The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2021 was +0.25 deg. C, up from the August, 2021 value of +0.17 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 is +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 21 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
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.31 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.33 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for September, 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
It appears that the running centered 13-month average was not updated since June.
The guy in charge of calculating the red line quit in July.
That may not be a joke.
A while ago they were struggling to find a graduate student willing to maintain the dataset.
I offer the following numbers:
Centered Month – Value
November 20 – 0.24
December 20 – 0.21
January 21 – 0.20
February 21 – 0.19
March 21 – 0.18
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah.jpeg
The Global Box Car line is the same (or very, very nearly) as Roy’s 13 month running mean.
I won’t update that for this month until Roy’s full dataset appears.
Can’t believe I didn’t notice the running average line problem… looks like I never updated the end of the series in Excel when I added 2021. Will fix when I’m back in the office.
I admit to some confusion. Is the 13-month running average line going to be added? As of 19 October, it still does not appear.
Also very curious about that. In my opinion its a very important stat.
I am going to take a wild guess that it will be updated for the last few months on the October update, rather than post a new September update.
So basically .5 or .6 Celsius increase the last 42 years.
Yes.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2022/every/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2022/trend
Linear trend from anomaly -0.4C to 0.2C.
0.6C in 42 years or 0.14C/decade.
“Linear trend from anomaly -0.4C to 0.2C”
Why would a straight OLS line over a limited period tell you anything about the future or the past before it started?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-1.jpeg
Is a much netter picture of the large physical mechanism and how it has responded over the last 42 years that is Earth’s climate I think.
RLH:
I agree with you. Your reasonable averaging indicates about .5C increase over 42 years which is an average of .12C/decade,or 1.2C/century.
Don’t be fooled by this plot. The last few years of his ‘averaging’ curve going down, is not a true average, since there is no data beyond 2021 that would be needed to find an average centered on 2021.
It is misleading. It misleads RLH to think cooling is ahead.
The point of a linear fit is to find the average trend (rate of rise) over the period.
It is not done by eye-balling. A proper fit gives 0.135 +- 0.05 C/decade.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
For comparison, we have RSS also measuring LT temp gives 0.214 +- 0.05 C/dec.
We also have surface trends for the same period which agree with each other better.
GISS: 0.188 +- 0.037 C/decade
Berkeley 0.193 +- 0.031 C/decade
Had 0.188 +- 0.033 C/decade
Berkely:
Climate models also predict average trends. Thus the data can be compared to models.
“Why would a straight OLS line over a limited period tell you anything about the future or the past before it started?”
Why would somebody introduce concepts as if they had been talked about/assumed when they hadn’t?
It can be misleading because the satellite records started near the end of a cooling trend.
A 25-30 year warming trend followed, and it now appears we may be headed back into a cooling trend.
Yeah.
Sure.
Just like it started to cool after the sun went down last night. We must be in a cooling trend.
Sun setting is a fairly good example of a cooling trend. Although a very short trend, at least we know its all natural.
Some think 2016 was the peak of the warming. If so, well get to see how long the next cooling trend lasts.
s,
Or just like it has cooled over the longest possible period – since the Earth was created.
Cherry pick a shorter period if the long term drop in temperature doesn’t suit you.
I will understand,
We’re well into Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere and that has an even larger cooling effect that Day/Night does.
Mind you that means it is Spring in the Southern Hemisphere and that has an opposite warming effect.
Same as day on one side of the planet is night on the other.
So, overall, it is a wash.
We don’t say it often enough: thanks again to Dr Spencer for making these updates available here so promptly every month. Much appreciated.
+1
I agree. If I could upvote a post at all, never mind early and often, it would be TheFinalNail’s.
+1
With the most-thoroughly-discussed topic there has ever been on this blog now settled in the “Non-Spinners” favor, perhaps we can finally get back to discussing “AGW”, if that’s still even a thing? Not sure if anybody believes in that thoroughly debunked nonsense any more.
“The first principle is that you must not cool yourself…and YOU are the easiest person to fool.”
Richard Feynmann
You have fooled yourself into believing that the Moon does not spin and that AGW is not happening. Both beliefs have been thoroughly debunked, but cognitive dissonance blinds you to the evidence.
Ent, exactly how did you “thoroughly debunk” those things?
You’ve got NOTHING.
Is the ball-on-a-string rotating about its axis?
Does more CO2 mean more energy emitted to space?
You may have already forgotten, but you have a poor understanding of science.
Well, other than our ocean is cold and we in ice age, because our ocean is cold {and related to that why did Little Ice Age cool or why has Holocene apparently past it’s peak interglacial average temperature}.
Other than that, why does Earth absorb so much energy.
Though one ask why does Earth emit so much energy- but if didn’t absorb so much energy, and it was somewhere close the equilibrium temperature {which everyone assumes it is} then if didn’t absorb as much as it does, it wouldn’t emit as much as it does.
Related to this, is that Venus absorbs small amount of the Sun’s energy?
In terms of big picture, I have said, and will say again, the reason Earth absorbs a lot sunlight is because 80% of the tropical zone is ocean. And Ocean absorbs a lot more than Land.
In terms of Venus, Venus clouds absorb most of the energy of the sun, and any kind clouds, don’t absorb much sunlight.
I would say venus clouds absorb more sunlight, than Earth’s H20 clouds. Though you could say our cloud reflect more sunlight than Acid clouds. But would not say that reflection is not “all of the story”. Or it is obvious that water cloud are bright to visible light {but also black to more half of the energy of sunlight}.
Clint R
YOU: “Does more CO2 mean more energy emitted to space?”
Most certainly NOT!
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
With Standard Atmosphere looking down if you put the CO2 level to 0 you will get 295.976 W/m2 leaving the Earth system. If you put 400 in the CO2 box the value of outgoing IR (with surface temperature of 288.2 K) drops significantly to 267.842 W/m2.
If you double that it goes down some more to 264.859 W/m2.
So if the Earth surface temperature remains the same increasing CO2 reduces the energy emitted to space.
N,
You wrote –
“So if the Earth surface temperature remains the same increasing CO2 reduces the energy emitted to space.”
Don’t be so dim. Two things – the Earth’s surface temperature at any location constantly changes, and CO2 does not reduce the energy emitted to space.
You may not realise it, but the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
So the Earth’s surface temperature has fallen, and the Earth’s surface temperature has fallen. You are obviously confused about the factthat when thermometers are exposed to sufficient radiation of appropriate energy levels, they indicate higher temperatures!
Do you really want to argue with reality? Go your hardest – the sound you hear will be Nature laughing at you.
Swenson
I do not argue with Nature I just observe your thinking is less than what a brick wall generates.
You bring up the stupid point that the Earth surface was at one time molten and now is not so it has cooled from that state.
Yes, so? It cools rapidly for a time then it stops cooling and reaches a steady state temperature with solar input and GHE.
You have molten rock pouring out of a few volcanoes at this time. The rock rapidly cools but does it just keep cooling? NO, it reaches an steady state temperature with its surroundings and quits cooling.
I am certain you possess zero thinking ability and show no signs of logical progression.
Norman, did you find another link you can’t understand?
No wonder you get so frustrated….
Clint R
The link is well understood by those who know physics so count yourself out. I am not “frustrated” just amazed at how stupid and arrogant you are. I have met many people. Stupid people usually have some humility and realize they are not at genius level. One can educate the humble. You are incredibly stupid, can’t think logically but totally arrogant and confident in your ignorance.
You remind me of a naked person walking around with a terd hanging out of their butt and being proud of it, not ever attempting to wipe it away.
Do not think “frustration” when I respond to your stupid posts. It is more amazement each time you post that you really are totally stupid and maximum arrogant and confident. A rare combo only possible by Internet. I think your mind type may be very rare (thankfully).
N,
You wrote –
“You bring up the stupid point that the Earth surface was at one time molten and now is not so it has cooled from that state.”
You haven’t disagreed with the fact, though, have you?
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. No GHE needed, is there?
You can’t help yourself – rejecting reality in favour of a fantasy.
Just as delusional as people like Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, and all the rest of the climate nutters. Carry on with your strange diatribes. Have you observed the GHE at night yet? Or can it only be seen in bright sunlight?
Hi Norman,
” The rock rapidly cools but does it just keep cooling? NO, it reaches an steady state temperature with its surroundings and quits cooling.”
In fact it MUST keep cooling. The second law of thermodynamics requires it to cool to the colder atmosphere and space above it…
As for global temps… anyone looking for a big cooling is likely to be disappointed as there has been no significant recovery in the ozone layer this year.. (heating will occur wherever that uvb is absorbed ; ) )
ciao!
Norman
“So if the Earth surface temperature remains the same increasing CO2 reduces the energy emitted to space”
You are ignoring a lot of factors. More clouds for one. Water vapors latent heat is tremendous. Do you think the latent heat released thru precipitation must also go through CO2? Do you think thermometers capture this latent energy?
“In fact it MUST keep cooling. The second law of thermodynamics requires it to cool to the colder atmosphere and space above it”
..if there were no sunshine warming the surface.
But there is sunshine!
“you must not cool yourself”: Very true. Cool weather kills far more people than warm or hot weather.
By the way, I doubt that ANYONE who reads this blog “believes” that AGW is NOT happening. We look at the information provided by Dr Spencer and the chart and recognize the rate of about 1.4 degrees per century warming since 1979.
R,
Belief is irrelevant. However, given that between 1900, say, and 2021, global human energy use has increased by a factor of 70 or more, as both population and per capita energy use have increased markedly over that period.
All energy used, from whatever source, is eventually converted to heat of such wavelengths as can not readily utilised to perform work, and is subsequently lost to outer space.
Of course, thermometers respond to radiation emitted at higher temperatures than that of the thermometer as – higher temperatures!
Nothing to do with GHGs or the mythical GHE. Just basic thermodynamics.
The Earth, overall, has of course cooled from the original molten state, and I haven’t seen any serious suggestions that CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a return to its initial condition.
Tell me what effect you expect
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/amo-1.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/pdo-2.jpeg
to have.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
WAITING FOR GODOT ON THE MOON
[K] If the cannonball does indeed rotate about an external axis
[T] But it does not rotate about that axis
[K] Why does the torque about the external axis not cause the cannonball to rotate about the external axis?
[T] Because that is not how torques work!
[K] So torques do not lead to rotation?
[T] You are getting there. A torque (as calculated about a specific axis) applied to an object leads to a change in angular momentum (as measured about that same axis). This may or may not lead to rotation about that axis.
[K] And gravity is not rigid enough a connection for you?
[T] Absolutely NOT rigid enough! Were gravity “rigid”, it would be impossible for a moon to get further from or closer to its planet, it would be impossible for a moon to do anything besides face its planet.
[K] It only needs to be rigid enough that the torque about the external axis results in rotation about the external axis
[T] But it is NOT EVEN THAT RIGID! There are just not enough ways to tell you this. Can you jump? Gravity does not hold you rigidly at a specific distance from the center of the earth. Can you do a somersault? Gravity does not hold you rigidly in a specific orientation relative to the center of the earth.
[K] Gravity just connects the cannonball to the center of the Earth. Not rigidly, but rigidly enough.
[T] it would be fascinating to hear your mathematical definition of “rigid enough”. How you you calculate “rigidness” and what value constitutes “rigid enough”?
[K] Think what you want. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-879002
Yeah, Willard, nobody’s going to understand that when you’ve left out most of the context and half of what was said during the discussion.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Everybody will understand that you’re wrong.
Why? Explain in your own words.
You go first, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-889243
I knew he wouldn’t be able to pinpoint any errors.
The actual context for the discussion was a setup similar to Newton’s Cannonball, but where the cannonball is launched without spin, and thus continues to orbit without spin, the bottom of the cannonball always facing towards the Earth whilst it does so.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Tim recently admitted that the force from the cannon would produce a torque about the external axis (the axis located at the center of the Earth). With rotation occurring about the external axis, but nothing to produce a torque about the ball’s own internal axis, then the cannonball would move as per the “moon on the left” in the below gif:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Tim tried to argue that the cannonball would need to be rigidly attached for rotation about an external axis to occur. However, a string is not “rigid”, but a ball on a string still moves like the “moon on the left”. Gravity is the “string”. All it needs to do is connect the cannonball to the center of the Earth. It does not need to be a rigid attachment.
“Tim recently admitted that the force from the cannon would produce a torque about the external axis” whilst it was physically connected.
As soon as that physical connection was lost, it turned into rotation about its own axis as science dictates.
RLH demonstrates his confusion over what is being discussed.
“Tim recently admitted that the force from the cannon would produce a torque about the external axis “
That is not an “admission” nor is it “recent”. That is the definition of “torque”.
torque = r x F (vectors)
or
torque = rF sin(theta) (scalars)
There is a force. there is a radius. They are not parallel. So there is a torque.
Every force provides torque about an infinite number of axes. That is a completely different question than if there will be “rotation” about any of those axes. IN this case, the cannon ball comes out with no spin relative to the ‘fixed stars’. And it will continue with “no spin relative to the fixed stars” unless some NEW torque acts on the cannon ball.
A string could provide such a torque. A rod could provide such a torque. A MGR platform could provide such a torque. A road could provide such a torque. Train tracks could provide such a torque. But not gravity.
The force from the cannon provides the torque, Tim. Gravity is not providing a torque about either the external or internal axis. Gravity is just connecting the cannonball to the center of the Earth, like the string that connects the ball to the external axis it rotates around.
DREMT demonstrates his confusion over everything.
Push a tetherball from the side and the ball rotates about the central post, not on its own axis. Pretty straightforward.
The string is connected to the surface of the ball, not the center.
“Gravity is just connecting the cannonball to the center of the Earth, like the string that connects the ball to the external axis it rotates around.”
No. Gravity is NOT ‘just like’ a ball on a string. A string attaches to the close side of the ball. it can provide a torque about the COM of the ball. Gravity cannot. This simple but fundamental fact is critical to understanding this whole issue.
The closer analogy is that gravity is like a string on a yoyo — free to rotate with no friction.
What you are forgetting is that we do not need a torque about the ball’s internal axis for the cannonball to move as per the “moon on the left”. All we need is a torque about the external axis. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the “moon on the left”. So your point about the attachment point of the string on the tetherball falls flat on its face.
What you are forgetting is that your explanation is wrong. You can’t see it because you lack any deep understanding of physics. But you simply are wrong. Tour appeal to your own authority for answers does not carry any weight.
We will include “appeal to authority” under the list of things that Tim does not understand.
“An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument.”
DREMT claims his arguments are correct because he says they are correct.
And actually it is closer to a related fallacy: Begging the Question. “The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.”
Because ‘orbiting without rotation’ is what our moon is doing, we know that orbiting without rotation means always facing the earth.
Tim, that is completely ridiculous.
"DREMT claims his arguments are correct because he says they are correct."
Absolutely not. I just make the arguments. Whether they are correct or not depends on the validity of the arguments. I have never claimed they are correct "because I say they are".
"Because ‘orbiting without rotation’ is what our moon is doing, we know that orbiting without rotation means always facing the earth."
Tim, I have never argued that. A total straw man.
> Whether they are correct or not depends on the validity of the arguments.
That’s where Kiddo is wrong once again:
The argument could be incorrect because its premises are unsound, and empirical sciences are not about making valid inferences (they’re mostly ampliative) but good enough to determine the best explanation.
I have never claimed they are correct "because I say they are".
Arguing by assertion works a lot like an appeal to authority, Kiddo.
Sometimes I make statements about things that have been established during previous discussions or that have been supported countless times before, and I do not bother to repeat all the arguments surrounding it or to provide the support again. That is not an argument by assertion, that is just me not being bothered to go through the motions of providing all the supporting arguments or links every single time. It becomes tiresome.
> Sometimes I make statements about things that have been established
See, Kiddo?
That’s begging the question.
It’s also handwaving.
OK, Willard. I acknowledge receipt of your opinion.
OK DREMT. I acknowledge the fact that you are wrong. Always. About everything.
OK, RLH. I acknowledge receipt of your opinion.
OK DREMT. I acknowledge the fact that you are wrong.
OK, RLH. I acknowledge your belief that your opinions are facts.
*sigh*
Boredom is the theme.
Kennui is the Flame Warrior:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
blah blah blah
Ken,
Horror! You must be channeling St. Greta of Thunberg!
Or maybe Binny the Dong.
DREMT has every right to think differently than the universe.
DREMT
Well you managed to ignite the flames once again. Moon rotation has been discussed quite enough! NASA confirms the Moon rotates and uses it when they need to land on the Moon in the correct location. Enough said. You and idiot Clint R are not in charge of anything of value so your stupid endless opinions on the matter amount to nothing. Believe what you want to, it changes nothing and just makes you look like an ignorant and stubborn person. In the 10,000 plus posts on the issue that is the end result. You are ignorant and stubborn. Nothing else of value has come out of these thousands upon thousands of posts on that issue. Hope last post it would have ended but you seem to want it to continue endlessly. Why is that?
I had no intention of discussing it further, but others just cannot leave it alone. As I said, I would like to move the discussion back onto AGW, now that the moon debate is settled in our favor.
“the moon debate is settled in our favor.”
The Moon debate has never been settled in your favor. Quite the opposite in fact.
See? Others just cannot leave it alone.
DREMT started it this time.
Others just cannot leave it alone.
DREMT is obsessed with proving ‘he is correct’. He isn’t.
Others just cannot leave it alone…
DREMT is obsessed.
Others just cannot leave it alone..
DREMT cannot admit he is obsessed.
RLH cannot admit he is obsessed, and unable to leave it alone.
DREMT is so obsessed about the Moon’s rotation he always wants the last word.
RLH said, wanting the last word as always.
debate cannot be settled, it can be won or lost as determined by the audience voting on it
“I had no intention of discussing it further, but others just cannot leave it alone.”
And yet strangely, you needlessly brought it up.
Especially strange given your previous statement that you have the ‘right to think differently’.
An admission that
a. your view is not the conventional view.
b. Others are entitled to theirs.
Of course neither of these is consistent with your ‘it is settled’ nonsense.
Poor Norman. He’s having another bad-hair-day.
He’s so frustrated because all of his childish beliefs are being shattered. He no longer gets to make things up. Every time he tries his nonsense, he gets caught.
Clint R
You are very stupid. I do not have the childish beliefs that haunt your mind. I like facts and evidence. You like making up stupid points, illogical thought problems and you love a ball on a string like maybe a little boy would be fascinated by.
Your mind is so simple it can’t grasp the radiant heat transfer equation. You can’t understand fluxes do add and subtract from a surface. You can test it easily but are either too stupid to set up a test or lazy. Probably both.
You can have one heat lamp pointed at a plate and turn it on. Measure the steady state temperature. Now turn on another heat lamp and see if it gets warmer.
Also fluxes subtract. Turn the lights off and the plate cools because energy is being lost (subtracted) from the plate by a flux.
Flux is no more magic than hoses of water filling a tank and open drains. They can be different sizes and shapes it all works out the same.
The flux of the plate is how much energy per time it gains or loses similar to gallons per minute. A quantity of energy lost or gained in a time frame. W/m^2. The size of the plate does not change so the joules/second can be added or subtracted.
I am certain you are too dumb to understand any of this.
Maybe only Swenson is dumber than you.
N,
The “flux of the plate”? You are off with the fairies again, laddie.
Stop avoiding reality.
Tell me where the GHE may be observed, measured, and documented. If you can’t, you are just another climate crackpot, desperately seeking to be recognised as rational and intelligent.
Maybe too much flux has penetrated your skull, causing some to conclude you are fluxed in the head!
But carry on regardless. If you don’t accept reality – create your own. Just define things as you want them to be – slow cooling is really heating, climate is not the average of weather, and so on.
Have fun.
Swenson
I have already shown you where GHE can be observed and measured. You are too stupid to understand it and will continue to wallow in your pool of idiot mud smearing it all over your posts.
On the previous thread I explained it to you. Just like Clint R or Gordon Robertson you do not possess enough intelligence to comprehend what is explained to you so you continue posting arrogant, but ignorant comments devoid of any value.
Like you say, carry on regardless.
As usual Norman, you’re completely wrong. At least you’re consistent!
The ball-on-a-string is a suitable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It’s even used by your cult, as I’ve linked to. You reject that reality because it destroys your cult beliefs.
And you can’t understand the invalid equation is invalid. You can’t find the temperature of the outer sphere. That should tell you the equation is invalid. But you reject that reality because it destroys your cult beliefs.
You completely miss the point with your heat lamps. Two heat lamps can NOT raise the temperature above the temperature of the hottest filament. The maximum fluxes from both lamps do NOT add.
And turning off one lamp is NOT an example of fluxes subtracting. You need to heat some object, with one heat lamp on each side and show the object will not warm because the fluxes subtract! (Save yourself the effort, it won’t work!)
Your effort to compare flux to water merely indicates you don’t understand flux.
No wonder you get so frustrated and angry. You don’t understand any of this.
The ball-on-a-string is a suitable model of a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.
The ball-on-a-string model gives the cult idiots nightmares.
That’s why RLH obsessively trolls, trying to ignore the reality that his own cult uses the model.
The ball-on-a-string ‘model’ is not relevant to orbital mechanics.
Clint R proved that it was. You are in denial.
No he didn’t so you are wrong.
He provided links to sources that you would otherwise listen to that included a ball on a string in their discussion of orbital mechanics.
Anything that uses a connection to a surface to describe gravity is incorrect.
The connection is irrelevant when it comes to the ball on a string, as explained up-thread.
Clint R
You keep making a stupid point but have no explanation.
You believe an equation designed to calculate heat loss by radiant energy from a hot object should (for reasons known only to you) should allow you to determine the temperature of a sphere surrounding it. Why do you think this equation should do this? You make declarative statements but offer no explanation of why you are so sure you are correct.
The equation Q=(sigma)(emissivity of object)(T^4 (hot object) – T^4(cold object).
It is designed to determine how much heat is lost by the hot object by radiant means. Why do you insist it has to do more, it does what it is designed to do quite well. Why is it invalid if it does what it is supposed to do? You never provide answers. You just make mindless declarations and tell people they are wrong.
That is quite a stupid process!
You Method. Make some declaration. Never elaborate. And call people perverted, cult minded, idiot, etc… Not sure what that is about.
“The connection is irrelevant when it comes to the ball on a string”
1) Is the string connected to a surface. YES.
2) Is gravity connected to a surface. NO.
3) Is the string virtually connected to a center. NO.
4) Is gravity virtually connected to a center. YES.
The string only acts through the center of mass of the ball. There is no need for the string to apply a torque about the ball’s own internal axis. The only torque that needs to be applied to the system is about the external axis. That comes from the force applied to the ball perpendicular to the string, to initiate the rotation about an external axis. The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis and not about an internal axis.
DR EMPTY,
“That comes from the force applied to the ball perpendicular to the string, to initiate the rotation about an external axis.”
Sorry DR EMPTY, but no such force exists.
It does when you push the ball to start it swinging, bob.
“The string only acts through the center of mass of the ball”
The string is attached to the surface. The extension of the line between the internal axis of the whole body is through the center of the ball.
The force the string exerts is therefore applied to the surface of the ball and then, via a lever, to the center of the ball. This is not the center of the whole body that the ball-on-a-string is part of though.
Since you don’t think the ball on a string rotates on its own axis (an internal axis, going through the ball itself), one wonders what your point is.
DR EMPTY<
"It does when you push the ball to start it swinging, bob."
Really, you have to push the ball to start it swinging?
You are stupider than even I thought.
You pull on the string to start the ball swinging, you don't have to touch the ball.
What a moron!
If it is a "model" of the Moon, there can be only one force on the ball on a string.
The pull on the string to model the pull on the Moon due to gravity.
The fact that a ball-on-a-string rotates about an axis that is fully contained with the whole object that it is part of seems to have escaped you.
If it was in orbit then 2 axis exist. One it is orbiting around. The other an axis at its center. Motion about both axis is independent.
