control the weather, which is natural, physical phenomena.
Mark Fife
The linear estimates for time series are no more than… estimates.
But you need them to compare these time series.
And your random walk argument has been discussed since over a decade on several blogs, to such an extent that one wonders how some people can bring such stuff again and again.
If you want to look at highly elaborate estimates perfectly taking autocorrelation into account, so look at
– Nick Stokes’ Trend Viewer
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
– Kevin Cowtan’s trend computer:
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
*
I’m quite satisfied with the results of spreadsheet calculators:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GFRb0ZM5nxSohwbwW-wKkH__u6sRZ_Hs/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16S376eIvjMAGbQntZuoviCkbAgwgU_Lb/view
*
” BEST source data have a lot of really bad data. ”
So? And that you managed to detect by using a ridiculous microset of 76 (in words: seventy six) stations?
Are you serious?
How did you select them?
Let me say that BEST’s land time series for 1880-now is one of the best ones (no irony here).
I generate since years station data averages out of about 40000 GHCN daily stations, and comparisons of that raw surface data with
– corrected/adjusted surface data
– GHCN daily processing by Clive Best
as well as with
– LT land-only data
was very good for JMA, BEST, and least for GISS and RSS4.0.
*
Your claim reminds me those made at WUWT concerning sea level processing.
There you see Web heroes carefully selecting a dozen of PSMSL gauges (of over 1500) and proudly telling us: no sea level rise!
Jesus.
J.-P. D.
Geometer Fife inquires
” you managed to detect by using a ridiculous microset of 76 (in words: seventy six) stations?
Are you serious?”
Since twenty sided icosahedron is not a bad approximation to the globe, the averge global temperature can be well approximated by integrating a microset set of sixty , one or each side of a buckyball.
76 is , if anything, overdoing it.
Seitz
I think it would be better for you to carefully read Clive Best:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8119
*
And yes: I know that with a minimal set of stations, Nick Stokes managed to approximate global surface data.
And yes: I know that with 5 % of UAH’s grid, I managed to approximate global LT data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YjFLnql_uzZrXY_Hff5TYY9bTBxO38lO/view
But neither Nick Stokes let alone I would ever conclude that ” BEST source data have a lot of really bad data ” on the base of such a superficial exercise.
J.-P. D.
Συνεχίστε, είστε στο σωστό δρόμο!
Thanks for sharing the informative post. If you are looking the Linksys extender setup guidelines . so, we have a best technical expert for handlings your quires. for more information gets touch with us
This is very useful article. I will connect it back to your site though
ipad air 4 เล่น Mega Slot ยังไงก็รวย ใช้ ipad air 4 เล่นเกมในเว็บ Mega Slot ได้เเล้ววันนี้ เกมสล็อตเล่นได้กับทุกอุปกรณ์ เล่นยังไงก็ปัง เพราะระบบดี ระบบเสถียรมีเเจกโบนัส
วันนี้ใส่เสื้อสีอะไรมีโชค Mega Game ในการสวมเสื้อสีอะไร มีโชคสำหรับเพื่อการเล่น ผู้คนเชื่อในสีรวมทั้งชะตากรรมไม่มากมายก็น้อย ในการโดยเฉพาะใส่เสื้อผ้าสีที่สมควรทุกวี่ทุกวันเพื่อเพิ่มโชคของคุณ ในการโดยเฉพาะใส่เสื้อผ้าสีที่สมควร megaslotgame
พลิกวิกฤตให้เป็นโอกาส กับการเล่น Pg Slot จนกระทั่งทำให้ผู้คนจำนวนมากเจอปัญหาตามมาหลายสิ่งหลายอย่าง pg slot หนึ่งในนั้นเป็นการที่รายได้ลดลง รวมถึงปัญหาที่เกิดขึ้นกับการเดินทางไปปฏิบัติงาน
And yes: I know that with a minimal set of stations, Nick Stokes managed to approximate global surface data.
Your claim reminds me those made at WUWT concerning sea level processing.