I am talking about a tetherball, bob. You push the ball to start it swinging.
DR EMTPY,
No you are not, you are talking about the ball on a string
“The string only acts through the center of mass of the ball. There is no need for the string to apply a torque about the ball’s own internal axis. The only torque that needs to be applied to the system is about the external axis. That comes from the force applied to the ball perpendicular to the string, to initiate the rotation about an external axis. The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis and not about an internal axis.”
No mention of a tetherball there.
What would I expect from a liar?
Pay more attention, bob:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-891751
I await your apology.
“The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis and not about an internal axis”
External to the part, not the whole.
Keep making irrelevant distinctions that change nothing, RLH.
You saying now that internal or external axis are irrelevant?
I am saying that we agree the axis the ball rotates about is external to the ball. It does not matter if you want to group the ball and string together and call it one single object.
Ball, string and pivot are indeed one object. So there is no ‘external’ axis at all.
The axis of rotation is external to the ball. No matter how you want to dress it up.
DR EMPTY,
That wasn’t in the sub thread I was responding to.
You won’t get any apology from me.
Or maybe this one will have to do.
I am sorry you suck at physics, math, and all other sciences.
And still the Moon rotates on its axis, as well as the ball on a string, your my little pony and the chalk circle on the merry go round.
RLH and others would disagree with you on the last three, bob.
You will never have the integrity to debate that with them, though.
DR EMPTY,
If any one wants to debate me on the last three elements, they can look at my proofs that all three things are rotating on their axes.
Or they can do like you and ignore those proofs.
You haven’t provided any feedback that would indicate you even understand what a proof is.
It’s not about my integrity, it’s whether or not you understand the science.
And you are a known liar, so you have no integrity.
bob, you are beyond help.
DR EMPTY,
That’s not a criticism of my proofs that the Moon rotates, your little pony rotates, your precious chalk circle rotates and the ball on a string rotates, all on their own axes through the body of the object in question.
To win you have to play, you are running away and refusing to participate in any meaningful way.
That means you lose again.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Rotation_illustration2.svg
https://answerstoall.com/technology/is-every-rotation-an-isometry/
I am talking about the ball on a string, the wooden horse on a merry-go-round and the chalk circle on the merry-go-round, Willard. I am not talking about the moon.
DR EMPTY,
“I am talking about the ball on a string, the wooden horse on a merry-go-round and the chalk circle on the merry-go-round, Willard. I am not talking about the moon.”
So, and you are showing a graph that shows an object rotating on two separate axes.
Sorry you lose again.
No, bob. As clearly indicated, it is rotating only about point O. One single motion.
DR EMPTY,
Please explain how the green blob has changed orientation with out rotating.
P.S. You can’t, it’s impossible.
You lose again, over and over, crimson and clover.
> I am talking about the ball on a string
You’re actually talking about the concept of rotation, Kiddo.
bob can’t even understand a simple diagram.
Kiddo still does not get Bob’s argument.
There is nobody here commenting by the name “Kiddo”, Willard.
Kiddo enjoys stating irrelevant facts, that’s for sure.
You are on ignore until you call me DREMT, Willard.
DR EMPTY,
There are equations to model the ball on a string or your diagram.
An object moving in a circle, you use x^2 + y^2 = a^2
For the direction the object is pointing use a trig function cos t, using t for time, though pointing inward you would use – cos t
I’ll let you figure out if that is clockwise or counterclockwise.
If you can handle it.
So we have two equations to model two different things, revolving and rotating.
So you are proven wrong yet again.
As clearly indicated, the object in the diagram is rotating only about point O. One single motion.
“Not sure if anybody believes in that thoroughly debunked nonsense any more.”
Really? Seems like it is a bigger issue than every, what with the brutal heat in the West this year, and the brutal flooding in the East this year and the warmest summer ever in the US this year. And last year tying for warmest year on record globally.
Yeah, I don’t think you need to worry about AGW dying out as an issue any time soon.
When we talk about the AGW issue dying out, it’s in relation to sane people. We know that the braindead cult idiots will cling to the failed science forever. We’ve seen evidence with every cold snap. They always claim the cold is due to AGW!
If sea ice melts, it’s due to AGW. If sea ice refreezes, it’s due to AGW.
We’ve seen it all before.
AGW is a dead horse. Stop flogging it.
The only people who say otherwise have their brains blotted out by thoughts of blah blah blah.
RI,
And of course the brutal cold in Antarctica or other really cold places.
Climate crackpots claim this is due to excessive CO2 in the atmosphere or something.
It seems odd that Antarctica used to be home to abundant flora and fauna – before they were exterminated by the coming of the ice.
Speaking of the AGW charade. Among the numerous absurd studies from the many infamous “climate science” charlatans, this attempt to explain how an increase from 7 to 8 CO2 molecules per 20,000 air molecules (50ppm) heats the ocean remains my favorite:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351
I especially like the admission that the phenomenon can’t be measured:
“The total calculated volume mean warming is 0.09°C indicating an average change in the surface fluxes of 0.39 W m−2 for the 1955–2010 period over the World Ocean. Such small changes in the average atmospheric infrared (IR) emission incident at the sea surface occurring over decades are not feasible to measure with currently available instruments.”
And the acknowledgement that a 1.5 meter per second change in wind speed dwarfs any potential effect of LWIR on ocean surface temps
“This suggests that as winds increase from 2 to 3.5 m s−1, wind effects start eroding and thinning the TSL through increased levels of turbulence below. For wind speeds below 2 m s−1, the TSL is thicker. This also shows that in order to remove the effect of winds for our analysis, there is a need to focus on data with wind speeds of less than 2 m s−1.”
This Null Hypothesis paper demonstrates that AGW disappears in a 0.2 mph wind (0.1 meters per second).
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf
“Global estimates of ocean evaporation rates show that
between 1977 and 2003 the global ocean evaporation rate has increased from 103 to 114 cm.yr-1 with an uncertainty of ±2.72 cm.yr-1.
This was caused by a 0.1 m.s-1 increase in average wind speed. The ‘clear sky’ upper limit for the CO2 induced increase in evaporation is below the measurement uncertainty bounds. Long term averages of surface air temperatures are ~2 C below the corresponding ocean surface temperatures. This means that there is usually no direct heating of the ocean by the atmosphere, as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The latent heat of evaporation is not released until the water condenses, which is generally at an altitude above 1 km. It is therefore impossible for an increase in downward atmospheric LWIR flux of 1.7 W.m-2 to heat the ocean. The increase in flux is converted by the ocean surface into an insignificant change in evaporation rate. This is buried in the noise of wind induced fluctuations in evaporation and changes in LWIR flux caused by variations in aerosols, clouds and near surface humidity.”
Welcome back, Flop:
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
“impossible for an increase in downward atmospheric LWIR flux of 1.7 W.m-2 to heat the ocean. The increase in flux is converted by the ocean surface into an insignificant change in evaporation rate.”
Not this nonsense again.
As if the extra energy just vanishes?
And ignoring conduction and turbulent mixing.
“Tell me you don’t know what evaporation is without telling me you don’t know what evaporation is”
“With the most-thoroughly-discussed topic there has ever been on this blog now settled in the Non-Spinners favor”
In your dreams. You and your tiny, tiny clique have been soundedly defeated in everything you have said.
Soundedly!?
Typos apart, Yes.
No.
Many supporters of real science have shown you to be wrong. You just repeat the same old tired ball-on-a-string ‘thought experiment’ as though it meant something as regards orbits. It doesn’t.
You have no counter-arguments to what I write. You just declare it wrong, often without understanding, as you demonstrate further up-thread.
“You have no counter-arguments to what I write”
I have loads of counter arguments (as do others). You just won’t accept that things like ball-on-a-string are irrelevant for orbital mechanics.
Except for their obvious relevance.
There is no relevance.
…apart from the relevance that there is.
Which is none.
…apart from the obvious.
What the fact that you are obviously wrong?
No, the obvious relevance of things like the ball on a string to orbital mechanics.
There can be no relevance of a physical connection to a surface and a virtual connection to a center.
…if you ignore what is explained up-thread.
Which fails to deal with the fact that physical attachments to the surface are not the same as virtual connections to the center.
No, it succeeds in dealing with it.
Only in your narrow deluded mind.
OK, RLH. I acknowledge receipt of your opinion.
OK DREMT, I acknowledge that you are wrong.
Yes, I acknowledge that you think that.
DREMT is simply here to troll. He knows full well that there have been many counterarguments that he simply cannot rebut. Particularly those involving physics. He simply dodges answering, declares he’s tired, that he ‘thinks differently’ to physics, and departs the scene.
Then returns later and declares:
“You have no counter-arguments to what I write.”
Even just now. RLH points out that the string is attached to the surface and applies torque.
When the ball is launched without spin, the string pulls the surface attachment into alignment with it, applying torque, and giving it spin. This is obvious to everyone who’ve played the game.
DREMT simply denies that this torque exists.
Once again he is wrong, and a fraud.
“Which fails to deal with the fact that physical attachments to the surface are not the same as virtual connections to the center.”
Here is where this is dealt with, by the way, in case anyone only caught this sub-thread, and did not read through the rest:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-891882
“Here is where this is dealt with”
Denial of a fact is not ‘dealing’ with it.
In volleyball, the ball is served, travels in a straight line, and doesnt aquire rotation along the way.
In tetherball, the ball is served, travels in a straight line, until the string becomes taught and jerks it into alignment. Torque is applied.
So this is the link again, in case anybody missed it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-891882
And as a result of that torque, rotation IS acquired by the tetherball and alignment with the center is guaranteed.
This is an obvious effect of the strings attachment to the surface of the ball, which is NOTHING like what gravity does.
But continue to ignore whatever simple facts dont fit your narrative.
That’s just what you do.
I will just repost that link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-891882
“All we need is a torque about the external axis. Rotation about an external axis,”
This was a failed attempt to use a physics words without understanding. But physicists have pointed out your mistake several times. That torque produces orbital angular momentum and NO orientational change.
You ignore what the actual physics shows, and had no sensible rebuttal. That was when you simply gave up and declared: “I have a right to think differently”
And thats a return to ‘declared truth’.
But lets face it, you are not here to learn or uncover the truth. Just trolling.
Now stop.
That link again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-891882
I remember DREMT insisting that he/she is not the one to restart the endless moon spin conversation in each new article.
The self-delusion is strong in this one.
If you believe it would not restart without me, you are the delusional one.
You’ve also admitted that you troll people because you like the reaction.
It makes it even slimier when you pretend to be anything other than a troll, but maybe that’s the way you like it.
“You’ve also admitted that you troll people because you like the reaction.”
No barry, I have never said such a thing. If deeply unpleasant sociopaths get upset because their beliefs clash with reality, then of course there can be a mild sense of satisfaction in that. When bad people, such as yourself, who have devoted their entire lives to lying on the internet about the relentlessly falsified GHE sub-conjecture, get proven wrong by their intellectual and moral superiors, it can be enjoyable. But I would never get any pleasure from irritating honest, rational human beings.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I write “please stop trolling” because:
1) It amuses me (especially how seriously people like you seem to take it).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2019-0-46-deg-c/#comment-403482
Yep, you provoke people, “especially” because of the reaction it inspires.
That is the definition of an internet troll.
Own it. It’s less slimy than being a troll and denying it.
“People like you”, barry. As I said, I would never get any pleasure from irritating honest, rational human beings.
So by DREMT rules: trolling is perfectly ok as long as you are trolling terrible sociopaths.
How does he identify such people? Anyone who disagrees with his ‘reality’ are, by definition, terrible sociopaths.
Of course that makes most astronomers and physicists terrible sociopaths.
Sure. He clearly admits he is here to troll, but rationalizes it.
He declares a ‘right to think differently’.
But people who ‘think differently’ than him are sociopaths whose beliefs clash with his ‘reality’.
Such people deserve to be trolled.
Last word on the sub-thread.
La Nina 2021-2022.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202109.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Ozone Hole 2021.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
Hi ren,
Yes, no significant recovery in the ozone layer this year, so I suspect global avg temps to remain relatively stable for now..
(temps rise where the solar radiation is absorbed!!)
Sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/3yXHHqn/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
Unusually weak solar activity.
https://i.ibb.co/kMZqdmr/onlinequery.gif
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
Solar update – preliminary
The wrong SC25 start date has been moved back by 6 months to correct for the miss shifted data, the original prediction remains plotted in light-blue
https://i.postimg.cc/W389xZ1c/30cycle25.png
This will be a big surprise for Bindiclowndon who keeps posting his misaligned chart as some kind of proof of higher solar cycle
There is a problem because activity in both hemispheres shows a lack of synchronization.
https://solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.png
By David Archibald
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Solar-Dipole-radial-and-classic-1632439297.3052.jpg
From my humble point of observation… the cannon ball is perfectly stable, and the whole universe is seen to be whipping all over the place around the srationary ball.
The Great Barrier Reef may still be doing very well, thanks to increased upwelling in the Nio 4 area.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
This area is also seeing the impact of increased easterly winds during the increase in geomagnetic activity. I predict further declines due to another jump in solar wind speed. Temperatures will drop even more in November as sea ice begins to melt in the south of Pacific.
Yeah.
Sure.
Just like it started to cool after the sun went down last night. We must be in a cooling trend.
Is that in the Northern or Southern hemisphere and who are you to determine when and where dawn/dust is?
Yeah, studentb. You have to stop insisting that the sun went down last night. Who are you to say that the sun goes down in the evening or any other time?
It confuses RLH, who seems to miss the sarcasm every time.
Interesting to see that the biggest warming was the land near the north pole +1.08C, and the Lower 48 were only +0.33C above the average. Big f-ing whoop. This climate alarmism is a total joke.
“Brutal Heat”. It was totally unrelated to climate change.
“Society needs accurate information in order to make crucial environmental decisions. Unfortunately, there has been a substantial amount of miscommunication and unscientific handwaving about the recent Northwest heatwave, and this blog post uses rigorous science to set the record straight. First, the specific ingredients that led to the heatwave are discussed, including a high-amplitude ridge of high pressure and an approaching low-pressure area that supercharged the warming. Second, it is shown that global warming only contributed a small about (1-2F) of the 30-40F heatwave and that proposed global warming amplification mechanisms (e.g., droughts, enhanced ridging/high pressure) cannot explain the severe heat event. It is shown that high-resolution climate models do not produce more extreme high temperatures under the modest global warming of the past several decades and that global warming may even work against extreme warming in our region. Importantly, this blog demonstrates that there is no trend towards more high-temperature records. Finally, the communication of exaggerated and unfounded claims by the media, some politicians, and several activists are discussed.”
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-cause-of-great.html
It was a hot month, but it seems that 2020 was hotter than this year, right?
Yup. Apparently anomalies (i.e. comparing like to like) are not acceptable unless they show warming.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-temps-since-2016.jpg
“Apparently anomalies (i.e. comparing like to like) are not acceptable unless they show warming.”
You really are letting the politics guide you more of late.
But perhaps you could link an example of what you mean here.
We’ve been on a warming trend for several months.
According to some here, that is simply a fluctuation.
But when several months of cooling happens, those same people consider that to be significant, a sign of things to come.
Thats the essence of magical thinking.
In other news, there is no early evidence that solar cycle 25 is heading to Maunder levels, or even Dalton. In fact early indicators suggest it will be somewhat stronger than 24.
Re sunspots, 22 60+ days so far in SC25, and only 1 to this point in SC24 with only 8 more to be added in the next 4 months. 13-month average about 20% higher so far than the same point last cycle.
Not a massive increase, but the GSM proponents are predicting a massive drop, so way above their predictions. My early guess is that the maximum will be in the 120s, with little chance of going below 100 or above 150.
The only people who got the projection for 24 anywhere close to right were the ones looking at historical cycles. 99% of the projections, similar to climate model projections, were profoundly wrong. I would suggest you retract any projections about 25 because you will end up looking very silly.
It is only an early guess. I am not worried about being way off. Interesting that you felt the need to jump in with such a negative tone instead of making a positive contribution.
D,
Interesting in what way? Or are you just being “woke” for the sake of it?
Why do adopt such a negative tone, instead of making a positive contribution?
Tut, tut!
No idea what “woke” means, so I don’t know how to interpret your comment. Perhaps you could help me with that.
D,
If you understand “woke”., then no explanation is necessary. If you don’t understand “woke”, then no explanation is possible. Maybe you could try looking it up, but I understand if you have no desire to cope with modern English vernacular.
Having settled that, maybe you could respond to my other enquiries.
Or not, as you wish. For all I know, you may be just another climate crank.
Sorry about my previous typo – of course I meant to say “Why do you adopt such a negative tone, instead of making a positive contribution?”
That’s right, I have no real desire to learn modern kiddie (and I’m guessing Yank) slang, especially when you indicate its low relevance by putting it in quotes.
But hey, if you choose to talk cryptically then that’s your right. I hope you don’t mind if I move on to someone who speaks proper English.
Try to be happy – it’s not difficult.
D,
I hope you can understand the following question –
Why do you adopt such a negative tone, instead of making a positive contribution?
Not interested in answering? Why am I not surprised?
You might be one of those wimps who can give it but not take it.
There is no such tone in my comments.
Hope that helps.
D,
You would say that, wouldn’t you?
Just another unsupported assertion. Typical of climate crackpots.
Carry on guessing. Also typical of climate crackpots who call guesses “climate science”!
What’s it like always starting arguments and then forgetting why you were arguing?
D,
How should I know?
You tell me.
[chortles]
Sorry, I can’t see into your head. But it’s interesting to note that you’ve convinced yourself that you weren’t the initial aggressor.
D,
You wrote –
“Sorry, I can’t see into your head. But it’s interesting to note that you’ve convinced yourself that you weren’t the initial aggressor.”
I see. You can’t see into my head, but you can read my mind, can you? You should seek a refund from the swindler who sold you the mind-reading lessons,. They are worthless.
Blathering about an “initial aggressor”! Just like some other fragile climate cranks who bleat about their “feelings” , and start whining about being “insulted”, or “offended”.
I can’t figure out why I am supposed to care about the feelings of such precious souls.
So pretend to read my mind, if you l8e. Or you could read what I write. Or not.
Your choice.
The cry of someone who needs to scream out that he doesn’t care to drown out the fact that he cares enough to keep responding.
D wrote –
“The cry of someone who needs to scream out that he doesnt care to drown out the fact that he cares enough to keep responding.”
And anyone else is supposed to attach importance to your foolish opinion because . . . ?
Others may choose to read my comment. They may take into consideration your silly attempts to put words in my mouth, rather than quoting my written words. They may even come to the conclusion that you are just another delusional climate crank, resorting to psychobabbling wokeism to avoid accepting reality.
Go your hardest, dummy. Your “feelings” are of no concern to me. If you can’t control your emotions, don’t blame me. “Feel” what you like. Why should a stranger care about your “feelings”?
Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up. Grow a pair. Toss a few new facts into the discussion, if you want.
Or you could just whine about your hurt “feelings”, I suppose.
[sniggering]
As our troll-in-residence, Swenson knows only about negative tones.
Climate models have resulted in massively expensive government policies. Those climate models would otherwise have long ago been proven scientifically false.
The youtube is currently filled with financial geniuses projecting the imminent collapse of the US dollar and recommend you buy gold and silver. Being proved wrong daily only seems to encourage them.
COVID models projected hundreds of millions of deaths and resulted in massive lockdowns and stripping of rights. We have never been so at risk of losing our liberties and might only get them back by shedding the blood of a legion of tyrants. Meanwhile the empirical data shows death rates equivalent to a bad flu season.
Basically I am fed up with half wit prognosticators making up projections without any facts to back that up. At last count that includes you. I guess that makes me ‘negative’.
Indeed it does. Glad you agree.
BTW – could you find me another 2-year period in the US in which there have been anywhere close to 700,000 deaths from the flu (not counting the Spanish flu – which should actually be called the US flu).
Ken
I believe you are exaggerating the actual model projections by a considerable degree.
Here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6
It was 2.2 million deaths in US if no measures were taken and 500,000 in UK. How this evolves to hundreds of millions is a mystery to me. Even early on the death rate was estimated to be about 1% of those infected.
Do you have a source (other than for dramatic effect) of any Covid model that projected hundreds of millions of deaths?
My bad. 2 million in population 370 million adds up to 40 million deaths out of 7 billion; not hundreds of millions. Still the Ferguson model has been way out of sync with the factual numbers.
Apparently US deaths from COVID is 14% of global deaths even while population is 5% of global population: something not adding up.
US data isn’t trustworthy: too many stories about deaths being reported as due to COVID where people died while sick with a respiratory illness that may or may not have been COVID even as the cause of death wasn’t COVID.
The egregious example is of someone struck by a bus while sick with COVID being reported as a COVID death.
D,
You wrote –
“BTW could you find me another 2-year period in the US in which there have been anywhere close to 700,000 deaths from the flu (not counting the Spanish flu which should actually be called the US flu).”
Yet another stupid gotcha, asking for a greater number, and disqualifying a known one because it answers your question in a manner you don’t like! Very cunning? Or stupid.
By the way, if you believe that the Spanish flu should be called the US flu, why are you calling it the Spanish flu?
Man up! Have the courage of your convictions! Who cares if nobody else knows what you are talking about – or why.
Ken,
No, COVID deaths are VERY well corroborated.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count
The ‘excess deaths’ (deaths above the average) in 2020 exceed the official number of COVID deaths in the US.
Even more striking, the spikes in excess deaths are contemporaneous with the spikes in COVID deaths. Amazing coincidence!
This holds true for any country that has had a significant number of deaths attributed to COVID.
IOW, there is no doubt COVID has killed so many people.
You can “play” with the propagation of such weak spots (no strong flares).
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/sunspot-regions.html
There has been a change in the way spots are counted and this is apparent, but measurements of galactic radiation near the surface clearly show a weakening of the solar dipole.
https://i.ibb.co/GQyPWCW/onlinequery.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/
Interesting.
I last tuned in to this issue circa 2007, and hadn’t paid much attention since. At that time, the profound slowdown of spot motion was thought to presage a lull.
Now some thinking is for one of the strongest cycles:
https://news.ucar.edu/132771/new-sunspot-cycle-could-be-one-strongest-record
Of course, this would only further muddy the waters of greenhouse gas forcing.
Also muddying is the fact that the best estimates of absorbed solar have increased so markedly over the CERES period of record:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/earth-radiance-trends
You should pay more attention before you start posting your wisdom , that strongest cycle prediction was made by some so called scientists a year ago who got overexcited by one single big sun flare up that totally fizzled since.
So, what do you think will happen?
Someone will have predicted almost exactly the correct sunspot number. It will be attributed to dumb luck. Everyone else will be wrong.
Solar scientists will say they need more grant money to learn how the sun actually works.
The sun will continue to shine for at least a couple more years.
That’s what I think will happen.
The theory has been that the solar magnetic field associated with the earth magnetic field modulated the cosmic ray cloud condensation nuclei. Increased CCN was thought to increase droplet concentration and thus increase cloud albedo and reduce absorbed solar radiance.
This all may be valid, but CERES indicates that for 2000 through 2020 anyway, absorbed solar -INCREASED-. The rate of increase being twice as large as the rate of increase of greenhouse gas forcing for the same period.
The CERES estimates could be off, of course.
Or, other factors ( amount of cloud, height of clouds, other parameters ) could be varying beyond the effect of CCN for which twenty years is still brief.
Would it be safe to say the Tropics have “normalized,” or would that be jumping the gun?
Such a statement is perfectly safe.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_10-day.png
Thanks ren. I noticed that Mercator chart is using 1979-2000 as the normal base, which puts even more of an emphasis on the normalizing of Tropical temperatures today.
This
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/AUGUST2021/202108_Map.png
might give you a clearer picture.
Here is a graph that includes 8 datasets including 2 satellite, 4 traditional, 1 reanalysis, and 1 raob. The composite trend is +0.19 C/decade.
https://i.imgur.com/wL0OqMj.png
b,
And the trend is relevant because . . .?
Even you don’t believe it will continue, do you? Why will it stop, do you think?
No answer?
Go away, you silly climate crackpot!
Mike Flynn, Magisterial Fizz,
You already went away.
But you came back.
Under many sock puppets.
Why is that?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Go away you silly little climate crank.
Mike Flynn,
Marmite Frittata.
Why attempt to use an OLS straight line to show the ‘trend’ when
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-1.jpeg
shows a much better assessment of what the global temperature figures have been for UAH.
I could expand that for the other series but the overall picture would change only a little.
Looking at the 7-year low pass, the 2018 peak resembles the 1989 peak.
By 1990 temperatures had risen from -0.2C to 0C
Can we expect a similar rise from 0.25C to 0.45C by 2030?
“By 1990 temperatures had risen from -0.2C to 0C”
Sorry, should have been
” By 1999 temperatures had risen from -0.2C to 0C”
Why would an OLS straight line represent anything in nature?
I was not using the linear trend, but the 7-year low pass,on your graph.
If you don’t like the 7-year low pass or the linear regression, why put them on your graph?
The increase in CO2 has accelerated over time. The heating effect per increment of extra CO2 decreases logarithmically. Over time the two processes cancel out to a linear increase in heating effect and temperature.
The 7 year ‘trend’ S-G line is showing currently downwards behavior but your words implied otherwise.
I compared the current pattern with a similar pattern thirty years earlier and noted that the earlier pattern showed a short term decrease followed by a larger long term increase.
Why do you expect a sustained decrease this time when no sustained decrease has yet occurred in the UAH record?
“Why do you expect a sustained decrease this time when no sustained decrease has yet occurred in the UAH record?”
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/amo-1.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/pdo-2.jpeg
EM,
When will the “heating” stop, do you reckon? Or does it go on forever?
Do you really believe the seas will boil dry within 10,000 years?
Seems a bit far-fetched to me, but I’ll believe it if you can provide a physical basis supported by reproducible experiment.
Only joking, I know climate nutters are big on faith, not so much on the scientific method.
Carry on dreaming.
Did you notice that the PDO and ALL are out of phase. Since they appear to cancel each other out, where do you get “sustained cooling?”
The ‘direction’ up/down of both PDO and AMO is arbitrary as such. What matters is the movement away from when it was ‘hotter’.
The AMO shows an approximate 60 year cycle rising from a ‘low’ point at the beginning of the UAH data.
That could be coincidence – or not.
There’s also the problem of deciding whether the AMO is a genuine climate cycle or an artefact…
and if it’s real, what’s driving it.
https://redgreenandblue.org/2021/03/30/michael-mann-rise-fall-atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation/
Sure pure co-incidence of other quite random factors just happened to turn into such a nice sine wave.
Almost as good as the hockey stick graphs.
So a cosine weighting applied to the Latitude of a station means that a station at the Poles adds 0% information to the climate data.
That cannot be correct.
Cosine weighting comes from the mistaken impression that you can turn point samples into area or volume ones which cannot be correct.
RLH
Currently I don’t have any access to my data and can reply only by using my lady’s notebook.
Maybe you will reject this comment from me as you did all the time; that however isn’t my problem.
*
1. ” So a cosine weighting applied to the Latitude of a station means that a station at the Poles adds 0% information to the climate data. ”
No one uses latitude weighting outside of area weighting over cell grids. There is not even one use of it in my software, regardless the observed fields (temperature, sea ice, sea level).
Even if you use a 0.25 degree grid, the latitude of your north and south polenearest station averagings won’t lead to zeroed values anywhere.
*
2. ” Cosine weighting comes from the mistaken impression that you can turn point samples into area or volume ones which cannot be correct. ”
So? One more thing you simply decide to be, without any valuable proof for your assertion?
Why can’t it be correct to transform data collected wrt a plane rectangular grid in order to obtain data wrt Earth’s spherical shape?
Why can’t you understand that you can compare temperatures measured in tropical latitude bands with those measured in polar regions only when applying a latitude weighting?
When will you finally manage to process UAH’s 2.5 degree grid, in order to generate time series out of it, and to compare them with Roy Spencer’s monthly file, as I did in 2016?
Then you will understand how wrong calculations of sea ice extent can be when you don’t apply the same latitude corrections to raw data, as then the highest bands become totally overwheighted in a global averaging.
If you believe that stations at the North and South Poles have 0 contribution to climate then you have a problem, not me.
All forms of equal area mapping of a globe say that the area of each climate station has the same contribution as all the others.
How big an area do you actually want a point sample to cover?
Unless you wish to ‘infill’ those areas which do not have actual measurements from stations in them by estimating what ‘should’ be there of course.
Then you are using a model instead of measurements. Not that you will see any problem with that as you already ‘know’ the answer.
And that is just for the area. You don’t want to address the volume calculations as you have made clear in the past.
You even think that the Surface Boundary Layer is less complex than areas above it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundary_layer.
RLH
Are you unable to read anything else than what you yourself post?
I wrote above:
” No one uses latitude weighting outside of area weighting over cell grids. There is not even one use of it in my software, regardless the observed fields (temperature, sea ice, sea level).
Even if you use a 0.25 degree grid, the latitude of your north and south polenearest station averagings wont lead to zeroed values anywhere. ”
Why can’t you understand such a simple stuff?
No one uses latitude and longitude of single stations!
That would indeed lead to having no info about Amundsen-Scott, for example.
Everybody understands that.
So you admit that cosine weighting is used to try and make the ‘area’ weighting more ‘correct’. Even though the actual area on the ground that each station individually covers is roughly the same.
Turning point samples into area coverage is a lot more complex that just doing a cosine weighting (and fraught with a lot of problems that are mostly overlooked).
RLH says: So a cosine weighting applied to the Latitude of a station means that a station at the Poles adds 0% information to the climate data.
That cannot be correct.
It’s not the case that a station at the pole adds 0% information to the climate data.
If this is your understanding of area weighting, it follows that you don’t understand area weighting.
Mark B
What he does not understand is rather the problem of latitude weighting.
Maybe one day he manages to process UAH’s plane grip without latitude weighting, generates a time series over an asymmetric part of the Globe, e.g. 20N-82.5N, and compares the series with that published by Mr. Spencer (it is NH Ext).
He could also try to generate sea ice extent series using HadISST1.
Ah well ah well, Flynnson would say.
Should read ” UAH’s plane grid “.
Mark B
What he does not understand is rather the problem of latitude weighting.
Maybe one day he manages to process UAH’s plane grip without latitude weighting, generates a time series over e.g. 20N-82.5N, and compares the series with that published by Mr Spencer (it is NH Ext).
He could also try to generate sea ice extent series using HadISST1.
Ah well ah well, Flynnson would say.
As Blinny says, I was talking about Cosine weighting where the poles contribute 0 to the information about climate, apparently.
As to area weighting, then if you reduce everything to the actual area that each individual station covers, then they are all equal to each other in fact.
If you want to try and interpolate between those point samples (in a 2d space only), then you run (and only then) into the problems that you describe.
The facts are that any interpolation is only a model, not a measurement as such.
Nyquist had a lot to say about how accurate any interpolation (in 2d) can be.
And if you want to move to 3d (where most of us live) then the complexities of the Surface Boundary layer and its daytime/nighttime behavior need to be taken into account to make a vertical profile. That is also impacted by elevation of the station.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundary_layer
Nyquist is a criteria for complete reproducibility of the signal. That is, if Nyquist is satisfied, one can reproduce the signal precisely at any point in time/space. Nyquist, in the absence of additional information about the signal, is a pass/fail criteria for complete reproducibility. By itself it does not say how good or bad are some signal property of interest might be if the criteria is not satisfied.
It is not reasonably possible to satisfy Nyquist with temperature through a global space nor is it necessary satisfy the Nyquist criteria to achieve a “good enough for purpose” reproduction of temperature changes over time. The inherent uncertainties attributable to sparse sampling can and have been bounded viathe statistical cross correlation properties across observation sites. This has been well documented in the literature at least since Hansen’s original temperature anomaly series in the late 1980s and numerous times since.
We have a number of temperature anomaly time series that have well documented error analyses. If you can find a real issue with such analyses then you have a scientific point. Arguing “but Nyquist” is simply saying the data isn’t perfect, which we already knew, but all available analysis says it’s good enough.
“By itself it does not say how good or bad are some signal property of interest might be if the criteria is not satisfied”
Incorrect. Nyquist says that if the sampling criteria in both space and time are not observed, then the reproducibility (i.e. in this case the infill accuracy) will degrade. To the point where it is useless if taken to the extremes.
I love it when people say that climate models can be improved by decreasing the grid size but at the same time say that the measuring station grid that we now have is ‘adequate’.
If you are talking about using Nyquist on the ‘free atmosphere’ see:-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Atmospheric_boundary_layer.svg/1920px-Atmospheric_boundary_layer.svg.png
that indeed has a long history of use in weather forecasting. The differences below that are however quite dramatic where Latitude, 24 hour time and year based criteria are always going to be a Nyquist problem.
> To the point where it is useless if taken to the extremes.
That’s your own inflation of Nyquist’s results, dummy.
RLH says: As Blinny says, I was talking about Cosine weighting where the poles contribute 0 to the information about climate, apparently.
As to area weighting, then if you reduce everything to the actual area that each individual station covers, then they are all equal to each other in fact.
Cosine weighting is used as an (approximate) area weighting factor for a lat/lon grid cell. Applying it to a single point is nonsensical.
Agreed. But so is area weighing in that case as each individual stations covers roughly the same physical area of the globe so should be treated equally.
Turing point samples into ‘areas’ is a non trivial problem. Let alone into ‘volumes’.
Some nitwit wrote –
“I have already shown you where GHE can be observed and measured.”
Only in his fantasy, of course. Not in reality.
For example, NASA cannot even define the mythical GHE. Here’s one attempt –
“The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earth’s surface by “greenhouse gases.”
Very informative – not! A “way”, is it? And at night, indoors, in winter, or under a sunshade, the GHE seems to lose its “way”. Maybe the heat trapped in this “way” manages to escape!
That might explain how the Earth has managed to cool to its present temperature over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Elusive concept, this GHE.
There is uncertainty with all global measures.
The system that was designed to measure the energy balance of
earth is CERES.
CERES data indicates that nearly twice as much of energy imbalance since 2000 has occurred from increased absorbed solar as has occurred from greenhouse gas induced radiative forcing.
This would by no means falsify GHG RF, but it does raise questions as to sensitivity.
More here (key image: Figure 2):
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/earth-radiance-trends
Clint, in a frame of reference centered on the ball’s axis perpendicular to its plane of motion, yes, the ball-on-a-string is, in fact, rotating on its axis. That’s second-semester stuff in the statics/dynamics series in undergraduate engineering school. Its rotational period in that frame of reference is identical to its period of revolution, which veritably defines “tidal locking.”
Brent, it’s possible to get many incorrect results by choosing the wrong frame of reference. That’s why the ball-on-a-string is such a good model. If the ball is actually rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it. That’s just basic common-sense stuff any engineer needs.
Orbital motion is not covered under statics/dynamics. Orbital motion is it’s own science.
A ball-on-a-string is only a good model for a ball-on-a-string.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Still wrong. As usual.
Still right. As usual.
DREMTs grip on reality diminishes everyday.
No.
DREMT = Idiot.
Clint, LOL. Dynamics are dynamics, and all frames of reference are arbitrary. You don’t have the prerogative you are claiming, to wit, the prerogative to divorce orbital-motion dynamics from any other dynamics. And learn to use apostrophes correctly.
Brent, the ball on a string does indeed appear to rotate on its own axis from the reference frame you describe…but the reality is that it is rotating about an external axis (an axis that is external to the ball itself), and not about an axis going through the body of the ball. Just “zoom out” and look at the bigger picture. There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string.
A ball-on-a-string is of no relevance to the orbit of the Moon.
"A ball-on-a-string is of no relevance to the orbit of the Moon."
There are people who I would describe as "lost in reference frames" whose training has led them to the erroneous belief that a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis. Many of the major "Spinner" contributors on this blog are "lost in reference frames". Once they are able to see through the illusion of the ball on a string, they may be able to properly understand the moon’s motion.
So…there’s that relevance, for a start.
A physical connection to a surface has no relevance to a virtual connection to a center, so no, it is not relevant at all.
Yet people still think the ball on a string is rotating on its own axis, and you won’t do anything to correct them.
My time is taken up with observing that you are incorrect. As always.
What am I incorrect about?
That the Moon faces the Earth because of its orbit. The 2, like all other planets/moons, are unconnected.
We were talking about whether or not a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis!
We are actually talking about if a ball-on-a-string applies to the Moon. It doesn’t.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-891955
No, that is just what you always, obsessively, want to talk about. If you were to give me a straight and honest answer to the question, “does a ball on a string rotate on its own axis?”, you would say, “no”. That is why you always try to change the subject onto whether it “applies to the Moon”.
A ball-on-a-string rotates about an internal axis of the whole it is physically part of.
Pure sophistry. What you are actually acknowledging there is that the axis the ball on a string rotates around is external to the ball. You have just decided to group the ball and string together as one object, and then say the axis is “internal to the object”. The axis the ball on a string rotates around does not go through the body of the ball itself.
There are moons for other planets that do not always show the same face to the planet. Can we all agree those moons are spinning on their respective internal axes?
A ball on a string, however, cannot spin around its internal axis without winding up the string. Ergo, gravity + moon cannot work the same way as a ball + string because if it did, those other moons couldn’t spin on their axes.
A ball on a string is just a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That is to say, the same side of the object remains facing towards the inside of the orbit throughout. It is not meant to imply that objects cannot rotate on their own axes, obviously they can, and do.
“A ball on a string, however, cannot spin around its internal axis without winding up the string.”
That you acknowledge the ball itself is not rotating on its own internal axis is good enough for me. Anybody that gets that is streets ahead of some “Spinners”.
“A ball on a string is just a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation'”
No it isn’t. A ball-on-a-string is just a model of a ball-on-a-string.
“A ball on a string, however, cannot spin around its internal axis without winding up the string”
If the ‘string’ is attached to the surface which gravity is not.
Brent, yes all frames of reference are arbitrary. That’s why you have to be careful to choose the correct one. And, that’s why the ball-on-a-string is so useful. We know it is NOT rotating about its axis because the string does not wrap around the ball.
And again, kinematics, kinetics, and dynamics do not include orbital motion. Orbital motion is a field of its own. It is NOT my “prerogative” to “divorce” dynamics from orbital motion. That’s science.
“all frames of reference are arbitrary. ”
All but one. The frames you use such as relative to the Earth, the Sun or the horizon are local, ie arbitary.
The only non-local (ie universal) reference frame is the inertial reference frame, against which instruments such as gyroscopes and Foucault pendulum measure rotation.
Entropic Man is thoroughly "lost in reference frames".
That’s why it is necessary to understand orbital motion and choose the frame of reference correctly.
A Foucault pendulum would indicate the ball is rotating. And we know that is wrong.
The pendulum, and “inertial”, and “the stars”, can NOT tell the difference between orbiting and axial rotation.
“A Foucault pendulum would indicate the ball is rotating. And we know that is wrong”
You are wrong and the pendulum is correct.
You don’t understand the gravity of the situation.
Its Madhavi fig. 15 d.
RLH, since you agree that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that is internal to the ball itself, you actually should agree that the pendulum would be wrong.
Since a ball-on-a-string is only part of the whole system, do you agree that the system is rotating about an axis that is internal to the whole system?
The ball itself is not rotating about an axis going through the ball. We both agree. Therefore you should agree that if the pendulum indicates rotation, it is not about that axis. That is the bottom line here.
You should be prepared to admit then that the axis the ball-on-a-string is rotating about is fully contained within the whole body.
It is only an external axis to part of that whole (i.e. the ball), not the whole thing itself.
You should also admit that the Moon is capable of independent rotation about its own axis as every other moon/planet is. And it is that rotation that the pendulum records.
You should admit that the pendulum can lead you to the wrong conclusion, and all that implies re the inertial reference frame.
There are 2 (or 3) axis here.
One is the axis things are orbiting around. The others are the axis through the center of each body. A pendulum on each body will show the rotation of each body independently. They will not show the orbit.
You have admitted that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that passes through the ball, and that the pendulum would suggest it is. Now you try to wriggle out of where those facts inevitably lead…
The ball-on-a-string IS rotating about an axis that the whole of its parts make up which is an internal axis to that whole.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-894354
DREMT = Idiot.
It is amazing to watch the human mind rationalize away obvious truths to accommodate long held beliefs.
Here are two turntables rotating a record on separate axis.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9abwhcqdw0
The outside turntable is rotating the record counterclockwise
The inside turntable is rotating the record clockwise
If you pull back, they are still rotating
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/f4f3poxe0m
Now you put them on a train going around a circular track at the same interval as the revolution of the record
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9ojn60zwh7
Does the inside turntable magically turn off? Does the outside record play too fast?
Now you turn off both turntables.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/etd3coc8e1
You zoom out to see the train.”Spinners” would argue when the train starts, the records start playing…
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/c2ici6krzp
ftop: Most people would say that constantly changing reference frames makes your examples useless.
Most people are innumerate so they are unable to understand what an axis of rotation is and thus get completely lost when there are two axis of rotation depicted by the radians:
alpha = radian that changes length with internal axial rotation
theta = radian that changes length with external axial rotation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid#/media/File:Epizykloide_herleitung.svg
Which makes understanding the geometric proof beyond their grasp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid
A point “p” on an object orbiting (rotating) around an external axis will have to be the closest point and the farthest point to the external axis if the orbiting object is also experiencing axial rotation (which occurs if radian alpha is not constant).
If radian alpha is zero, point “p” will be the closest point on the object to the external axis.
If the object rotates on an internal axis, radian alpha will change and point “p” will no longer be the closest point to the external axis.
Geometry is not fluid and distances are not malleable according to reference frames.
ftop: Except the Moon is not rotating around a surface to create an Epicycloid.
So your ‘explanation’ is about as useful as a ball-on-a-string is for orbits.
Good comments, ftop_t. Don’t expect the “Spinners” to understand, of course.
@RLH
Completely disingenuous reply.
The expression for the location of point “p” (x,y) is not dependent on if l(R) = l(r). That is only relevant for an epicycloid. In all other cases l(R) = k * l(r) where k is a constant for the ratio between the rotational speed and circumference of each rotational arc.
The purpose of l(R) = l(r) for an Epicycloid is strictly to eliminate the variable (alpha) in the proof.
Generally, when there are two axis of rotation, we start with the closest point on the rotating object to the origin – point “p”. When point “p” is on an object that is rotating about both an internal axis and an external axis. Its location is defined by:
x = (R+r)cos(theta) – r (cos(theta + alpha)
y = (R+r)sin(theta) – r (sin(theta + alpha)
This formula is not unique to an Epicycloid. It is universal for two axis of rotation.
If alpha is non-zero, point “p” will vary in distance from the origin.
If alpha is zero, the formula resolves to:
x = R(cos(theta))
y = R(sin(theta))
which will always be the closest point to the origin.
Therefore, if an object always keeps the same point closest to an external axis of rotation, alpha is zero and it is not rotating on an internal axis.
FTOP,
What you are showing is no surprise. That an internal rotation and an external rotation can cancel to produce non-rotation.
Nothing wrong with that. But it has nothing to do with the way Astronomy describes planetary orbits.
Astronomy describes an orbit as a curvilinear translation along an elliptical path thru space.
The orbiting object can ALSO have internal rotation.
These two motions, translation and rotation are independent motions, and never ever cancel out wrt the inertial frame of the stars.
This description works for all planetary orbits.
Don’t expect the “Spinners” to understand, of course.
Do hear a voice responding to me? Odd.
My stalker is so desperate to converse with me he apparently believes I am responding to him any time I merely repeat a previous comment, or talk to somebody else!
> if an object always keeps the same point closest to an external axis of rotation
Big if.
Hmm.
If we look at the entire data set that Dr. Roy has posted, and just lay a straight edge from the firs point to the most recent point, we see a temperature increase of 0.7 deg C in about 42 years, or about 1.8 deg C per century. That’s mighty impressive.
Perhaps its time to take another look at the basic science behind climate change:
https://youtu.be/t-ndSAaqXW4
Cheers!
You cannot claim 1.8 deg C per century until you have a century of data, calling 1.8 deg C per century from 40 years of data is not mighty impressive, it is outright idiotic.
We have 140 years of surface temperature data. GISS, for example, shows an increase of 1.3C over that time or 0.92C/century.
Taking the 42 year period since 1979 the rise is 1.1C or 1.54C/century.
If the rate of change of temperature is accelerating then the rate per century is not particularly useful.
GISS shows quite clearly that the ‘rise’ is cyclic. Why would you use a straight line to deny that?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/giss-1.jpeg
That “cycle” is too small to standout of the noise.
You are seeing what you want to see, a cycle which is an artefact of short term stochastic variation.
Please show confidence limits for that blue line.
How do you create a confidence limit for a low pass filter?
It is a 15 year low pass which will show ALL behaviors that are longer then 15 years.
If you want the residuals I can do those too, but suffice to say it is close to ‘white noise’ (within the bandwidth anyway).
An S-G will produce the same (or similar results) but this is a gaussian filter.
EM,
If the surface temperature increases by even 1 C per century, that is 100 C in 10,000 years.
Oh no! The seas have boiled dry! We’re all dead, shrivelled husks!
Please tell me my arithmetic is wrong, or when and why your GHE is going to magically stop boiling, frying, roasting and toasting us!
I assume you don’t really believe your nonsensical projections, so I can’t see what you get out of promoting rubbish which you know to be incorrect!
Or are you just another delusional climate crank?
I don’t expect the runaway for a while yet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komabayashi%E2%80%93Ingersoll_limit
I don’t expect the runaway at all. Systems have a way of developing different behaviors under different conditions and we are not out of the ‘normal’ ranges yet in any case.
EM,
Who (apart from you) mentioned any nonsensical “runaway”? This is the sort of nonsense that delusional “scientists” like to promote. Sagan, Hansen, Mann – even mathematicians pretending to be scientists, like Gavin Schmidt!
So back on track, if it’s OK with you.
When will the heating stop, and why?
Or do you really think that the seas will boil again – as they did as the Earth cooled.
An inconvenient question, I know. Well, two inconvenient questions. Have you an6 cogent answers?
That assumes that all the rise you have seen will continue on forever upwards. As there will be some (at least) natural movements in there, your estimate is inaccurate.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-1.jpeg
Look at Figure 8.18 here.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/anthropogenic-and-natural-radiative-forcing/
The total warming forcing matches the sum of the anthropogenic forcings.
The sum of the natural forcings is neutral or slightly cooling.
Somewhere in that chapter is an estimate that AGW is turning slow natural cooling into artificial rapid warming.
Sure everything is driven by AGW. Nothing is natural despite there being many examples of natural cyclic behavior.
No doubt you believe that the hockey sticks graphs were correct also.
“Sure everything is driven by AGW. Nothing is natural”
You’ve got it exactly. All the warming we’ve seen in the last 140 years has been due to AGW.
Without AGW we would be cooling.
Says you.
Nature is likely to prove you wrong in the long term. Wait and see.
Mark S. may not understand science, but he sure knows how to make a boring, irrelevant video.
MS,
You wrote –
“Perhaps its time to take another look at the basic science behind climate change: . . . ”
If you can find any, of course.
Climate is the statistics of past weather. If you call this “science”, I’ll call you a climate crackpot.
Fair enough?
Re:
https://youtu.be/t-ndSAaqXW4
He says without greenhouse gases Earth would be 0 C.
Maybe that about right.
The cargo cult says it’s about -18 C
What does Earth look like with average temperature of 0 C?
Well can’t really answer it exactly, mainly because Earth is %70 covered by an ocean. And it’s got a lot of ocean water- you can’t stack even 50% of ocean in polar regions.
Mars has 210 ppm of water vapor, and Mars is not a water planet like
Earth is. Mars has mostly a surface with very little H2O at the surface and Mars doesn’t have anywhere near the amount volcanic activity that Earth has.
If you consider that Earth has same volcanic activity as Mars {Earth is dead} and Earth at Mars distance from the sun, Earth still has most of Earth surface covered with H2O, and would have higher level of water vapor as compared to Mars.
And if Earth remained to have it’s volcanic activity- it have higher amount of global water vapor.
And if Earth was Earth distance from the Sun, and merely had it’s average temperature be 0 C. Earth would have a Lot more Water water vapor. Let’s say more than 1/2 the amount earth currently has.
And if Earth had 1/2 as much water vapor, water vapor would still be the most significant greenhouse gas.
And since Earth has life, for their to be life, one need at 150 ppm of CO2 and with one has to have methane. If Earth Oxygen than it will have Ozone layer.
So greenhouse gases are not reason Earth is not 0 C, Earth’s ocean is the reason.
Even if we accept his silly theory.
But we are in ice age. Earth has icehouse global climates and greenhouse climate. Ice age = icehouse global climate. And in last few million years Earth was mostly not in a icehouse climate, and we have only been in this icehouse climate for about 34 million years. And coldest part of last 34 million was the last 2 million years.
Or even his silly theory was correct, it’s not important: it does not explain our world.
Or at best it’s explaining some world, which is not Earth.
I said: “And in last few million years Earth was mostly..
I meant: And in last few hundred million years Earth was mostly, not in a icehouse climate.
Oh also forget my question:
What does Earth look like with average temperature of 0 C?
And as said it’s difficult to say, basically, because Earth is water planet.
But also easy, because Earth is a water planet.
What happens if Earth ocean had an uniform ocean temperature of 1 C.
So Earth currently has average ocean temperature of 3.5 C and this a lot different than the ocean having uniform temperature of 3.5 C.
In terms oceanic energy it is same. And it require “little amount” of energy to mix the average ocean temperature of 3.5 C into uniform temperature of 3.5 C – but doing so would have huge effect on global surface air temperature.
So we average global surface air temperature of about 15 C.
We have this average temperature, because global land average surface air is about 10 C and global ocean average surface air is about 17 C {and when both are averaged, one gets about 15 C}.
So, if mix ocean to become uniform temperature of 3.5 C, the 17 C air above it, becomes 3.5 C.
But we going make an uniform temperature of 1 C. And there is no easy way to do this. In terms human current capability, there no way human could cause this to happened within one century. But human could make a solar shade within 100 years and cool earth surface below 0 C. They just can’t cool the entire ocean in such short time periods.
So don’t need solar shade, for humans to make the ocean have uniform temperature of about 3.5 C.
And if human did that, it would crash global surface air temperature- AND cause a lot of global warming. We have global warming and we would freeze to death {humans have houses- humans could stay warm, and so mostly kill all other life- which is not a good thing for humans}
So listening to more of this crap.
He says 1/2 of energy from the trace gas of CO2, emits to earth surface.
This would only apply to air near the surface, it’s no where close to 50% if say 4000 km above the surface.
I will listen to more of crap, now.
It turns out Al Gore was right.
{I can’t take this idiocy any more- the hockey stick was Michael Mann, who was another liar. And poor Michael Mann didn’t make nearly as much money AL Bore did, and I don’t think he is living on very expensive beach property nor did he get a D in climate studies.}
Ummm. The thickness of the atmosphere is less than 1% of the diameter of the earth (~0.75% to be more exact). So, my statement that approximately half the infra-red radiation emitted from the greenhouse gases toward the surface of the Earth is correct.
Dr. Mark
MS,
You wrote –
“So, my statement that approximately half the infra-red radiation emitted from the greenhouse gases toward the surface of the Earth is correct.”
And completely irrelevant, if that radiation does not interact with the surface in such a way as to increase its temperature.
If the surface is hotter than the atmosphere, then the surface will cool.
As it does at night, or after the solar input reaches its maximum during the day.
No amount of PR will overcome physics.
Over to you.
The higher you are, further you can see. Or at 4 km horizon is further away.
The radiation is spherical. So sphere with poles and a equator.
North pole is up. North pole which include 20 degrees latitude is small area of a sphere. And small part of it is going straight up.
Equator region, say 10 degree north and south is much larger area, very little of it is going straight or straight down.
Put a global 1 foot above the ground. 1/2 of it is going in direction of the ground, small amount is going hit closest to the ground, or south polar will have higher percent of it’s area going “straight down” and closest to ground. Though entire southern with far more area will far more photons reaching fairly close to straight. When raise it 100 feet the radiation from entire southere hemisphere get wider {traveling more due than greater distance because it’s not straight down. And this aspect is ever increasing when 100, 1000, and 4000 meters. But even when 1 foot off the ground most radiation is going “sideways” rather up or down.
So now at 4000 meter, most is still going sideways and still not much is going straight up or straight.
And you have much thinner air up than down. And betting the random odds, more ends up going up them down.
Or not dealing flat panels, you dealing with spheres.
I could made it simpler.
Have 1 meter diameter brightly glow sphere. Have near ground, then raise it to 4000 km elevation. how far away can see the sphere compare when it was 1 foot off the ground.
And if 100 feet high and standing under how bright compare when it’s 4000 meters above you.
But that doesn’t really address part about thicker atmosphere below it.
But if in orbit, this glowing sphere should be brighter from 4000 meter elevation
“The majority of satellites orbiting the Earth do so at altitudes between 160 and 2,000 kilometers. This orbital regime is called low Earth orbit, or LEO, due to the satellites relative closeness to the Earth. ”
So 4km is not even close to LEO so it would hardly seem any brighter from there.
D^2 remember?
That’s for a point source, for something like viewing the Earth from that altitude you should use a different equation.
Remember?
The warming since Sept. 2008 is 0.48C
P.S. For you knuckleheads that have nothing better to do than argue about the moon’s rotation, why don’t you make it quantitative? What is the exact angular momentum of the moon?
Please give your answer in kg-m^2/sec? If you respond to this without a number, seek professional mental health care immediately.
Surely Shirley, you know that the knucklehead cult idiots will not know the correct answer. Some of them actually believe Moon has both orbital and spin angular momentum. They’re sooooo confused.
So surely Shirley, I will have to answer your question for the knuckleheads — 0 kg-m^2/sec.
“Some of them actually believe Moon has both orbital and spin angular momentum”
It does and Newton thought so too.
Troll RLH makes things up faster then Norman.
No wonder he is the champion troll.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-827783
Clint R is wrong us usual.
shirley…” What is the exact angular momentum of the moon?”
***
Angular momentum = 0 radians/second.
Mean linear velocity about 1.022 km/sec.
“Angular momentum = 0 radians/second”
Wrong. Angular momentum = PI radians per orbit.
In the link below, I took the AR6 solar activity curve, which is fig 2.2a in IPCC report, smoothed it, and then overlaid on top of global temp curve, which is fig spm1 in IPCC report.
https://ibb.co/ZYDHpJg
The hockey stick graph reappears. I thought that was dead and buried long ago.
Only among the denialist minority. In the 23 years since it was first described it has been replicated repeatedly by many workers and many datasets.
So if temperatures decline for the next few months into next year as it looks like they will, what are you going to say? Magic?
Or ‘its not long enough to be a trend’ without saying how long it takes to make a trend.
” How long does it take to make a trend ? ”
Depends on the trend. In general you can see a statistically significant trend when the beginning and end are at least 4 standard deviation apart.
For global annual temperatures the standard deviation is about 0.05C. 95% confidence limits are +/- 0.1C.
To see a statistically significant trend you need a change of 4SD or 0.2C.
At the current UAH warming rate of 0.14C/decade you would need 0.2/0.14 decades, or 14 years.
Only if you take OLS trends for your statistics.
I use, as you know, long period filters, typically of greater than 15 years, which are much closer to the real physical systems that make up climate.
See various graphs under https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
Why 15 years as a ‘corner’? Well Earth’s climate system has a low level of energy at that point (if you run an energy sweep) and it is well below the 30 year climate periods.
An S-G filter of 15 years produces quite interesting data from most long period climate data.
S-G (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter)
are much used in other disciplines to uncover relevant behavior.
“Savitzky and Golay’s paper is one of the most widely cited papers in the journal Analytical Chemistry and is classed by that journal as one of its “10 seminal papers” saying “it can be argued that the dawn of the computer-controlled analytical instrument can be traced to this article””
I just believe it has a role in climate too.
“global annual temperatures”
are a U shaped distribution (i.e. quasi sinusoidal) so how come you are using (improperly) statistics that are best suited to normal or skewed normal distributions and thinking they actually mean (pun) something?
Is it just because ‘everybody else does so’ or do you actually have some ratiocination for that?
Nice one.
Correlates nicely with most of the last millennium, but not the 20th and 21st century warming.
Only if you believe in hockey stick like warming over the period in question.
I don’t believe it, the data shows it.
https://www.countercurrents.org/rahmstorf220913.htm
See Figure 1
Your reading of the data allows very little for nature. Which is a mistake to my mind.
The flat portion is WAY too flat. The climb WAY too steep.
I have loads and loads of Paleoclimate proxies which do not correspond to that in fig1, fig3, fig4, etc.
You known, of course, of my repeating of Steve McIntyre https://climateaudit.org/ who has some interesting views on climate proxies.
Including something that looks suspiciously like your graph.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/15/pages-2019-0-30n-proxies/
These sheister made to order fake hockey charts always crack me up , as real as male pregnancy
It is interesting to note why the ‘flat’ portion of the hockey stick is flat and where the ‘rising’ portion comes from.
It is a FACT that most paleoclimate proxies do not agree with each other and when you ‘average’ them all together they produce a straight flat line.
The rising portion of the hockey stick is caused by adding in things that are not paleoclimate proxies to that flat line to produce the ‘rise’.
USCRN data for Sep 2021
Daily
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values.jpg
Monthly
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-monthly-values.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-contiguous-monthly-values.jpg
Southern vs northern hem anomaly is interesting. I would like to see this graphed and commented on. 90% live in Northern hem. Are we measuring the heat from our collective armpits and calling it climate change?
You might like
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
which does not include this months data (yet) because Roy’s full dataset does not come out for a few days yet.
So disappointed.
Reality does not match with expectation.
The moon.
rotates in one frame of reference but not in another.
The earth can legitimately be the centre of the universe.
But so can any other point in the universe, like the sun.
Accepting this simple point of logic just means saying I’m right and you are right.
Refusing it is simply saying my point of view is more important to me than yours.
As I pointed out a while ago if one wishes to say that the moon is rotating then one has to define what its motion is or appears to be when it is “not” rotating.
This simple example, that it has to be rotating to be perceived as not rotating,should be enough to quell the overconfidence in the one frame of reference that suits my argument theory.
Sadly ignored.
angech, Moon does NOT rotate on its axis
You appear to realize that simple fact, but you’re afraid to state it clearly.
That’s the power of the cult over you.
Pup, you do NOT do the pole dance experiment.
You appear to realize that doing it would defeat your trolling.
Do it. Report.
Again, Willard…nobody knows what you are talking about. Not even you.
Anyone who lifts knows that Moon Dragon cranks are wrong, Kiddo.
Enjoy your body. You only got one, and it’s for a limited time only.
Whacky Wee Will wrote –
“Anyone who lifts knows that Moon Dragon cranks are wrong, Kiddo.”
Oooooh! Cryptic! Oooooh! Obscure!
Does Wayward Wee Willy think that uttering incomprehensible gibberish makes him appear wise and knowledgeable, or does he live in a bizarre fantasy WeeWillyWorld where people actually admire his command of gibberish?
Maybe his deranged comment is just another example of his “silly semantic games”.
Hard to tell.
Bizzare fantasy is the best description.
Mike Flynn,
Muscular Flaw.
“Moon does NOT rotate on its axis”
YES it does.
Clint R: You keep repeating this ridiculous shit.
Thats the power of the tiny, tiny, cult over you.
A “cult” is more than one. Most of the “free-thinkers” you find here are independent thinkers. People like DREMT, Gordon, Swenson, gbaikie, Hunter, myself, and several others all think independently. We don’t always agree, even. But, when free-thinkers agree, watch out!
Your cult of braindead idiots rejects reality. You all strive to do that. None of you is able to learn, or even wants to. You’re content and comforted by a sense of “belonging”. There is no more perfect example than you avoiding the reality that your own cult uses the ball-on-a-string analogy.
The cult you are in is very, very tiny and universally wrong.
angech…”The moon.
rotates in one frame of reference but not in another.”
***
Doesn’t rotate in any reference frame, it is translating with the same face pointed at Earth.
I.e. is rotating wrt the fixed stars.
Speaking of the Moon, Gordo repeats his no spin denialist mantra:
Sorry, clown, the Moon presents different sides to the Sun during it’s orbit, which is clearly visible from the ground, therefore it is obviously rotating in a reference frame with one axis along the Sun-Moon vector. It’s also rotating in all inertial reference frames fixed wrt the stars.
Swanson is still lost in reference frames, unable to see the problem.
DREMT is lost in his own delusions. Unable to see anything else.
Swanson is still lost in reference frames, unable to see the problem. RLH projects his own failings onto others.
pups can’t see the forest for the trees. They still haven’t provided any math model for their delusions, just bleating their lunacy over and over again, defying logic and ignoring the obvious facts.
DREMT is just an idiot with idiotic ramblings.
Swanson is still lost in reference frames, unable to see the problem. RLH should understand, as he gets that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball itself, but the Foucault Pendulum would suggest that it is. However, RLH refuses to think it through, preferring instead to throw lame attempts at insults.
The Foucault Pendulum will correctly observe that the Moon is rotating about its own axis.
It will not record its orbit around a barycenter.
Therefore DREMT is wrong (as is Clint R and a small number of others).
No, you are not thinking it through properly. Keep trying.
It is you who has no logic or thought.
1) The ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball.
2) The pendulum would indicate that it is.
3) The moon is not rotating about an axis that goes through the moon.
4) The pendulum would indicate that it is.
Either you are wrong that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball or you are wrong that the moon rotates on its own axis.
pups continues to prove it doesn’t understand physics. It’s “ball-on-a-string” doesn’t exhibit gravity’s influence, which is necessary for a Foucault Pendulum’s operation. And, the ball can’t rotate freely because the string holds it in one orientation. However, a tether ball, hanging limp, can rotate around the string’s vector.
“It’s “ball-on-a-string” doesn’t exhibit gravity’s influence, which is necessary for a Foucault Pendulum’s operation.”
Swanson lacks the imagination to visualize a big enough ball on a string.
“And, the ball can’t rotate freely because the string holds it in one orientation”
Irrelevant to the point being made.
1) The ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball.
Wrong (sort of). It rotates around an internal axis to the whole it is part of.
2) The pendulum would indicate that it is.
Wrong. The pendulum will not indicate if something is in orbit. Only if it is rotating on its axis wrt the fixed stars.
3) The moon is not rotating about an axis that goes through the moon.
Wrong.
4) The pendulum would indicate that it is.
Correct.
So you do not think the Foucault Pendulum would respond in exactly the same way with a giant, moon-sized ball on a string, compared to the actual moon? Even though they are both moving in (roughly) the same way, with the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit?
“It rotates around an internal axis to the whole it is part of.”
This is just sophistry. The point is that you agree the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the ball itself…but with the moon you think it is.
RLH and others.
Under the influence of gravity, the pendulum will cease to oscillate, and become stationary, with its COG closest to that of the Earth,
Just as the Moon apparently did.
No amount of semantic gymnastics can start the pendulum swinging again, nor the Moon to recommence rotating about its internal axis. Nor will gravity.
This is the delusional realm of perpetual motion believers who do not understand the operation of the force of gravity, or equally delusional GHE crackpots who believe energy from colder bodies can be used to heat hotter ones, while at the same time the colder bodies suffer no loss of energy, and do not get cooler.
Ah, the wonderfully bizarre world of the true believer!
“nor the Moon to recommence rotating about its internal axis”
The Moon will continue to rotate on its own axis wrt the fixed stars regardless of your tiny, tiny, minority opinions.
The Foucault pendulum in question at the Moon’s poles can be restarted if necessary at any time and will continue to show the same behavior (mind you with no air friction to slow it down it will be a LONG time on the Moon between restarts).
RLH,
You wrote –
“The Moon will continue to rotate on its own axis wrt the fixed stars regardless of your tiny, tiny, minority opinions.”
Well no, it won’t, any more than a pendulum will keep swinging forever.
You must be aware that even the Earth’s rotation is slowing, due to – external gravitational influences!
As to my opinions, they are worth exactly as much as you pay for them. Science is not a matter of majority opinions – it is all about facts.
Richard Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”.
Without experimental support, one speculation is as valid as any other, in my opinion. You may disagree. Why should I value your opinion any more than you value mine?
“Well no, it won’t, any more than a pendulum will keep swinging forever”
If the pendulum is in vacuum, the bob weight is high and the support point is low friction, then the time it takes for the pendulum to stop swinging is very, very, long indeed.
“Science is not a matter of majority opinions it is all about facts”
Science is not a matter of minority opinions either. And the facts are that the Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.
RLH found an excuse to avoid answering my questions.
What does this data mean?
On a side note, September could very well be the warmest month if you take into account ocean temperatures, which we don’t know yet until the NOAA report comes out.
UAH produces both ocean, land and the combinations of both.
This is shown in detail when the full dataset is produced (in a few days).
For last months data see:-
Global, land ocean and combined
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah.jpeg
Tropics ditto.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-tropics.jpeg
Southern hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
Northern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
etc.
This months data will be out in a few days. I will post it then.
For those who don’t know already, CTRM is a Cascaded Triple Running Mean, a ‘gaussian’ response filter that has less artifacts than a single simple running mean has.
Ricardo
You are absolutely right: we must wait until surface data is available (NOAA oceans, HadSST).
Because UAH measures temperatures of around 264 K i.e. -9 C, at an average altitude of about 4 km.
These temperatures have nothing directly in common with the surface.
Strange how weather forecasters have been doing just that, i.e. relating the free atmosphere a few km up, to the surface for a few hundred years or so.
I repeat:
These temperatures have nothing directly in common with the surface.
That various surface and lower troposphere weather patterns are highly correlated: only ignoramuses could ever doubt about that.
So any coincidence between satellite and ground stations is just that then – chance. Good to know.
Despite the two series tracking quite closely overall.
Sorted out if your monthly from daily from hourly calculations are more accurate than USCRNs are yet?
The Beaufort Gyre and the AMO have been responsible for the decrease in Arctic Sea Ice. If this was a global warming problem, don’t ya think you would of seen a corresponding ice drop in the Southern Ocean? It hasn’t gotten below 2012 levels yet up in the Arctic. As the Beaufort Gyre reverses and the AMO cools, the Arctic Sea Ice will rebound to 1979 levels eventually debunking all this nonsense once and for all. Of course, before that happens suddenly they won’t be able to monitor it anymore for some made up reason to cover the lies.
kingbum…”The Beaufort Gyre and the AMO have been responsible for the decrease in Arctic Sea Ice.”
***
Don’t forget the Transpolar Drift.
” The Beaufort Gyre and the AMO have been responsible for the decrease in Arctic Sea Ice. ”
Wow. Any source confirming your heavy claim?
” … don’t ya think you would of seen a corresponding ice drop in the Southern Ocean? ”
No.
Because the two sites completely differ:
– north: a sea ice mass enclosed in land masses;
– south: a land mass enclosed in seas, with strong circumpolar currents.
” It hasn’t gotten below 2012 levels yet up in the Arctic. ”
That is true only for the September minimum.
To obtain a correct comparison, you must build yearly averages. For that, 2012 is the very best example, as its ice rebuild phase was pretty good.
” It hasn’t gotten below 2012 levels yet up in the Arctic. ”
2012 indeed is still unbeaten for the September minimum, but 2020 was below 2012 during October.
See
https://tinyurl.com/jmnbp4vm
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l97i–7Y_ZQXgROnNCeC6vlwQbEHTEWi/view
and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
rfhirsch…”I doubt that ANYONE who reads this blog “believes” that AGW is NOT happening. We look at the information provided by Dr Spencer and the chart and recognize the rate of about 1.4 degrees per century warming since 1979″
***
How do you get a 1.4 degree (presumably Fahrenheit) per century warming over 40 years?
How is a positive trend proof of AGW? Where’s the proof? Consensus is not proof.
The pranksters at the IPCC have a mandate to find evidence of AGW. Thus far, they have found none and their mandate prevents them looking at the obvious cause of warming. The Earth cooled between 1C and 2C for 450 years during the Little Ice Age, ending circa 1850. Since then it has been re-warming at the rate of about 0.5C/century, according to Syun Akasofu.
During the LIA, glaciers advanced immensely and now they are melting. Also, ocean levels should have dropped while CO2 in the atmosphere should have dropped, both due to the colder oceans and atmosphere.
The science is there to prove natural variability and not there to support AGW.
Here is wikipedia diagram showing how the earth and the moon orbit the sun. It brings forward the concept that the earth isn’t a stationary point for the moon to orbit around. The interesting bit is that the moons path sometimes puts the moon ahead of and sometimes behind the earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg
This diagram introduces a bit of logic that suggests the moon isn’t like a ball on string orbiting around a fixed point.
The illusion is that the moon is always facing the earth and therefore isn’t rotating. I’m beginning to rethink that bit; the moons path is around the sun and is influenced by the earth. As a result its path is sinusoidal, crossing the earth’s orbit around the sun twice in each apparent orbit around the earth. Since its path is sinusoidal it must be rotating in order to always present the same face to the earth.
Ken, there’s a difference between “learning” and “indoctrinating”. If your goal is to find ways to believe in the cult nonsense, then you’re just indoctrinating yourself. You’re NOT learning.
Anyone familiar with orbital motion realizes Moon is orbiting Earth as Earth orbits Sun. That’s nothing new. If you’re just not learning that, good.
But believing that the ball-on-a-string is a model of Moon’s orbital motion means you have fallen for the indoctrination of the braindead cult idiots. They have tried to use that straw man for months, to confuse the uninformed and uneducated. The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. One side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of the orbit. The ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of Moon’s actual orbital motion, but it proves that Moon is not rotating about its axis.
The fact that one side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit is NOT an “illusion”. Trying to make that claim means you are trying to further confuse the issue to the point of confusing yourself.
You get to believe whatever you want to believe, but you don’t get to pervert reality.
You’re welcome to “rethink” your entire comment.
The Moon orbits the Sun more than it orbits the Earth.
The problem with the concept of moon orbiting earth is that earth is orbiting sun.
If the moon is orbiting earth then the problem is in how it is at one point in its orbit in the path of the earth’s orbit and at the other end is in the trail of the earth’s orbit. That implies moon is speeding up and slowing down so it maintains a constant distance from the earth. Clearly its not changing its velocity. Clearly its path is not looping around the earth; its a sinusoidal pattern around the sun.
Wrong Ken. What is clear is that you do not understand orbital motion. You can not apply kinematics, kinetics, or dynamics to orbital motion.
Your version maybe. In the real world the fixed stars are considered a reference frame against which all others can be measured.
The Sun’s gravity has a greater influence on the Moon than the Earth’s does as any calculation will show.
Not so much a cooling trend as El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo. From personal experience summers of 1985, 1986 and 1993 were cold. Tip – check for massive pyroclastic volcanic eruptions before booking summer holidays.
A cooling phase like this year you see about 10 times in UAH’s history.
The last few years. Still not unique. Yet.
Mark B ran another script count. RLH and Willard are the leading trolls, again.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-892964
Empty brains lead to empty lives. And the funny thing is both RLH and Willard believe they are brilliant!
Clint R is the leading idiot with no shame or thought.
Pup forgot a few things:
Our Dark Trolling Trio had 488 (Kiddo), 223 (Pup), and 108 (Mike Flynn) commments. Together they represented 17% of the comments in that thread. And that’s notwithstanding Gordo, who had 246 comments. Add them and you got more than 20% of the contributions from the Moon Dragon cranks.
He also forgot to do the Pole Dance Experiment.
“Moon Dragon cranks” and “Pole Dance Experiment”?
Mike Flynn?
Woeful Wee Willy’s fantasy world is indeed a curious one.
Mike Flynn, Meaningless Figure,
Thank you for playing dumb.
You’re Mike Flynn:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/#comment-802550
Oh! Oh! Oh!
For the umpteenth time
To write that the Moon ‘rotates with respect to the fixed stars‘ is just wrong and only adds confusion rather than clarity.
Above all: It literally opens up an argumentation highway for the lunar spin deniers, since they can now claim that the Moon only rotates in relation to the fixed stars, but otherwise not at all!
Newton explained a long time ago that the fixed stars merely serve a determination of the rotation time of celestial bodies that is independent of the movement of the observer.
They have nothing to do with the question of whether celestial bodies rotate or not.
As all inertial frames are considered wrt the fixed stars, I am not sure how that adds to any confusion.
With the current decline in solar activity, I predict a long-term La Nia trend.
https://i.ibb.co/qMHtTzf/inino34-daily-2014-2021.png
The largest positive anomaly temperatures are now in the Arctic.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2min_10-day.png
Is global warming limited to the Arctic? Poor seals and polar bears.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/january2021/202101_Map.png
We have just observed the hottest (or joint hottest) October days in recorded history for 4 countries.
Iran 46.0°C (new record)
Morocco 43.5°C (new record)
China 38.9°C (tied record)
South Korea 32.3°C (new record)
s,
You wrote “We . . .”.
That would be you and who else, and why should anyone care?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/10/01/south-pole-coldest-winter-record/
“South Pole posts most severe cold season on record, a surprise in a warming world”
“The temperature at the South Pole at the time of publication of this article on Oct. 1 was minus-67 degrees with a wind chill of minus-101.”
91% of new car sales in Norway this year were electric or hybrid, with well over two thirds of those being fully electric
s,
And more than 91% of new car sales in the parts of the world that aren’t Norway weren’t.
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, you seem both clueless and pointless.
Carry on,
No Norwegian, or no hybrid, has ever won NASCAR.
And nobody drives a real NASCAR race vehicle on the street in their daily commute. Besides, electric cars can exhibit absurd “performance” without all the BS.
21 Tesla Model S, 0-60 = 3.1 sec, 1/4-mile = 10.69 sec
21 Porsche Taycan 4S, 0-60 = 3.8 sec, 1/4-mile = 12.3 sec
Here’s a 2016 video.
And another comparison for your entertainment and enlightment…
No hybrid has ever won NASCAR.
ES,
Or you could buy a tuned Nissan GT-R, which can run the 1/4 mile in 8.9 secs.
An electric car would suit me fine, but my present non-electric vehicle suits me fine as well.
Horses for courses, cars for customers, I suppose. The future probably holds all sorts of surprises.
Fusion power? Anti-gravity? Boiling oceans? Michael Mann a Nobel Lareate? I wouldn’t bet against fusion power.
student…”91% of new car sales in Norway this year were electric or hybrid, with well over two thirds of those being fully electric”
***
I pity them when it comes time to change the batteries, or get even simple maintenance performed.
Global mean sea level (MSL) continues to rise
The latest satellite altimetry data has now been processed through mid-2021
https://sealevel.colorado.edu
The problem is, no one knows what global MSL is SUPPOSED to be.
It has been hundreds of feet higher and hundreds of feet lower.
Maybe we should just panic anyway….
s,
You really are gullible aren’t you?
Do you realise that a thick human hair is about 0.1 mm?
Your idiot MSL measurers use references that claim precision to 0.01 mm! These donkeys couldn’t even measure a stationary rigid object to this precision with the instrumentation they depend on, let alone human hair!
Global sea level?
You should actually read your reference. Here’s part –
“Tide gauges may also move vertically with the region as a result of post-glacial rebound, tectonic uplift or crustal subsidence. This greatly complicates the problem of determining global sea level change from tide gauge data. Differences in global sea level estimates from tide gauge data usually reflect the investigator’s approach in considering these vertical crustal movements.”
Read the rest before you start blathering about “but satellites . ..”.
Off you go now, reject reality and substitute your fantasy de jour. Good luck.
As the short term MSL anywhere on the planet is very dependent on the Moon’s and Sun’s orbits and the Moon’s in particular is being continuously changed by the other planets in the solar system, so deriving the ‘true’ height of the MSL at a particular spot is not as easy as it first seems.
There is a well known ~18.6 year cycle in the Moon’s orbit compared to the Earth/Sun but that is just a fraction of the actual orbital changes that occur.
Added to that is the problem of compensating for vertical pressure differences and ocean basin behaviors which complicates things even further.
Also, at the level of accuracy claimed, there is a need to account for wind/wave surface friction and direction and for the time period over which it acts.
Thanks for the heads up. Colorado used to update a few times a year, but now it can be more than a year between updates.
Someone is apparently interested in knowing the GMSL for a given hour on a given day or something. I’m pretty sure that micropoint interest will give way to something a little more long term as soon as there are a few months where GMSL drops.
While I get more and more bored by these endlessly repeated pingpong comments about ‘orbital motion without rotation’ versus ‘inertial reference frames’ etc etc, I get more and more impressed by the fact that astronomer Tobias Mayer computed in 1750 Moon’s rotation period about its polar axis with the same precision as that delivered by today’s evaluations of lunar laser ranging data.
And what is incredible is that Mayer had, for his observations of a few craters on the Moon, no more than a little telescope, a micrometer with 1 arcmin precision, and a metronome with 1 second precision!
Bindidon, what Mayer was measuring was “libration”. He did not understand, as we do today, that Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
Only you and your tiny, tiny, clique claim quite incorrectly that the Moon is not rotating on its own axis. It is.
RLH,
And only a tiny, tiny, clique claimed that tectonic plates drifted, or that Maxwell’s wave theory was simply wrong in certain ways. Einstein was one of a large clique who totally rejected quantum theory.
Tiny cliques are not always right, and the majority are not always wrong.
Nature cannot be fooled, try as you may.
If you believe that you and your tiny, tiny, clique are of the same inherent quality as tectonic plate scientists then you are very, very deluded and wrong.
RLH,
You wrote –
“If you believe that you and your tiny, tiny, clique are of the same inherent quality as tectonic plate scientists then you are very, very deluded and wrong.”
Which tectonic plate scientists are you referring to?
The vast majority who claimed that continental drift was preposterous, or the tiny, tiny, clique who claimed that it could be fact?
Are you claiming that Einstein was not deluded and very, very, wrong by refusing to accept quantum theory? What has “inherent quality” to do with facts?
History is littered with brilliant men who got it wrong – as it turned out. I don’t accept the caloric theory of heat, as Lord Kelvin did, nor his estimate of the age of the Earth!. I don’t agree with the meteoric impact explanation of the Sun’s heat output, as the brilliant experimenter John Tyndall did, nor his belief in the luminiferous ether.
You might well say that both these brilliant scientists are of far greater “inherent quality” than myself. All meaningless, if they are wrong. As to Sir Isaac Newton, even some of his lunar theory has been shown to be wrong. I’ll let you find out if I’m right for yourself. You won’t need any more “inherent quality” than I possess.
Have fun.
No-one in the days of GPS and the like would claim that the Earth under us is not moving. Both vertically and horizontally all the time.
No-one in the days of lunar ranging and actual landings on the Moon would claim that the Moon is not rotating on its axis either.
It’s a little simplistic to say Einstein rejected Quantum Theory, and even wrong.
Einstein was not in the Copenhagen camp, but that’s not a rejection of the theory, and it looks more and more like the Copenhagen interpretation is not the best.
As always, Clint R is completely wrong.
Of course: my English is somewhat poor, Clint R keeps making fun of it over and over; but if that Clint ignoramus would understand as much German as I understand English, he would immediately see in
https://tinyurl.com/h28489ck
that Mayer’s treatise concerning Moon’s rotation about its own axis has nothing to do with libration.
This word namely occurs only once in the treatise’s 130 pages. Here is the translation:
” Dominicus Cassini finally got into the right lane. It occurred to him to explain this phenomenon, which until then had been called the libration of the Moon, by the rotation of the Moon around its axis. ”
It is not sufficient to read articles written about Mayer by e.g. Eric Gray Forbes, who manifestly was not aware of what was written in Mayer’s treatise.
You have to go deep into the stuff, Clint R.
But… that is exactly what you are unable to, regardless what you write about.
It’s not just your English, Bindidon. It’s your inability to face reality.
We know Moon is NOT rotating, as it always has one side facing the inside of its orbit. The same face always faces its direction of motion, like a horse running on an oval track.
The concept is really easy, except for braindead cult idiots.
We KNOW you are an idiot also.
binny…”I get more and more impressed by the fact that astronomer Tobias Mayer computed in 1750 Moons rotation period about its polar axis with the same precision as that delivered by todays evaluations of lunar laser ranging data.”
***
Mayer was wrong. He missed the obvious while he had his head buried in his spreadsheets, that the Moon’s motion is translation. That’s what you get with a mathematician who is unable to observe objectively.
Lunar ranging has not proved the Moon rotates on a local axis. In fact, it solidifies the obvious, that the same side of the Moon always points at Earth. If the Moon rotated locally the ranging equipment would be broad.casting to space for more than have of the alleged orbital rotation.
The Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit, thus the equipment placed on it always are always facing towards the Earth.
As always, Robertson shows us the real dimension of his ignorance.
In contrast to Robertson, who did not really learn anything and whose ‘knowledge’ is based 100% on Wiki pages and contrarian blogs, Tobias Mayer was an educated scientist with in-depth knowledge of mathematics and astronomy, as well as a clever engineer.
Unlike Robertson and his laughable clique, Mayer has read – and understood – all of Newton’s work, what made him able to start his treatise with a Newton based proof that the Moon’s shape is of sufficient sphericity to allow the use of spherical trigonometry in all his computations.
It is a pity that no one until now was interested in a translation of Mayer’s treatise in English.
*
But the most amazing proof of Robertson’s absolute stupidity we can best see when he denies both Mayer’s genial work and today’s LLR evaluations, though they come to the same result (Mayer’s and LLR’s decimal day values first differ behind the fifth position after the decimal point).
LLR evaluation of Moon’s motion is so exact that it not only delivered the value for Moon’s rotation, but also has shown tiniest irregularities in that rotation, called ‘free physical librations’.
But… as all stubborn people (and there are a lot of on this blog), Robertson will endlessly repeat his denial.
A New Paper Claims Photosynthesis Could Be Possible in The Clouds of Venus
MICHELLE STARR1 OCTOBER 2021
…
“Specifically, the level of solar irradiation at specific altitudes is comparable to solar irradiation on Earth, meaning that airborne photosynthesizing microbes could conceivably survive at those altitudes. Moreover, the thick cloud layer would provide some protection against harmful ultraviolet radiation, and it’s possible that the acidity in those clouds is less than predicted and within acceptable parameters for life.
“Together,” the researchers wrote in their paper, “these photophysical and chemical considerations support a potential for phototrophy in Venus’ clouds.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-deems-life-supporting-photosynthesis-possible-in-the-clouds-of-venus
Linked from https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
{that posted, now,,,}
” If that weren’t bad enough, it’s lander-meltingly hot, with an average surface temperature of 471 degrees Celsius (880 degrees Fahrenheit).”
Hmm, will note no agreement this. But average is like Earth surface is 15 C. Earth is cold and Venus is hot there is wide difference of temperature on both planets, and with Venus apparently less agreement as what is an average temperature {or Venus is getting hotter- you pick}.
“From these and other historic measurements, the researchers were able to calculate the light levels within the clouds, and determined that irradiances in Venus’s middle and lower clouds are similar to those at Earth’s surface, where photosynthetic life is abundant.”
Oh something I didn’t know:
“Current estimates place the concentration of sulfuric acid at 75 percent for the middle clouds and 98 percent for the lower clouds.”
98%!!!
Anyhow, we streams with same acid on Earth and life in it- but not as brutally concentrated. I think such streams is more similar car battery acid concentration. Venus is like “Alien” blood acid concentration
My thoughts on idea. I would tend to pick the dark side on planet and some kind chemical reaction rather than direct sunlight.
And Venus underground. Or there could a lot crustal volume which not molten. Of course Venus has not been explored and idea there could life on Venus, could make harder to explore and/or use.
Space Force says upcoming meeting with industry won’t be business as usual
by Sandra Erwin — October 2, 2021
https://spacenews.com/space-force-says-upcoming-meeting-with-industry-wont-be-business-as-usual/
{from instapundit}
“This will not be a traditional briefing about contract opportunities, Cox said. It’s an attempt to bring the private sector into early deliberations on what capabilities the Space Force will need in the coming years.
“I have never seen an instance where we’ve put this level of work into detailed threat models that industry will now have in their hands to help them understand what kind of threats and targets we need to worry about for the foreseeable future,” he said. ”
Interesting. But if they talk about UFOs- space aliens. Then NOT at all interesting. I don’t much of clue what main points would be, but would not be surprised if some of it was about Space Power Satellites and nuclear rockets. Neither of which seem to me, as pressing concerns.
Space Force?
What’s next – a War on Space? The War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, even the Wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t turn out all that well.
I suppose that fighting in space will take the spotlight away from fighting on land, at sea, or in the air, none of which seem to achieve a great deal apart from wasting a lot of money and killing lots of people who probably preferred to live.
At least the Space Force seem to realise their models are defective, to say the least. Contracting everything out all, at least, absolve them from responsibility if the future doesn’t turn out the way the models predicted. Like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
US has always had space force but it something air force mostly did-
or US military was doing space before NASA was created. And US military space has always had bigger budget than NASA {except maybe in the peak of spending of Apollo Program} Military is why US has a launch capability. Military even helped Musk start SPACEX. But NASA did Saturn V, shuttle, and only recently helped companies such as SpaceX. So Saturn V and Shuttle were not vehicles which explored all planets and ect, these missions were launched US Military developed rockets.
So before Trump was even running, people have wanted the Space to have separate branch of Military [rather various branches doing some space related stuff}. And Trump started the Space Force, and probably take a few more years before really up and running. Or what doing right now get it more organized give more direction to new branch of Military. Or we using airplane in various branches miltary before we got the Air force- same thing. Just late in coming.
In my opinion, one advantage I hope we will get with Space Force is
less black programs {black programs is secret programs- which usually cost a lot money- but I am sure how much money, as they were black programs, or something you find out about 20 or 30 years [or never] later}. I am not fan of these secret stuff, as usually it’s American public that find out them as the last to know. I would limit them or put a 10 year limit on them to be disclosed.
One branch one responsibility would seem to go in that direction.
Space Force is part of the Dep of Defence. What makes you think there will be less secret stuff when the Force is tied to US security?
A rare back-to-back La Nina cycle starting from the end of this year and lasting through the summer of 2022 will likely cause global temps to drop 0.6C~0.7C from current levels of around 0.3C, for a UAH global temp anomaly of around -0.3C~-0.4C by June of next year, providing NINO 3.4 SSTs hits at least -1.5C which looks very plausible.
Moreover, both the PDO and AMO are quickly approaching their respective 30-year ocean cool cycles, which will bring 30+ years of global cooling, as occurred from 1880~1913, and 1945~1979 when the same event happened.
It’ll be hilarious to see the excuses Leftists concoct to explain away 30 years of global cooling, and 30 years of increasing Arctic Sea Ice Extents, despite CAGW’s predictions of a global warming trend of +0.2~0.3C/decade to 2100, and a projected Summer Arctic Ice Minimum of 1 million KM^2 in a few decades.
I can’t believe this silly CAGW scam has been taken seriously for so long and will be delighted when global governments stop wasting $100’s of trillions on this utter nonsense.
Ah but the cooling will produce warming. Or so we are told.
RLH-san:
Yes, ye old “global warming causes global cooling” will be Leftists’ popular refrain.
I’m sure, “the Polar Vortex is causing cooling!” will also be a popular excuse.
Leftists are so hilarious…
Scientists don’t care about politics that much.
“Ah but the cooling will produce warming. Or so we are told.
By whom? Link please.
rlh…”“Angular momentum = 0 radians/second”
Wrong. Angular momentum = PI radians per orbit”.
***
You should know better than to throw out a ‘wrong’ without thinking a problem through. I am talking about the angular momentum about the Moon’s alleged axis. There is no reference to such an angular velocity in calculations involving the Moon, only an inference that it rotates once per orbit. No proof is offered to support that claim.
The mistake I made was saying angular momentum = 0 radians/sec, I should have said angular velocity = 0 radians/sec, therefore angular momentum = 0.
The Moon has no angular momentum in its orbit since that would require an angular velocity thus a rigid attachment to the Earth. There is no such mechanical relationship between the two. The Moon is an independent entity with only linear momentum. It is diverted from its linear path gradually by the force of gravity into an orbital path.
That means gravitational force is not enough to move the Moon toward the Earth but sufficient to move it a bit off its linear path.
“I am talking about the angular momentum about the Moons alleged axis”
I am too. And the axis is real, not alleged.
The Moon rotates wrt the fixed stars, therefore it has some angular momentum around its axis wrt to them at the very least.
You can try and claim that is somehow part of the orbital momentum but you would be wrong.
Of course gravity turns a linear motion into an orbital one. But it does not make the Moon turn to ‘face’ Earth as it does so.
The Moon orbits the Sun as much as it orbits the Earth. In fact the Sun’s gravity has a greater effect than the Earth’s does over a year. Why does the Moon not ‘face’ the Sun then as you claim it does to Earth?
Since Moon has NO axial rotation, It has NO spin angular momentum.
The fact that one side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit is due to the fact that it is NOT rotating. Moon orbits Earth while Earth orbits Sun. But, that does NOT translate to Moon is orbiting Sun. People that believe Moon is orbiting Sun don’t understand orbital motion.
Since Moon has an axial rotation wrt the fixed stars, it has spin angular momentum wrt to them..
Imaginary spin creates imaginary spin angular momentum.
How are you with unicorns?
Are you saying that there is no sunrise and sunset on the Moon. Even though they are clearly visible from Earth?
As expected, pups continues to ignore the fact that the Moon rotates wrt the Sun and it’s rate of rotation is once an orbit. The “no spin” cult’s claim can only work if the Earth is the center of the solar system and the Sun rotates around the Earth. That question was settled centuries ago.
That’s funny, Swanson — good one.
Earth receives 29% less SW EM energy from sun than Moon per sq. meter. It is almost a one third less!
With the two thirds of SW EM energy Moon receives, Earth appears to be a much warmer on average surface temperature than Moon planet.
Question:
How it happens Earth receiving only the two thirds of SW EM energy Moon does, for Earth to be a much warmer than Moon planet?
Because no one disputes Earth has 29% less SW EM available energy per sq. meter to interact with than Moon has.
What we observe here is that for 29% less available energy per sq. meter Earth is, nevertheless, a much warmer planet!
Answer:
Earth surface is on average much warmer than Moon because of planet Earth 29,5 times shorter diurnal cycle, which is a result of Earth faster rotational spin.
Also, planet Earth is covered with water, and water has 5 times higher specific heat than the regolith covered lunar surface has.
It is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon we observe here.
It states that planets mean surface temperatures (everything else equals) relate as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
Please also visit my new blog:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/450665358
“Lets assume the planet F spins on its axis Faster, and the planet S spins on its axis Slower.
Both planets F and S get the same intensity solar flux on their sunlit hemispheres. Consequently both planets receive the same exactly amount of solar radiative energy.
The slower rotating planets S sunlit hemisphere surface gets warmed at higher temperatures than the faster rotating planets F sunlit hemisphere.
The surfaces emit at σT⁴ intensity it is the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
Thus the planet S emits more intensively from the sunlit side than the planet F.
There is more energy left for the planet F to accumulate then.
That is what makes the faster rotating planet F on the average a warmer planet.
That is how the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon occurs.”
Pure crap raised to the nth power.
You can tell it is crap if that retard ren approves it.
“Pure crap” would be a propagandist’s term, not science. You have to falsify, and that’s science.
Raise that to the nth plus 1 power.
Such a brave soul.
Hi I am new here,
is it possible to ask a question?
Greetings from Austria.
Yes, you can ask questions here. And they will be answered.
Greetings from Greece.
You are a disgrace to all Greece’s great thinkers of the past.
“is it possible to ask a question?”
You just did!
Is it possible to get stupid answers? Yes of course. Mostly from Clint R and his crew.
You can try but it will highly unusual, people here never ask questions, they already know everything
Ok thx,
I need some help, I have found evidence for a warmth peak about 1780 to 1800 in Europe, some parts in Asia and Australia. About 0,5 °C in 2 decades. Was this a global phenomenon? This peak, at least for some parts of Europa (1793/94), corresponds to the temperatures around 1990-1993. If this is true it is more important than the MWP. Unfortunately noone is interested.
It appears that you have found locations that have anomalously high temperatures for that period, compared to the global average.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
However, there is still some small doubt that the LIA was global. Your results might help corroborate that.
Don’t satellites pick up ozone radiation in the lower stratosphere as troposphere radiation in winter?
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/Current/arctic/plots/T_2021100300_A_150.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2020.png
You idiot. There is no such thing as “ozone radiation”.
Go back to school please.
If you look in a mirror, are you not there?
DMT wrote:
Yes there is. Ozone is a greenhouse gas and both absorbs and radiates thermal IR.
I see.
How does it differ from oxygen radiation,
or nitrogen radiation,
or cheese radiation?
Who cares?
“Since the beginning of 2016 (highest spike in Arctic blue on the left), Global seems to follow the Arctic signal (which is 60N-90N) and has the same profile. The last data point is Oct 2018. [Note: The reference period for this graph is 1981-2010]
Here is my list of questions: (I have no answers — and I hope the readers here can shed some light on the matter)
Why is the Lower Troposphere Temperature in that circle at the top of the world, 60N-90N, behaving so differently than the rest of the world ?
How much does that odd behavior affect the global record?
The DMI modelled Arctic Temperature, for north of the 80th parallel, also shows anomalously warm winters and springs, seemingly confirming that there is something going on, but only since 2005. Why is that?
How is it that the DMI above 80N seasonal graphs show seasonal anomalies from 5-8 degrees, but UAH Arctic Lower Trop shows less than 1.5 as an extreme? Is there some physical measurement error in the DMI figures since 2005? Was there some change in the measurement or model? Or is there something physical happening (sea ice doesn’t change in the same period)?”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/10/uah-arctic-temperature-profile/
What percent of the globe does 60N – 90N represent?
Why post such dumbass questions here?
It’s mostly down to the decrease in sea ice and the observation periods.
During the freeze and thaw seasons there is much more open water which exchanges heat much better than does an ice covered ocean. There was a dramatic change in ice cover around 2005-2012 so the annual temperature profile is notably different than the baseline (1958-2002).
During the Arctic summer the surface air temperature has a hard time going above 0 C because energy is absorbed as ice melt in ice covered areas or because the sea surface temperature is essentially 0 C.
One factor in the UAH data showing less variation is that it uses a more recent baseline (1981-2010 in the linked article, 1991-2021 currently). The UAH baseline thus includes more recent data so observations would be expected to show less seasonal deviation.
Also UAH is a monthly average so it is much smoother than the daily DMI plot.
USCRN in both monthly and daily pictures (yes I know it is only a fraction of the global data).
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-monthly-values.jpg
Sure the monthly is ‘smoother’ but they both show the same overall picture. Would you think that this year is above or below the average (median or mean)?
If I am not mistaken, the LT range reaches over 10 km, when in winter the tropopause over the Polar Circle drops to about 6 km on average, and even lower over the pole.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif
Somebody take this child home please.
Says the idiot who wrote –
“You idiot. There is no such thing as “ozone radiation”.
Go back to school please.”
Nobody except idiots refer to “ozone radiation”.
You obviously have no clue about the topic.
As E Swenson said (correctly) –
“Ozone is a greenhouse gas and both absorbs and radiates thermal IR.”
So who’s the idiot? Rhetorical question, idiot!
So we have those who claim that we have an excess of ground measuring stations and we could safely reduce those that we have and still be able to measure the climate accurately by kriging between them.
So there’s a simple test that will prove that wrong. Withhold 10% of the existing stations, preferably ones of known good quality such as USCRN, and then accurately reproduce what they say from the ones that are left.
So there are 138 USCRN stations currently active in the USA. Reduce that by withholding 14 randomly (or a as group) to make it 124. Then show that you can accurately produce the data that corresponds to those stations from the 124 that are left.
Good luck.
(Mind you those same people will also claim that climate models can only be improved by INCREASING the density or number of grid points without a blink of an eye).
The claim is that one can reproduce certain ensemble statistics (average anomaly, ensemble trend, etc) with a station data set significantly more sparse than that which is available. There is ample evidence for this claim in the literature for anyone inclined to look for it.
Your test is apparently to go in the opposite direction, that is, reproducing some parameters for a deleted station from the remaining ensemble. Ignoring that you haven’t clearly defined what parameters you like to see reproduced it’s not a valid test of the actual claim.
Temperature data (or any other climate data in fact) for the 10% ‘missing’ stations. If it is as easy as you claim there should be no problem with accurately reproducing that data from a sparser dataset.
I dispute the literature as being overly optimistic in being able to do this simple task.
If one were to remove the top or bottom outliers in this dataset
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude.jpg
the results would be biased in one direction or another.
You may claim that the ensemble statistics (say trends) are unaltered by this 10% reduction but that is a supposition, not fact.
In absurdism you could reduce the stations to just one and still be able to predict the rest. Good luck with that.
Knock yourself out
Well as each individual station only covers 1 square mile at best, we already have a sparse dataset. (and only for ~30% of the globe’s surface at that).
Which single station would you like to choose as representative of all the rest?
How about the triangle between Lancashire, London and Bristol?
Does that only contain 1 station? I think not.
Temperature anomalies are well correlated between stations at much greater distances, particularly in the mid-latitudes. See, for instancesHansen/Lebedeff (1987) figure 3.
The math is clear that for the purpose of computing temperature anomalies and trends over climatically relevant intervals the available station data is many times more than sufficient.
And if you mean the CET that is slightly more than a triangle
https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/cet
and I’m not sure you would want that as a full global representative sample.
“Temperature anomalies are well correlated between stations at much greater distances, particularly in the mid-latitudes”
That is definitely true at higher elevations in ‘free atmosphere’ above the surface boundary layer.
The presumption is that the SBL is consistent across that span also. It isn’t.
“A circle of 1200-km radius is drawn around each station”
That’s a pretty big extension of a point sample.
RLH says: The presumption is that the SBL is consistent across that span also. It isn’t.
Correlation coefficients aren’t a “presumption”, it’s standard mathematics applied to real station data. Correlation says averaged station temperature anomalies are well correlated across significant distances.
RLH says: ‘A circle of 1200-km radius is drawn around each station’
That’s a pretty big extension of a point sample.
It’s not particularly intuitive but it appears to be objective reality.
> I’m not sure you would want that as a full global representative sample.
https://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/
“It’s not particularly intuitive but it appears to be objective reality”
The SBL changes by day and night over quite a short geographic distance and is rarely repeatable location to location as such.
I can average all the paleoclimate proxies together to produce a flatish straight line too. Doesn’t mean that they have any reality though.
Decided yet which summary statistics are appropriate for semi-sinusoidal data yet?
Willard: I am sure that the CET is fairly good representation of mid-level northern latitudes to the east of the Atlantic. I doubt it holds for the Tropics, the Poles, or the rest of the world though.
Of course you won’t throw the Auditor under the bus, dummy.
RLH says: The SBL changes by day and night over quite a short geographic distance and is rarely repeatable location to location as such.
Objective mathematical analysis says otherwise.
I can average all the paleoclimate proxies together to produce a flatish straight line too.
If the series are positively correlated averaging them cannot produce a flat line. This follows trivially from the definition of correlation.
Decided yet which summary statistics are appropriate for semi-sinusoidal data yet?
So we’re done with the sparse station topic then?
“Objective mathematical analysis says otherwise”
Averages of random data produces what? Averages of sparse data produces what?
“If the series are positively correlated averaging them cannot produce a flat line”
They are quite randomly different in fact, hence the straight line of the hockey stick. That’s what happens when you average random data I’m told.
“So we’re done with the sparse station topic then?”
No, and there can be more than one observation going at the same time.
Sparse station data can be interpreted many ways. Because it is sparse.
How you turn point samples into a wider area or volume is a lot trickier than just doing some maths or statistics. You can convince yourself of correlations, trends and many other things that are not really there if you try.
Willard: Actually I understand about trying to create wider implications of narrow sub-sets of data. You either don’t or won’t.
You’re new to Climateball, dummy, so of course you don’t or won’t read about the Deming Affair:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/demingaffair
The Auditor finally conceded that Hubert’s cartoon was a cartoon.
Willard is an old hat at being an idiot. Nothing changes there.
Mark B: Do you think that climate models can be improved by shrinking their grid size? If so, how do you reconcile that with not wanting to do the same with measuring stations spacings?
Richard’s a 74 Hall Monitor who, instead of dealing with the fact that once upon a time one of his gurus indeed took Hubert’s graph as authoritative, waves his arms and spits.
Willard being an idiot as usual.
There is a video by Carl Otto Weiss where he uses the long term records from 6 cities in Europe (because there are not other long term records) and compares them to each other.
Then he compares the average of the 6 to the ice core reconstruction from Greenland and finds the pattern of warming and cooling over 200 years is similar enough to draw conclusions that its valid for the entire planet.
The conclusion is corroborated with tree ring and sediment proxy data.
So the argument that there are not enough ground measuring stations from which to draw meaningful conclusions about temperature trends is rather specious.
It would be great if there were more ground measuring stations but there are not.
Here is Carl Otto Weiss video: https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/
Didn’t know you were a Larouche fanboi, Kennui.
“The climate change is due to natural cycles”
Yes, climate change is due to natural cycles. CO2 is a bit player in the greenhouse.
The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles, of which about 33% is desert and about 24% is mountainous. Subtracting this uninhabitable 57% (32,665,981 mi2) from the total land area leaves 24,642,757 square miles or 15.77 billion acres of habitable land.
So if each temperature measuring station on land covers/represents 1 square mile (quite an exaggeration in itself) and is set within that habitable land area then we are more that a few short of a representative sample.
And that only covers the ground, not the volume of air above it.
“The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles”
A prize for the first person to spot the problem with this statement.
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/land.htm
Is that a correction?
If so, that is not the problem.
Have another look at what you wrote.
I forgot to put where I got that quote from (and include the quote marks). That is all. Are you claiming that they are wrong? If so, what is the figure that you prefer for land surface area?
I’ll downgrade the area that a temperature measuring station covers to 100m by 100m if you like, so give to us m * m.
RLH – you haven’t a clue have you?
A scientist can see the problem quite easily.
You are obviously a scientifically illiterate amateur or, even worse, an engineer.
Are you saying that the point samples that the climate stations cover is a significant fraction of the Earth? I thought not. Idiot.
RLH,
They are not point samples.
A point even less so than a single molecule or atom, can’t have a temperature.
dmt,
You are a lying swine. There is no prize, is there?
You are just being stupid.
Honestly, we have reached the bottom of the barrel in this thread in record time.
Says the idiot who wrote –
“You idiot. There is no such thing as “ozone radiation”.
Go back to school please.”
Nobody except idiots refer to “ozone radiation”.
You obviously have no clue about the topic.
Did you really just refer to ozone radiation?
To throw him a bone, I’m going to pose DumbAss’s position in terms of the more precise question he should have asked himself in order for his answer to be correct.
“Does the moon rotate in a frame of reference whose coordinate system is fixed to the vector from the earth’s center of mass to the moon’s center of mass?” No (approximately). If the only valid measure of the moon’s rotation is whether or not it rolls up an imaginary string between the two bodies (it isn’t), then that is one way to frame his premise in reasonably precise, mathematical terms, and no, the moon does not rotate in that frame of reference.
If, however, we ask a different question, say about the face the moon presents to the sun, then that implies an altogether different frame of reference is appropriate.
All that to say: Clint, there is no single frame of spatial reference that is universally “correct.” The “correct” frame of reference, if one exists, is implied by the particular question being asked. That’s what we mean by “arbitrary.” SMH
FFS!
Brent, that’s why the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string is so useful. If the ball is rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it. If Moon were rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
And don’t get confused by Sun. Moon orbits Earth. Trying to somehow mix in Sun makes it appear you’re just trying to confuse the issue.
The Moon orbits the barycenter of the Moon/Earth which in turn orbits the Sun.
The Sun has a greater influence on the Moon than the Earth does.
No worries, pups. The Moon isn’t connected to the Earth with a string (or any other solid link). The Moon rotates once an orbit, causing the lunar illumination cycle.
> If the ball is rotating about its axis
You always forget the tne who holds the ball, Pup.
You also always forget that the string is not attached to the center of the ball.
You also always forget the stars.
Why is that?
RLH, Swanson, and Willard have formed a comedy trio!
They were unable to solve the simple problem about the barbell. They know NOTHING about orbital motion, as they continue to demonstrate.
A trio of braindead cult idiots.
Funny.
On the contrary, orbital mechanics are well known to those outside Clint R and his tiny, tiny clique.
Please see the trajectory of the moon and earth around the sun. Explain how ball-on-a-string applies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg
Ken, the reason you can’t understand that the ball-on-a-string is only a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is that you may be a braindead cult idiot.
Alternatively Clint R is the member of a cult whereas everybody else is not.
Clint R
Did you ever think about the fact that while the amount of people you ignoramus dare to name ‘braindead cult idiot’ permanently increases, the amount of people agreeing to your ignorant nonsense decreases?
Stipulated.
You still haven’t explained why ball-on-string applies given the moon’s trajectory around the sun.
Ken proves braindead Bindidon right. Ken can NOT understand the simple analogy is only about “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Five simple words, and they can’t understand.
That’s what is called “braindead”.
‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ means that there are no sunrise or sunset on the Moon. As there are, it is obviously not true for the Moon.
I keep saying these idiots have no clue about orbital motion. And they keep proving me right.
No wonder this is so much fun.
Clint R keeps proving he is an idiot.
I’m learning not to respond to RLH. He not only is a braindead cult idiot, but he’s mentally deranged. That’s why he makes far more comments than anyone else, without being able to contribute any intelligence.
The reason Moon has “day” and “night” is due to it’s orbit around Earth. It always keeps the same side facing the center of its orbit around Earth, but presents different sides to Sun.
RLH has now mentioned several times that the calculated value of gravitational attraction is greater for Moon/Sun, than Moon/Earth. This has been known for over a century, but RLH just learned it. I’ve been watching to see where RLH would go with his new info, but he clearly doesn’t understand the implications. Orbital motion does NOT fit with the other sciences of kinematics, kinetics, and dynamics. Orbital motion is a field of study all its own. It’s fun to watch RLH flounder about, cluelessly making a fool of himself.
RLH will respond with something inane and juvenile, but I will just let it go. I don’t have time to deal with a braindead idiot that comments more than 40 times a day!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-894795
I thought for a while that ball on a string is good analogy but it assumes earth is center of the universe and that is clearly not true.
I’m beginning to think balloon on a string might be a better analogy.
Try a yo-yo with an axle that spins freely, without creating a torque on the yo-yo.
“I thought for a while that ball on a string is good analogy but it assumes earth is center of the universe and that is clearly not true.”
Yes, it is clearly not true that the ball on a string analogy assumes Earth is center of the Universe.
It is nearly as daft as that though.
It is not daft at all.
If it’s not daft, you are.
No, all you have to remember is, if the string is always taut, the attachment to the surface of the ball cannot apply a torque about the ball’s internal axis.
A string attached to a surface is nothing like gravity acting on a center.
All you have to remember is, if the string is always taut, the attachment to the surface of the ball cannot apply a torque about the ball’s internal axis.
A string attached to a surface is nothing like gravity acting on a center..
Actually, gravity acts on the whole object. Every part of the moon is attracted to the Earth. It is only “on average” that it acts on the center. So there is a way in which a string attached to a surface is something like how gravity operates.
In any case, all you have to remember is, if the string is always taut, the attachment to the surface of the ball cannot apply a torque about the ball’s internal axis.
“Global monthly sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were above the 20th Century average for the 544th consecutive month.”
The coming La Nina will make that harder to sustain.
544 months are about 45 years.
The probability that the 2021/22 Nina signal power reaches any of the strongest ones since 1979 (2010-12, 2007-09, 1998-2000, 1988-1990)
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
is not so terribly far from zero when we
– compare it to these, and
– look at even the worst forecast for 2021/22 (that of NOAA).
Thus… wait and see, as usual.
Wait and see if others are correct means that you are never wrong. Go it.
Looking at HadSST the 50 year trend line is more than 0.6 C above the 20th century mean. Historically large deviations from that are on the order of 0.3 C. To go under the 20th century mean at this point seems really improbable in the absence of a large scale volcano or some such.
This is how the 25th solar cycle goes – after a momentary increase again a strong decrease in solar wind speed.
https://i.ibb.co/Y3gh09R/latest2day.gif
ren
Are you in between so incredibly dumb that you even don’t see that this graph represents solar data for only FOURTY EIGHT HOURS ?
Number of spotless days per year
During periods of low solar activity, the Sun can be devoid of any sunspots and thus be spotless. This is a frequent occurrence in the years around and during solar minimum. The graph below shows how many days during a specific year that the earth-facing side of the Sun had no sunspots.
https://i.ibb.co/P5ZDDgP/spotless-days.png
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle.html
“Over the course of a solar cycle the solar wind modulates the fraction of the lower-energy GCR particles such that a majority cannot penetrate to Earth near solar maximum. Near solar minimum, in the absence of many coronal mass ejections and their corresponding magnetic fields, GCR particles have easier access to Earth.”
https://i.ibb.co/Bty2swR/onlinequery.gif
ren
Why are you still speaking about spotless days as if we still were in 1947?
Never heard of solar flux at 10.7 cm?
Even on spotless days, it is never zero.
Here is the current situation, ren.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QDIH1i34iyU4cQgkhwoUDYTYAA2Qx-7v/view
I can’t update it for the moment – holidays!
And should you not know, or have some ‘skepticism’ about how SSN and F10.7 correlate:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view
This winter we are seeing a pronounced negative stratospheric temperature anomaly below the -60th parallel.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2021.png
The solar flux is not the solar wind. It is the solar wind’s magnetic field and GCRs that have the greatest impact on changes in high latitudes.
“These charged particles travel at a fraction of the speed of light and have enormous energy. When these particles hit the atmosphere, large streams of secondary particles are produced, and some even reach the ground. The Earth’s own magnetic field also acts to protect the Earth from these particles by largely deflecting them away from the equatorial regions, but providing little or no protection near the polar regions or above about 55 degrees latitude (magnetic latitude and latitude vary due to the tilt and shift of the Earth’s magnetic field away from its geographic center).”
I remind you that changes in secondary radiation in the form of neutrons are measured near the Earth’s surface.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/galactic-cosmic-rays
This is what UV radiation now looks like in the bands that produce ozone.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
F10,7 cm Radio Flux
https://i.ibb.co/Qj6vsnD/solar-cycle-progression.png
ren
Are you really so naive to believe people like me would trust in such an anonymous private blog like spaceweatherlive.com?
Are you kidding us here, ren?
Well if I had to choose between a non-profit based in Belgium or you with regard to solar conditions….
“SpaceWeatherLive is an initiative of Parsec vzw, a non-profit organization from Belgium which consists of several websites about astronomy, space, space weather, aurora and related subjects”
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle.html
I trust SILSO’s SSN (Belgium) and Space Weather’s F10.7 (Canada).
Here is F10.7:
ftp://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
Feel free to evauate it…
You don’t need to trust me! What would that mean for me?
Until now, you were still not able to admit that my daily mean/median/average evaluations of USCRN’s hourly data are correct, let alone would you be able to prove them incorrect!
That, RLH, is pure dishonesty.
If you were a honest person, you would generate the same three daily time series out of USCRN’s hourly or even subhourly data
– with two digits after the decimal point
– excluding all incomplete days
for e.g. AK_Kenai_29_ENE.
Then we could compare your result with mine when I’m back from holiday.
But you won’t do that because you then would have to finally admit that I did nothing wrong.
You prefer to woefully insinuate without proof I did it wrong.
That, RLH, is pure cowardice.
“Until now, you were still not able to admit that my daily mean/median/average evaluations of USCRN’s hourly data are correct, let alone would you be able to prove them incorrect!”
I believe that USCRN are more accurate in their published data than your poor reconstruction of their figures from already rounded data.
Mean and median of sinusoidal data are not a very good statistic to use.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-monthly-values.jpg
“You prefer to woefully insinuate without proof I did it wrong”
I insinuate nothing. Merely observe that using already rounded data in any subsequent calculation without any form of qualifications has always been a wrong approach.
” Merely observe that using already rounded data in any subsequent calculation without any form of qualifications has always been a wrong approach. ”
Completely wrong.
USCRN’s rounded hourly data was good enough for a mean/median/average comparison.
You are too much a coward to prove the contrary on this blog.
*
Of course the USRCN daily data is better! No one did ever pretend the contrary.
But… again and again and again: their wonderful daily data has mean and average, but no median data.
That medians which you claimed some months ago to be the best averaging method evah, suddenly no longer interested you anymore, is not my fault.
*
And such an arrogant guy names me an ‘arrogant twat’…
Jesus.
Great wisdom and insight from Dr. Patrick Moore, ex-President of Greenpeace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEOLKEc5eRM
Except that Pat wasn’t elected:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)#Presidency_of_Greenpeace_Foundation_in_Canada
After this debacle Patrick had to found Greenpeace Canada. And even then that presidency was not rosy.
He did not found Greenpeace as he falsely claims, btw.
And you’re a liar and a propagandist. So who do we believe?
And, you didn’t refute anything he said.
He’s been refuted on his nonsense many times. Eventually you just give up on this kind of hooey.
Solar update final
The wrong SC25 start date has been moved back by 6 months to correct for the miss shifted data, the original prediction remains plotted in light-blue
https://i.postimg.cc/yxtvfP8f/4cycle25-prediction.png
This will be a big surprise for Bindiclowndon who keeps posting his misaligned chart as some kind of proof of higher solar cycle
Eben
How often will you post graphs without publishing the source you got them from?
Why do you dissimulate that all the time?
*
Do you understand what these graphs mean?
Well: I think you don’t.
*
They do anyway by no means contradict what I wrote about this comparison of F10.7 cm for SC24 vs. SC25:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QDIH1i34iyU4cQgkhwoUDYTYAA2Qx-7v/view
And the source of my evaluation I mentioned, as opposed to you, all the time:
ftp://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
*
You may be convinced that the Moon rotates, Eben.
But apart from that you behave like Robertson, Clint R and others.
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/10/01/price-living-near-shore-is-already-high-its-about-go-through-roof/
With all due respect, Clint, you are completely missing the point even after the way you frame the question has been put into its proper context. The way you defined “rotation” is in a particular frame of reference that you have privileged over all other possible frames of reference. By asking a certain question (“does the moon roll up the string?”), you privilege one of many frames of reference. That’s OK, but at least you should be intelligent enough to admit it…and its implications. Because: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A UNIVERSALLY “CORRECT” FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR ALL POSSIBLE QUESTIONS IN MECHANICAL DYNAMICS, orbital or otherwise.
Like Ken, Brent STILL can’t understand the simple analogy. And he’s so braindead, he’s even claiming I said things I never said!
Now, he’s off creating the straw-man “UNIVERSALLY correct frame of reference”!
He’s just another desperate braindead cult idiot. In fact, I suspect “Brent” is really that idiot Folkerts. They both attempt the same type of subterfuge.
It’s so easy staying lightyears ahead of the idiots. That’s why this is so much fun.
I agree. You being an idiot is fun for the rest of us.
brent…”The way you defined rotation is in a particular frame of reference that you have privileged over all other possible frames of reference”.
***
What you don’t get, Brent, is that frames of reference are irrelevant to whether the Moon is rotating about its axis. Rotation about an axis requires an angular momentum about that axis. If it’s not there in one FOR it’s not there in any frame of reference. The requirement that the Moon keep the same face to the Earth rules out local rotation.
The Moon does not rotate locally, it’s change of orientation throughout its orbit is caused by translation, like an airliner flying around the Equator at 35,000 feet.
“The requirement that the Moon keep the same face to the Earth rules out local rotation”
But there is rotation wrt the Sun therefore it has angular momentum wrt that at least. And no, that is not the same as orbital momentum which is wholly different thing, both wrt the Sun and the Earth.
“But there is rotation wrt the Sun…”
…but not about the moon’s own internal axis.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
If I stand at the Moon’s poles, the rotation is clearly around that.
That would be one way to delude yourself. You would see the stars moving over time, but that would be down to the orbital motion.
pups, “orbital motion” only applies to the path of the CM around the orbit. The Moon’s rotation is not related to it’s orbit and it’s well defined axis of rotation is not perpendicular to orbit plane.
Wrong, Swanson. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement like the “moon on the left”, in the gif below. You believe it is as per the “moon on the right”.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
pups still doesn’t understand dynamics.
There is nobody here commenting by the name “pups”, Swanson.
You’re a nobody? Who would have guessed?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Gordo repeats his failure to understand physics:
For a body in space (a “free body”), rotation must be defined in a non-rotating coordinate system, i.e., an inertial reference frame. When measured against an inertial reference frame, (the far distant stars), the Moon obviously rotates. The Earth-Moon vector represents a rotating reference frame and can not be the basis of determining the Moon’s rotation or it’s angular momentum.
“When measured against an inertial reference frame, (the far distant stars), the Moon obviously rotates…”
…but not on its own axis.
Repeating declared ‘truths’ such as these is simply argument by assertion, and pointless trolling.
Just stop.
Nate says:
”Repeating declared truths such as these is simply argument by assertion, and pointless trolling.
Just stop.”
Nate makes an assertion with pointless trolling. DREMT’s point is both correct and relevant to Swanson’s error in making a spinner argument completely devoid of any logical validity.
Swanson’s argument arises out of putting one hand over one eye to blot out a cherry-picked 50% of the horizon.
Rotation around an external axis is exhaustively described by Dr. Madhavi. . . .put one hand over one eye to blot out the external axis and it does indeed appear the moon rotates on an internal axis. . . .but that is just another conclusion arrived at by spinners out of complete and self-imposed ignorance.
“Rotation around an external axis is exhaustively described by Dr. Madhavi.”
Yep.
Both Madhavi and the Brown University Lecture Notes on Rigid Body Kinematics make it absolutely clear that DREMT is not using the correct definition of rotation.
Our Moon is in an elliptical orbit. Both sources are unambiguous that this type of motion cannot be described as rotation around an external axis.
Why do you guys insist on making up your own facts?
Our Moon librates significantly. It has significant axial tilt.
Neither of these can be explained WITHOUT rotation around its own axis.
That’s right, bill, but most of them don’t even agree that a ball on a string is rotating around an external axis, without rotating on an internal axis. They keep making arguments that the attachment to the ball applies a torque about the internal axis, hence they (you would assume) must believe it is rotating about an internal axis. Even though in the next breath half of them will acknowledge that a ball on a string would be a textbook example of what Madhavi would describe as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis…
…then the other half of them believes that the ball on a string is rotating about an internal axis because that is how they think Madhavi defines it! Just look at Ball4 and bobdroege, for instance. There is a huge amount of disagreement between the Spinners, and a huge amount of confusion and contradiction within some of their arguments individually. Until they sort all this out, there is no reason to take any of them seriously.
Both Madhavi and the Brown University Lecture Notes on Rigid Body Kinematics make it absolutely clear that DREMT is not using the correct definition of rotation.
And thus his model for the Moon’s motion is proven completely wrong.
What to do?
Return to the trusty Ball-On-A-String faulty analogy!
"Rotation around an external axis is exhaustively described by Dr. Madhavi…"
…and some of them want to make an exception for the moon, and orbits in general, because orbits aren’t circular! They want to argue that rotation about an external axis has to happen in a perfect circle! The desperation is laughable. So why can you find multiple sources that describe orbits (which we are all well aware are not perfectly circular, but elliptical) and revolution in general as "a rotation about an external axis"!?
Another fact that they have to deny in order to keep their beliefs going…they have to just pretend that these sources are wrong, or do not really exist, or are really talking about something else. Even though they use perfectly clear language such as:
"If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. There is no fundamental difference between a “rotation” and an “orbit” and or "spin". The key distinction is simply where the axis of the rotation lies, either within or outside of a body in question. This distinction can be demonstrated for both “rigid” and “non rigid” bodies."
It’s just crazy, bill.
“Its just crazy, bill.”
Apparently DREMT thinks Brown University and Madhavi get rotation wrong.
It is just crazy.
“Another fact that they have to deny in order to keep their beliefs goingthey have to just pretend that these sources are wrong, or do not really exist”
Yep. To keep the argument going, DREMT does EXACTLY that!
So now Nate’s argument is the moon doesn’t rotate around the earth because it doesn’t go around in a perfect circle. That argument boils down to Madhavi only teaches interesting little conceptual tidbits that have zero application in the real world as no perfect circles exist. ROTFLMAO!
But this is the crux of DREMTs argument, that our Moon’s orbit is a pure ROTATION.
It is at best, a semantic argument.
But if it relies on twisting basic Kinematic definitions, then even the semantic argument falls away.
Beyond semantics, our Moon librates significantly, and it has significant axial tilt.
These things can be EASILY explained with axial rotation and conservation of angular momentum.
WITHOUT the Moon’s rotation around its own axis they are impossible to explain, beyond vague hand-waving.
But feel free to try again to explain them. No hand-waving. Specifics please.
“but that is just another conclusion arrived at by spinners out of complete and self-imposed ignorance.”
It is really hard to believe that you think that the universal descriptions of planetary motion that have worked well for Astronomy, Astrophysics and engineering for > 300 y, are somehow ‘self-imposed ignorance.’
Science needs revision when it fails to predict what is observed. Are there specific failures you can point out?
Nate it is laughable to try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist. All you have is an unsupported claim that Madhavi makes clear that DREMT has an incorrect definition of rotation.
you seem to believe that Dr Madhavi’s teachings in kinematics with perfect circles and a 2 dimensional world is the be all end all teachings of kinematics. You are of course completely wrong about that as in the real world one can extend those concepts into the 3 dimensions and work with various materials to pull off some amazing pieces of engineering. but you are such a total novice you haven’t even yet imagined such an engineering much less seen and recognized one.
if you are confused by that in short what it says is you are wrong.
“try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist.”
Where have I done that? Im not claiming that.
Madhavi and Brown and every other Kinematics course explain non-circular motion as General Plane Motion. Which is described as a combination of Translation of the COM plus Rotation around the COM.
It is an approach that has worked perfectly well for 300 y. It applies universally to all orbits….even nearly-circular ones.
It works perfectly for our Moon in its moderately elliptical orbit. It worked well for NASA and others to send spacecraft to Orbit and land on the Moon.
Again, I ask, can you point out where this standard model has produced errors? Nothing offered so far.
Again I ask you to account for axial tilt and libration with your model? Nothing offered so far.
If you guys want to model elliptical orbits as approximately circular, to enable you to then be able to call them ‘pure rotations’, then you can certainly do so for self-gratification.
But you will never land a spacecraft on the Moon with that model. You could miss it by as much as 22,000 Km.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Hunter still can’t comprehend that kinematics does not apply to a free body moving in a gravitational field. The result is some form of an elliptical orbit with six degrees of freedom, i.e., three translation and three rotation vectors. Kinematics does not depend on the velocity of the elements but dynamics does.
Nate says:
October 17, 2021 at 6:21 AM
try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist.
Where have I done that? Im not claiming that.
————————
You have argued that the elliptical orbit of the moon and its resultant librations disqualifies the earth’s center of gravity as an axis of rotation.
In the real world everything librates and all rotations follow imperfect circles. Its the same thing as arguing that tidal movements on the surface of the earth disqualifies the axis of the earth as an axis of rotation. You may as well be a science denier by not recognizing the difference between concepts and reality.
—–
—–
———
Nate says:
”Madhavi and Brown and every other Kinematics course explain non-circular motion as General Plane Motion. Which is described as a combination of Translation of the COM plus Rotation around the COM.”
Wrong! Did you even read Madhavi?
She describes a translation as: 1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.
and adds:
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.
No example of a general plane motion given by Madhavi includes a rotation being described as merely a translation. She in fact warns the reader: ”Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”
and adds that general plane motions include ”other types” of plane motion. That would be multiple axis situations where a non-rotation is combined with a rotation on a different axis.
You have to be dork to run roughshod over Madhavi’s carefully laid out hierarchy of motions and try to claim her explanations as the source of your argument.
—–
—–
———
Nate says:
”It is an approach that has worked perfectly well for 300 y. It applies universally to all orbits.even nearly-circular ones.
It works perfectly for our Moon in its moderately elliptical orbit. It worked well for NASA and others to send spacecraft to Orbit and land on the Moon. Again, I ask, can you point out where this standard model has produced errors? Nothing offered so far.”
———–
LMAO. Its your claim Nate that NASA only uses rotation models for a COM axial spin of the moon.
You haven’t proven thats the case.
Where I think you really go wrong is in your assumption that the axial rotation you imagine was derived from some remnant of a pre-orbital axial rotation. It is now well recognized that the motion of the moon derives from an adequately rigid connection to an external axis.
You simply rely on archaic astronomical assumptions that predated that knowledge. . . .assumptions that astronomy doesn’t have a grant or need to fix as they aren’t yet in the business of creating worlds.
One might be deceived into thinking the earth is in general plane motion but the non-concentric movement of the earth’s particles is due to there being two rotations on two different axes simultaneously. That isn’t a general plane motion.
Finally, as DREMT has clearly shown there is no unanimity in astronomy or science that an orbit is not a rotation.
But that doesn’t deter Nate he will claim like he does elsewhere that there is a consensus of all scientists he is right without providing a shred of evidence.
—–
—–
———
Nate says:
”Again I ask you to account for axial tilt and libration with your model? Nothing offered so far.
If you guys want to model elliptical orbits as approximately circular, to enable you to then be able to call them pure rotations, then you can certainly do so for self-gratification.
But you will never land a spacecraft on the Moon with that model. You could miss it by as much as 22,000 Km.”
———
Again Nate completely ignores Madhavi’s carefully crafted differences between rotations, translations, and general plane motions and starts making stuff up, completely without a shred of scientific support, to distinguish between them.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter still cant comprehend that kinematics does not apply to a free body moving in a gravitational field.”
——————-
Source please for this claim!
May as well say kinematics doesn’t apply to anything IMO. You need to provide a source that specifies what it applies to and does not apply to. Yet all you do is provide links to NASA rotational models that suggest otherwise. Even the scientists call orbits rotations and Swanson claims here otherwise without evidence. I am sure DREMT has tired of providing you proof of scientists calling orbits rotations and having you ignore them.
Your argument seems to devolve down to the three monkeys who hear, see, and speak no evil.
“Wrong! Did you even read Madhavi?”
Yes and I Never denied any of it. So where am I wrong?
“She describes a translation as: 1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
Where do I disagree?
“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.”
When do I disagree?
“No example of a general plane motion given by Madhavi includes a rotation being described as merely a translation.”
I never said any such thing!
“She in fact warns the reader: ‘Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.’
Yes, that is a warning YOU should heed. An orbit on an elliptical path is NOT a rotation, as she makes ABSOLUTELY CLEAR!
It is a curvilinear translation.
Nate says:
“She in fact warns the reader: ‘Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.’
Yes, that is a warning YOU should heed. An orbit on an elliptical path is NOT a rotation, as she makes ABSOLUTELY CLEAR!
It is a curvilinear translation.
———————-
You are wrong because the defining element is concentricity. You are trying to make the defining element eccentricity and you do it via grasping at the most limited definition of words used by scientists that are irrelevant to the actual point they are making but use the word only for the sake of simplicity of concepts.
this type of making up of limiting conditions is a problem with greenhorn scientists whose egos drive them to elevate the simple forms of their education over the complex substance of real world problems.
So are you going to take the stand that kinematics of rotation has no meaning except for ellipses with an eccentricity of precisely zero? If so that’s pretty stupid of you. And if that is not your stand you need to quantify what is your stand.
This is same problem you have when you claim an orbiting body depending upon gravity to hold it in place has zero rigidity.
I will agree that an object in rotation around an external axis where the paths of the individual particles are not concentric has another axis somewhere. If the motions of the particles are concentric it does not. Thats why concentricity is the only element of an ellipse that matters.
Thats why concentricity is the only element of an ellipse that matters. . . .in the defining of a location of an axis.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
and some of them want to make an exception for the moon, and orbits in general, because orbits arent circular! They want to argue that rotation about an external axis has to happen in a perfect circle! The desperation is laughable.
Its just crazy, bill.
———————-
Indeed DREMT.
It is born of desperation like a bible thumper relying upon narrow definitions of every word uttered in the bible.
As you have repeatedly shown orbits are described as rotations by many scientists and to my knowledge there are no orbits that are perfect circles.
And of course that would be stupid if one actually did make such a claim because the eccentricity of a elliptical orbit doesn’t change any of the energies or rigidities necessary for an orbit.
Talking about minds that live in hermetically sealed inculcation boxes, learning only by inculcation and devotion to the words of their Gods!!! Appeals to God work for stuff we don’t understand. But we do understand the physical manifestation of gravity and in that realm they have absolutely zero to support their argument.
I guess they are just a bunch of science deniers.
Nate “Yes, that is a warning YOU should heed. An orbit on an elliptical path is NOT a rotation, as she makes ABSOLUTELY CLEAR!
It is a curvilinear translation.”
–
Bill sez: “You are wrong because the defining element is concentricity.”
I am simply taking what Brown and Madhavi say at FACE VALUE.
IDK how you are arriving at your quite different interpretations.
“Madhavi
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. Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.
Brown:
“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.
General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
Neither of these is consistent with an elliptical orbit.
Here is another nice one that agrees with the others
http://courses.washington.edu/engr100/me230/week6.pdf
See fig 16-1
A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars but travelling on an elliptical orbit is clearly consistent with the motion described as Curvilinear Translation.
A body in elliptical orbit AND changing its orientation wrt the stars can only be described as General Plane Motion.
Nate says:
Bill sez: “You are wrong because the defining element is concentricity.”
I am simply taking what Brown and Madhavi say at FACE VALUE.
———————-
Right! A face value that ignores Kepler’s laws.
Thats what I said about you Nate. You treat the words of scientists as the words of Gods with zero skepticism and full of artificial conceptual limitations of a rote learner like a boot licking sycophant.
So we are in agreement on what you did.
BTW, circular is a word that includes ellipses.
Hunter again fails to comprehend the physics of gyroscopic motion. He also ignores the fact that the rotational momentum of a free body is conserved. The Moon’s rotation around an axis passing thru it’s CM results in an astronomical angular momentum, the magnitude of which does not change when revolving around it’s orbit. As a result, the Moon’s axis points toward a fixed point in the stars, just as the Earth’s axis points to another point in the stars. Both experience precession, due to the effects of gravity.
“Right! A face value that ignores Keplers laws.”
??? You’re just not making any sense, Bill.
“Thats what I said about you Nate. You treat the words of scientists as the words of Gods with zero skepticism and full of artificial conceptual limitations of a rote learner like a boot licking sycophant.”
Now you are just tossing out gibberish and ad-homs.
You seem frustrated that you have no science facts to back up your views.
Nate says:
Now you are just tossing out gibberish and ad-homs.
You seem frustrated that you have no science facts to back up your views.
===================
LMAO! Nate science is a process of hypothesis and proof. You are using a definition in place of that. You simply just believe everything a scientist says and what you read in a book or a study.
An auditor cannot rely on such evidence as it has no value as evidence. You have to actually read everything in the book or study and determine that indeed a hypothesis and proof was offered for what you want to believe to be science. If its not there or there isn’t a reference you can trace to real evidence elsewhere you have to assume the words you want to believe are based on nothing but ignorance.
People ignorant of science on a topic tend to automatically form an opinion based on nothing but ignorance. The difference between you and I is I conceptually understand the concept of rotation, control of rotation, and source of the energy of that rotation which defines an axis.
You rely on conjecture about such stuff as residual energy after a force slowed an existing rotation down to one turn per orbit. But that is stupid because what happens if the spin was in the opposite direction of the orbit?
The forces that can slow down a rotation to one turn is a force that can create a new rotation. So all objects in the universe are destined to become tidally locked on external axes.
Finally kinematics is about efficient machine/apparatus design. Rotation in a sufficiently rigid system has a specific characteristic that is linked to its true axis or variations on a rotation linked to more than one axis.
Tesla got that. DREMT gets that. I get that. Many others get that like Madhavi who is simply not dealing with astronomical phenomena and has no need to consider that orbital ellipses are identical in all energies to a corresponding circle.
Kepler’s laws establish that identity. And unless you can come up with a credible source with a mechanical real world body of evidence that says otherwise, one should consider the moon’s primary external axis to be the COM of earth the mean position of which is identical to the barycenter related to the earth moon system.
Madhavi provides the logic and the engineering of such.
Kepler provides the laws that extend the concept to any orbital ellipse to a corresponding circle.
And the defining characteristic of the correct axis is the source of energy that creates the rotation.
If you want to stick with stuff of taking words at FACE VALUE you need to elevate your game from just being a bootlicking sycophant to actually being able to present a physics argument that properly identifies an axis whether it be internal or external or involve multiple axes.
If you can actually do that then you could perhaps effectively argue that you are NOT a bootlicking sycophant. I would actually hope that you are not because if you are not perhaps you could teach us all something. . . .and I love nothing more than learning something new.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter again fails to comprehend the physics of gyroscopic motion.
=========================
why is it Swanson that you are always presenting arguments that apply to all rotations no matter where the axis is?
Hunter wrote:
That’s because in physics, the location of the axis is defined by the rotation of a free body. The rotation of a symmetrical free body in space is a three dimensional vector which points toward a point in the celestial sphere. In the case of General Plane Motion which you “no spin” yo-yos keep alluding to, the motion of a rigid body can be pictured as an instantaneous rotation about an external point in a 2-D plane, but that no longer applies when there is continuous motion in 3-D and there’s no expectation that said rotation-around-an-external-axis would continue about that point as a body moves in an elliptical orbit.
As I demonstrated in previous calculations, the assumption of the Moon rotating about an external axis leads to impossible consequences. Not that my demonstration would deter a dedicated yo-yo from spouting reams of nonsense, since none of you guys appear to be able to put pencil to paper and actually do some math.
“orbital ellipses are identical in all energies to a corresponding circle.”
Gibberish.
Then you mention Kepler again and again?
Youve completely lost your mind, Bill.
“Madhavi provides the logic and the engineering of such.”
Initially you wanted us to pay attention to Madhavi description of Rotation. Then when it didnt fit your POV, you decided Madhavi’s description of rotation should be ignored!
Thus facts and logic are expendable!
“Kepler provides the laws that extend the concept to any orbital ellipse to a corresponding circle.
And the defining characteristic of the correct axis is the source of energy that creates the rotation.”
Kepler discovered that orbits were elliptical, NOT circular. As such planets speed up and slow down in their orbit. Thus their positions on any future date could be accurately predicted for the first time.
The difference between elliptical orbits and circular orbits are quite real. Elliptical orbits are not pure rotations. Basic kinematics. Basic geometry.
Your insistance that these differences can be ignored is…ridiculous, and magical thinking.
Nate says:
“orbital ellipses are identical in all energies to a corresponding circle.”
Gibberish.
——————–
Thanks Nate for continuing to show your religious devotion.
I realize you have no source for your claim ”Elliptical orbits are not pure rotations. Basic kinematics. Basic geometry.” but thought I would point that out anyway.
If you think you do perhaps while you are at it perhaps you can also demonstrate Swanson’s claim of an ellipse leading to impossible circumstances for a rotation, since its obvious he cannot either.
The two of you are simply the two biggest nutcases in this forum running around like monks repeating yourselves and never providing any evidence of your claims for why your point of view is correct.
You simply cannot arrive at a cause for the moon’s tidal locked condition that does not involve the external axis it rotates around. OTOH, the non-spinners have done that thousands of times that you have just chosen to ignore.
“You simply cannot arrive at a cause for the moon’s tidal locked condition”
This has been explained countless times.
Before Newton could explain the cause of motion via forces and his laws he needed a universal way to DESCRIBE motion in terms of translation, velocity, acceleration, rotation, etc.
That is Kinematics. He got it largely from Galileo. It makes no attempt to find the cause of motion.
Thus astronomy’s description of orbits in terms of translation and axial rotation is simply giving the motion in a form that can be most easily explained.
Newton found that he could account for the translation of planets along elliptical paths with gravity, independently from rotation or orientation.
His equation explains the PATH thru space of a planet’s COM. It has nothing whatsover in it about orientation or rotation rate.
One can go on to include spin-orbital coupling, tidal locking and perturbations from the sun and other planets to explain synchronous orbits, orbital precession and axial precession.
But none of that changes how orbits are universally described.
“I realize you have no source for your claim ‘Elliptical orbits are not pure rotations.’
You mean other than the unambiguous definitions given by Brown, Madhavi, and UW?
Have you gone over to the Pure Troll side? It seems so.
Nate says:
blah blah blah
”One can go on to include spin-orbital coupling, tidal locking and perturbations from the sun and other planets to explain synchronous orbits, orbital precession and axial precession.”
Go on to? LMAO! Pull your head out of your arse thats the only discussion that has been going on. The rotation of the moon is caused by the COM of earth. That is the correct way to describe the cause of that rotation and the physical nature of that rotation. If you choose to ignore that you must argue that the moon’s rotation is coincidental, has nothing to do with forces from the COM of earth, and above all you must describe how this rotation came about in a way that none of those other criteria are to blame.
Nate says:
”But none of that changes how orbits are universally described.”
I aren’t talking about how orbits are described universally or not. And they aren’t described universally. . . .Tesla and this forum and other examples show that definitively. Any way how something is described tells you nothing about the physics of the system unless the description is that the moon rotates around an external axis then it does describe the physical reality of the situation.
hunter wrote:
Hunter ignores the implications of the math I presented, providing no critique to support his comment. He still fails to offer any math to describe the “no spin” model of motion, which is easily captured in the math of an elliptical orbit with the Moon rotating once each orbit. Hunter displays no understanding of gyroscopic motion of a free body in space, which involves the basic principle in physics, conservation of angular momentum. The Moon’s rotational axis has been proven to point in a direction which is not perpendicular to it’s orbital plane, therefore the no-spin mental model is grossly flawed. The Moon can not rotate about two different, non parallel axes at the same time.
I can’t claim to understand how the Moon became tidal locked with the Earth, but the “no spin” yo-yos hand waving and cartoons don’t work either.
“The rotation of the moon is caused by the COM of earth. That is the correct way to describe the cause of that rotation and the ”
Notice YOUR source Madhavi, as well as Brown and UW dont discuss what CAUSED the rotation or translation AT ALL.
Because thats NOT KINEMATICS.
Yet here you are talking about a theory of what may have been the cause of the present motion, millions of years ago. As if that changes the KINEMATIC description of the motion.
Why would it?
E. Swanson says:
Hunter ignores the implications of the math I presented, providing no critique to support his comment.
——————-
Why should I critique your math Swanson? The math is the same if the moon rotates coincidentally and synchronously or if it rotates due to the forces of gravity of earth.
Your math simply removes the radius of the orbit for the portion of the problem associated with Lspin. This formula is simply a derivation of a formula that determines the sum of an infinite number of point masses rotating around the earth. Another way it could be done would be to start with a spinning disk the diameter of the orbit and with a thickness the diameter of the moon (like an mgr disk they mount the ponies on). Then you remove all but the globe of the moon. It is merely conicidental that the math can be devolved down into two simple calculations. The math doesn’t have a life of its own where you can start describing physical realities to the object you are calculating as the math can be determined in many ways and the physical reality doesn’t change depending upon the mathematical approach you select.
Multiple models can be built and they all end up with the same result Swanson. Once you grasp that you will discontinue talking about different models and unique gyroscopic motions that simply ignore the reality of the earth and moon relationship.
——–
———-
———-
E. Swanson says:
The Moon’s rotational axis has been proven to point in a direction which is not perpendicular to it’s orbital plane, therefore the no-spin mental model is grossly flawed. The Moon can not rotate about two different, non parallel axes at the same time.
———
Yes it can. That is simply a unique quality of gravity is that the moon can rotate around the earth, and be influenced by other strings of gravity from the sun, the other planets, and the stars without having its strings get tangled up. Evidence of that is the moon is not significantly tilted in respect to the ecliptic plane, which is the earth’s solar orbit plane.
——–
———-
———-
E. Swanson says:
I can’t claim to understand how the Moon became tidal locked with the Earth, but the “no spin” yo-yos hand waving and cartoons don’t work either.
————
When you can’t explain something it should serve notice to you that you are ignorant about something important regarding what you are talking about . . . .leading to ignorant opinions. Science is not confused about how the moon got tidal locked. Perhaps you should do some more reading.
Nate says:
The rotation of the moon is caused by the COM of earth. That is the correct way to describe the cause of that rotation and the
Notice YOUR source Madhavi, as well as Brown and UW dont discuss what CAUSED the rotation or translation AT ALL.
Because thats NOT KINEMATICS.
Yet here you are talking about a theory of what may have been the cause of the present motion, millions of years ago. As if that changes the KINEMATIC description of the motion.
Why would it?
———————
Nate what is it about the concept of an external axis that you don’t get?
Hunter continues to display his failure to understand physics. The Moon’s orbit can not be modeled as a spinning disk because the orbit is not circular and because the Moon is not attached by a solid link. Removing all the mass from the disk except that of the Moon can not describe the Moon’s rotation about an axis which is parallel to that of the initial disk, since the measured axis is tilted relative to the orbital plane. Gyroscopic rotation which describes the axis of a rotating body is not “unique”, it’s a fact of physics.
Tidal locking of the Moon is a fact. How it happened doesn’t change the other facts that the Moon is a free body and rotates once an orbit wrt the stars. You yo-yo’s still can’t figure out that all rotations are defined in inertial space.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter continues to display his failure to understand physics. The Moons orbit can not be modeled as a spinning disk because the orbit is not circular and because the Moon is not attached by a solid link. Removing all the mass from the disk except that of the Moon can not describe the Moons rotation about an axis which is parallel to that of the initial disk, since the measured axis is tilted relative to the orbital plane. Gyroscopic rotation which describes the axis of a rotating body is not unique, its a fact of physics.”
—————-
You just ignored everything I said about the tilting and the link and did so with terms that have no meaning in physics. So who doesn’t understand physics. The real choice of an axis is between and axis that has a physical controlling link to the rotation and one that does not. By selecting the one that does not you are effectively claiming no control over the rotation.
——–
———-
———
E. Swanson says:
”Tidal locking of the Moon is a fact. How it happened doesnt change the other facts that the Moon is a free body and rotates once an orbit wrt the stars. You yo-yos still cant figure out that all rotations are defined in inertial space.”
————–
So does your claim boil down to that from a distant star you can’t see the moon rotating around the earth?
Nate says:
”Notice YOUR source Madhavi, as well as Brown and UW dont discuss what CAUSED the rotation or translation AT ALL.
Because thats NOT KINEMATICS.
Yet here you are talking about a theory of what may have been the cause of the present motion, millions of years ago. As if that changes the KINEMATIC description of the motion.
Why would it?”
—————————
Well it is clear as a bell that if the moon had no rotation before entering orbit, or at any time during its orbit; the gravity of the earth will cause a tidally-locked rotation. But it in orbit with a spin and it will do the same thing but it might take longer.
That is precisely why they teach kinematics to engineers.
Hunter wrote some more silly stuff, including:
To quantify rotation for a free body in space, one simply must use a coordinate system which is fixed against the stars which thus does not rotate. Such a coordinate choice is called an Inertial Reference Frame. This isn’t about the view from space, it’s that the reference frame must point toward fixed spots in the celestial sphere.
E. Swanson says:
To quantify rotation for a free body in space, one simply must use a coordinate system which is fixed against the stars which thus does not rotate. Such a coordinate choice is called an Inertial Reference Frame. This isnt about the view from space, its that the reference frame must point toward fixed spots in the celestial sphere.
———————–
Fixed spots? The moon does not stay in a fixed spot in space!
So your strategy is to zoom in so close so as to eliminate the view of the planetary system for the purpose of just seeing the moon, then putting the viewer on a oscillator that moves the lense in an elliptical pattern so as to continue to focus on the moon and not allow any other part of the planetary system into your field of view. . . .then judge which axis the object is rotating upon?
And that is required by the laws of physics?
reference please. . . .sounds like you have over imagined all this.
Hunter wrote:
I gave you a reference which yu appear not to have bothered to read. Here’s a quote:
“The state of motion (i.e. the velocity) of any object is always defined with respect to a reference frame/b>.
…
Newton’s first law, also called the law of inertia, defines a special class of reference frames, called inertial frames. It states that, when viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion continues in motion with constant velocity unless it is acted on by an external net force.”
Note that an Inertial Reference Frame is also not rotating. All the “no spin” arguments fail because the yo-yo clowns keep using a rotating reference frame, such as one based on the vector from Earth to the Moon.
In engineering, the need for a celestial reference frame can be ignored, since the problems are low speed/acceleration and the time frame is short. It’s unlikely that engineers would even think of using an inertial reference frame, unless they are working on aeronautical or satellite problems or shooting long range artillery.
Wrong, as always, Swanson. From an inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
pups, Select 3 inertial reference frames, the origin of one fixed in the CM of the Earth, the second fixed at the Moon’s CM and the third fixed at the barycenter. Fix one axis for each parallel to the orbit’s semi-major axis and the second parallel to the Moon’s orbit plane. The third would be orthogonal to the first two, using the right hand rule. With those three coordinate systems, the axes would all be parallel and using them would show that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
From an inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
“Well it is clear as a bell that if the moon had no rotation before entering orbit, or at any time during its orbit; the gravity of the earth will cause a tidally-locked rotation. But it in orbit with a spin and it will do the same thing but it might take longer.
That is precisely why they teach kinematics to engineers.”
Again, you seem to miss the point. This WHOLE argument has been about how to properly describe the motion of the Moon. That is precisely what Kinematics does.
Madhavi, Brown, UW, and all other courses describe motion as rotation or translation or a combination of the two.
They don’t give a sh*t how that motion came about. They don’t use the words force or torque or gravity. Because no matter how it came about, the description of the motion is unchanged.
Thus your statement above, speculating about the Moon’s prior state of rotation, and what cause it to change, is completely irrelevant to deciding how to properly describe the PRESENT motion.
It is interesting to astrophysics to explain the causes of the motion. But FIRST it needs to be described in terms that are universally understood. That’s why they teach Kinematics to scientists and engineers.
Thats why they teach Kinematics to scientists and engineers, BEFORE they teach them about forces and torques and how those produce translations and rotations.
So you guys cite the Kinematics authority of Madhavi, Brown and UW.
But when the Kinematic rules they teach contradict your prior beliefs and intuitions, you end up breaking those rules, as DREMT does repeatedly, then of course you come to nonsensical, contradictory conclusions, as he does again here.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Wrong, as always, Swanson. From an inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.”
And of course DREMT is correct here and Swanson wrong.
Swanson has improperly cherry picked the reference frame he wishes.
As pointed out in his own source which he apparently didn’t read himself it says:
‘The frame fixed in the airplane moving with constant velocity v and the frame fixed on the ground are inertial frames.’
One can add additional frames for the sun, solar system, and distant stars.’
From the distant stars one can see the moon rotating around the earth, Swanson simply wants to ignore much of the moons motion so as to artificially specify it as a motion around its own axis.
Hunter, As I pointed out, there are some situations where it is convenient to use a local coordinate system as if it were actually an inertial frame. That would apply to many problems on Earth, but the Earth both rotates and is accelerated by the gravity of the Sun, so there are problems for which this does not work. Gyroscopic motion is one such situation. Orbital mechanics and attitude control of spacecraft are others.
Nate says:
blah blah blah blah blah
”Thus your statement above, speculating about the Moons prior state of rotation, and what cause it to change, is completely irrelevant to deciding how to properly describe the PRESENT motion.”
Then more blah blah blah
—————————
I agree:
”Kinematics is the branch of classical mechanics that describes the motion of points, objects and systems of groups of objects, without reference to the causes of motion (i.e., forces ).”
And while kinematics doesn’t refer to causes ”Both kinetics and kinematics are areas of study in physics that deal with the motion of an object, but the difference between them is that only one also addresses the causes of that motion. Together, they help a physicist to understand both the “what” and the “why” questions related to moving things.”
Since you don’t know how the various parts of physics fits and you misclassify the motion of the moon’s points you would never ever be able to divine the what and why questions as detailed above.
Madhavi makes it clear that this classification is necessary as a student moves into actual designs for various axes.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter, As I pointed out, there are some situations where it is convenient to use a local coordinate system as if it were actually an inertial frame. That would apply to many problems on Earth, but the Earth both rotates and is accelerated by the gravity of the Sun, so there are problems for which this does not work. Gyroscopic motion is one such situation. Orbital mechanics and attitude control of spacecraft are others.”
Sure a frame that ignores the movement of earth is just fine for looking at the earth which does rotate on its own axis. But that would not apply to the moon which doesn’t. . . .that is other than to tell you doesn’t after you have already accounted for the orbital rotation.
“without reference to the causes of motion (i.e., forces )”
You agree. Good. Then you agree that discussion of the causes of the Moons motion is irrelevant to deciding how to describe it.
Only Kinematics is needed.
Then lets simply ask how Kinematics whether DREMTs repeated declaration:
“the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.”
is consistent with Kinematics.
Madhavi, Brown, and UW are all absolutely clear:
“Madhavi
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. Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”
Brown:
“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.
General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
So it is they are absolutely clear. An elliptical orbit does not qualify as a ‘rotation about a fixed axis’.
DREMTs repeated declaration does not agree with Kinematics. It is is simply wrong.
Then why does he repeatedly cite Kinematics (Madhavi) as a basis for his argument, then turn around and ignore Kinematic definitions?
Because that is the only way he can keep this argument going indefinitely and continue to troll based on it.
Earlier you had noted that “it is laughable to try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist.”
Right no perfect circles exist in planetary motion. In science we use approximations when they give us answers with an acceptable error.
Thus when the Earth or Moon rotate on their axes, all the mass parts are moving in circles around the axis, with an error of a couple of meters. That is an acceptable error. GPS works just fine in locating these points using that model.
Whereas, for the Moons elliptical orbit, a circular approximation would be off by as much as 22,000 km. That is not an acceptable error for landing spacecraft on the Moon.
Nate says:
Only Kinematics is needed.
————————
Indeed and instead motion is divided into classes. You just screw up what the classes are.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
Then lets simply ask how Kinematics whether DREMTs repeated declaration:
“the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.”
is consistent with Kinematics.
—————
Yes it is.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
“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.”
————–
Circular equals elliptical. Kepler’s 2nd law.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
”General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
——————-
The moon travels in a pure rotation. . . .evidence is the lack of reality of the value denoted for your claim of a non-rotating curved translation. The orbit is a single indivisible motion as far as angular momentum is concerned and possesses an axis. One can only separate the motions conceptually via a mathematical derivation.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
”So it is they are absolutely clear. An elliptical orbit does not qualify as a ‘rotation about a fixed axis’.”
—————————–
But it is and you declaring otherwise doesn’t make it so.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
DREMTs repeated declaration does not agree with Kinematics. It is is simply wrong.
—————–
DREMTs and Tesla’s and many others view of this matter is supported by math of real motions of real objects. Your math is only supported by unreal motions of an unreal object (point mass)
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
Earlier you had noted that “it is laughable to try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist.”
Right no perfect circles exist in planetary motion. In science we use approximations when they give us answers with an acceptable error.
—————–
No perfect circles exist. . . .period. And per Keplers law the answer doesn’t change due the elliptical nature of the moon’s orbit. e.g. no error remains. . . .per Kepler.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
Thus when the Earth or Moon rotate on their axes, all the mass parts are moving in circles around the axis, with an error of a couple of meters. That is an acceptable error. GPS works just fine in locating these points using that model.
—————–
The earth has a far greater tidal bulge due to its independent daily rotation that exposes different sides to the moon and moves around the earth. If the moon were not tidal locked its tidal bulge that moved around the moon would be much greater than earths tidal bulge due to the moon. So you are just babbling nonsense and ignoring evidence.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
Whereas, for the Moons elliptical orbit, a circular approximation would be off by as much as 22,000 km. That is not an acceptable error for landing spacecraft on the Moon.
———–
Indeed but that isn’t a determination of what a rotation is and is not. the fact you think you need to mention this is just desperation because of the weakness of your other arguments.
Non-spinners have the brilliant Tesla, Kepler, kinematics, and a single motion identically similar to a ball on a string or a chalked circle on a merry-go-round deck.
Spinners are alone in their arguments attempt to break Kepler’s law (denying equality), rely upon undefined words, unilaterally narrow definitions of words that are not explicitly narrowed in science, deny an orbital rotational axis, rely upon an unquantified concept of adequate rigidity that changes from claim to claim, and deny Tesla without evidence.
Hunter continues to ignore reality. The axis of rotation of a free body is defined by the fact that the body is rotating.
He has agreed that the Moon does exhibit an axis of rotation and that said axis is tilted wrt the orbit’s plane. For General PLANE Motion, all rotations exhibit axes which are perpendicular to the plane and this must also apply to the “no spin” yo-yos claim that the Moon rotates around an external axis.
It should be obvious that a body can’t possibly rotate around two axes at the same time, especially one with a rotational inertia as large as the Moon. Hunter’s confusion is so complete that he can’t see the conflict presented in these facts and is left to repeat his usual delusions without facts, references or supporting math.
The Moon rotates once an orbit wrt inertial space.
“Yes it is.”
Ok so argument by assertion, is it.
Straight up denialism is the way to go?
“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.’
Circular equals elliptical. Keplers 2nd law.”
No. You are not even trying to live in the world of facts!
There are circular orbits and elliptical orbits that have the the same energy. That is ONE property that is equal. All other properties are NOT equal.
The MOTION is NOT the same.
That is why Keplers discovery of elliptical orbits and Newton’s explanation of them was such a big deal.
Im glad you are not in charge of landing things on the Moon.
"For General PLANE Motion, all rotations exhibit axes which are perpendicular to the plane and this must also apply to the “no spin” yo-yos claim that the Moon rotates around an external axis."
General plane motion is what the "Spinners" are arguing the moon is doing, Swanson, not the "Non-Spinners".
Nate says:
”Im glad you are not in charge of landing things on the Moon.”
———————-
Landing a vehicle on the moon or the disk of rotating merry-go-round has absolutely no relevance to kinematics Nate. It is ridiculous for you claim it is relevant. Produce a source that supports that viewpoint!
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter continues to ignore reality. The axis of rotation of a free body is defined by the fact that the body is rotating.”
—————–
the moon is not a free body Swanson it is a captured body enslaved to its orbit around earth due to earth’s gravity. I think a grammar school kid should know that.
————
———-
———
E. Swanson says:
”It should be obvious that a body cant possibly rotate around two axes at the same time, especially one with a rotational inertia as large as the Moon.”
——————-
the earth does dude! There aren’t many kids in grammar school that don’t know that. You guys have gotten so desperate you are now babbling nonsense.
————
———-
———
E. Swanson says:
”The Moon rotates once an orbit wrt inertial space.”
————-
Yes indeed it does. . . .around an axis defined by the COM of earth. You finally got something right.
“Landing a vehicle on the moon or the disk of rotating merry-go-round has absolutely no relevance to kinematics Nate.”
You think the shape of the Moon’s orbit has no relevance to landing things on it?
Again, you guys are free to approximate the Moon’s elliptical orbit as circular, so that you can then call its orbit a ‘rotation’ and thus continue to believe that the Moon doesnt spin, and feel like you won ‘something’.
But if you expect NASA or astronomers or aerospace engineers to adopt such a POV, and thus to give up a huge amount of predictive accuracy, just so that a small cult of morons can feel better about themselves, you will be very disappointed.
“Whereas, for the Moons elliptical orbit, a circular approximation would be off by as much as 22,000 km. That is not an acceptable error for landing spacecraft on the Moon.
Indeed but that isnt a determination of what a rotation is and is not. the fact you think you need to mention this is just desperation because of the weakness of your other arguments.”
Yes it is according to our Kinematics textbooks! Are you saying that we can ignore those definitions, because…why? Because any definition that doesnt work for you can be dismissed as invalid?
“Non-spinners have the brilliant Tesla, Kepler, kinematics, and a single motion identically similar to a ball on a string or a chalked circle on a merry-go-round deck.”
Kepler and kinematics do not agree! A ball-on-a-string is a mantra, but not helpful for the real moon.
“Spinners are alone in their arguments attempt to break Keplers law (denying equality)”
Nobody has suggested ‘breaking’ Kepler’s Law, loser-troll.
“rely upon undefined words”
That is YOU GUYS.
“unilaterally narrow definitions of words that are not explicitly narrowed in science”
It’s right there in black and white in Kinematics textbooks. Sorry but you lose that one!
An ellipse is not a circle. Nor is a square or a triangle a circle.
Even though there are no ‘perfect’ circles, that doesnt mean that ellipses or squares or triangle can be considered equivalent to circles.
That is moronic.
A child can discern the differences between these shapes. Categorizing shapes is useful.
“deny an orbital rotational axis, ”
Orbital axes are not denied. YOU are erroneously adding the word ‘rotational’ to it.
“rely upon an unquantified concept of adequate rigidity that changes from claim to claim”
This like the circle thing again. There are no infinitely rigid objects. And yet the concept of a Rigid Body is quite useful in science and engineering!
How can that be? Because people can often easily categorize rigid and non-rigid bodies.
The Moon-Earth system is clearly not in the Rigid Body category!
“and deny Tesla without evidence.”
Discussed the logical flaws in his argument in great detail a half dozen times. Where were you?
Why do you defer to one person’s Authority?
Clearly state the logical basis of his argument, then we can discuss it.
Nate says:
Kepler and kinematics do not agree!
——————–
Really? where are your references? if there is a disagreement it just shows you to be wrong about there being agreement in physics on this topic. So that argument doesn’t help you.
——–
——-
——-
Nate says:
“unilaterally narrow definitions of words that are not explicitly narrowed in science
Its right there in black and white in Kinematics textbooks. Sorry but you lose that one!
——————
Sorry but you just believe this because of poor reading comprehension skills on your part. 1st Brown uses the word ”circular” which is used more often for paths that aren’t the shape of a perfect circle.
2nd Madhavi uses the word ”circle” improperly if she intends the geometric definition of the word. She says:
”Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation. For example, the
plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles. ”
A good reader would realize she is not talking about perfect circles nor near perfect circles but is instead distinquishing between concentricity vs parallel paths for the individual particles.
She is just using the common concept of curves often in common language noted as a circle or circular vs the geometric definition of a perfect circle.
And of course in the study of kinematics dealing with real world objects then there is no such thing as a perfect circle rendering the discussion as irrelevant to physics without an accompanying quantification of how perfect something needs to be. Do you have a reference for us on this? I didn’t think so.
——–
——-
——-
Nate says:
An ellipse is not a circle.
————-
Indeed all circles are ellipses. so if a circle equals a circle then it also true a circle equals an ellipse. And in common language circle is used more often improperly than the word ellipse. But with the addition of the words parallel and concentric the meaning she is getting at becomes clear and your argument looks more and more like nitpicking.
——–
——-
——-
Nate says:
Even though there are no perfect circles, that doesnt mean that ellipses. . . .can be considered equivalent to circles.
That is moronic.
A child can discern the differences between these shapes. Categorizing shapes is useful.
——————-
OK provide a reference that specifies how out round and circle can be to not be considered a circle. You allow for imperfections. How did you arrive at the idea the lunar orbit isn’t within that allowance? Source please so I can apply this test to all circles. Either that or admit you just pulled the idea out of your arse.
But I guess it suits your penchant for obfuscation to not support your argument.
——–
——-
——-
Nate says:
deny an orbital rotational axis,
Orbital axes are not denied. YOU are erroneously adding the word rotational to it.
—————-
LMAO! I am far from the only one Nate. How many references can you find that states that orbits are non-rotational?
——–
——-
——-
Nate says:
” ”rely upon an unquantified concept of adequate rigidity that changes from claim to claim”
This like the circle thing again. There are no infinitely rigid objects. And yet the concept of a Rigid Body is quite useful in science and engineering!
How can that be? Because people can often easily categorize rigid and non-rigid bodies.”
—————–
We are in agreement here Nate.
But the typical way to do such categorizations is to determine if it is rigid enough for it to dependably perform its function.
I think the moon qualifies on that score since its been doing it for a billion years or so. If you disagree you should state why.
——–
——-
——-
Nate says:
Why do you defer to one persons Authority?
————-
Do I? I happen to agree with Tesla based upon the preponderance of the evidence. the only evidence you have offered falls rather neatly into the class of nit picking (e.g. circles about .05 away from being perfect)
So far you have merely projected what you believe from Madhavi’s use of the word circle as a strict geometric definition when in fact it is not used that way saying both translation and rotational motions move in circles.
Since that is true then the differentiation comes down to the modifier adjectives. There you clearly lose and what I have been telling you over and over the issue is concentricity vs non-concentricity.
Nate says:
” ”Landing a vehicle on the moon or the disk of rotating merry-go-round has absolutely no relevance to kinematics Nate.”
You think the shape of the Moons orbit has no relevance to landing things on it?”
Sheesh Nate take a course in reading comprehension for Gods sakes!
I didn’t say the moon’s orbit has no relevance to landing things on it. I said landing things on the moon has no relevance to kinematics!
“Indeed all circles are ellipses. so if a circle equals a circle then it also true a circle equals an ellipse.”
You fail at basic logic, Bill.
‘All circles are ellipses’ does not equal ‘All ellipses are circles’.
If you dont get that, then you are a moron.
Madhavi’s, Brown’s definition of ‘Rotation’ is unambiguous. Your efforts to spin it in your favor is laughable.
You lose on that point. Move on!
Asking me for ‘sources’ to explain standard geometric facts to you, is ludicrous trolling.
Aint gonna work with me.
At this point you are just wasting words defending indefensible nonsense.
Hunter wrote:
No, it’s a free body moving in a gravitational field. It’s rotation follows the laws of physics and it has rotational momentum defining an axis which is not perpendicular to it’s orbital plane. Because of this well known fact, the Moon can not also be “rotating” around the Earth’s CM (or the Earth-Moon barycenter).
For the Earth, there’s no doubt that it’s rotational axis is not perpendicular to the ecliptic plane as it revolves around it’s orbit of the Sun. Revolving around an orbit is not rotating around an axis.
You need to go back and study physics, especially regarding gyroscopic motion and the conservation of angular momentum.
Nate says:
Madhavi’s, Brown’s definition of ‘Rotation’ is unambiguous.
===========
i agree its unambiguous. but you can’t use a perfect circle as a determinate for rotation when she uses a circle as an example for both rotation and for a translation.
E. Swanson says:
No, it’s a free body moving in a gravitational field.
——————
you can’t call it a free body when its movement, particularly its rotation is controlled by that gravitational field
“i agree its unambiguous. but you cant use a perfect circle as a determinate for rotation when she uses a circle as an example for both rotation and for a translation.”
Demonstrating that you dont know what ‘unambiguous’ means!
Your ongoing use of the word ‘perfect’ suggests again that categorization in the real world is pointless and cant be done.
Which is obviously FALSE!
“you cant call it a free body when its movement, particularly its rotation is controlled by that gravitational field”
Controlled by???
At best weakly influenced by. So weak that millions of years required to see its influence.
This is again a ‘perfection fallacy’. The idea that in the real world there are no ‘perfectly’ free bodies, thus nothing can ever be put into that category.
Hunter, Did you again use the word “rotation” to refer to the Moon’s orbit?? There are two main components of that gravitational field. That of the Sun causes the Moon’s orbital precession and, as you’ve noted several times, the Moon’s rotational axis is close to perpendicular to the Ecliptic. So, the Sun is also “controlling” the Moon’s rotation.
From Wiki article: “The Sun’s gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of Earth’s on the Moon”.
Nate says:
Your ongoing use of the word ‘perfect’ suggests again that categorization in the real world is pointless and cant be done.
Which is obviously FALSE!
————————
Nate you have been doubling down on stupid for months. All circles are out of round to some extent and that includes ellipses. I have stated the word circle is a particular concept of an ellipse with certain properties that ease calculations when calculations don’t have to be perfect. It doesn’t serve as unique identifier of motion as you have been wrongly maintaining for months.
The only reason you have doggedly held to that argument is you didn’t do your homework and read what you should have read.
A circle is used to describe both translations and rotations. Thus it is also describes general plane motions. It is not as you have stupidly maintained a unique quality of rotations.
You need to come up with an entirely new argument.
Nate says:
”Controlled by??? At best weakly influenced by. So weak that millions of years required to see its influence.”
——————
Controlled by not in how long it took to gain total control by the fact the moon has been under adequate control now for an estimated greater than a billion years.
Thats a lot longer service time than any device that an engineer has built in compliance with kinematic principles.
———————-
—————–
—————
Nate says:
”This is again a perfection fallacy. The idea that in the real world there are no perfectly free bodies, thus nothing can ever be put into that category.”
————————–
Its all too obvious this criticism applies to the standard of control you are claiming Nate.
And your claim that nothing would qualify, thats a strawman. Most of the objects it seems in the universe would qualify to some extent, such as the diurnal spin of the earth – that is not controlled. It is merely in the process of falling under control.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter, Did you again use the word rotation to refer to the Moons orbit?? There are two main components of that gravitational field. That of the Sun causes the Moons orbital precession and, as youve noted several times, the Moons rotational axis is close to perpendicular to the Ecliptic. So, the Sun is also controlling the Moons rotation.
From Wiki article: The Suns gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of Earths on the Moon
—————-
It should be readily apparent to you Swanson that you can’t name a lunar motion that isn’t under gravitational control. But one can name one for the earth. Its daily spin.
“Nate you have been doubling down on stupid for months. All circles are out of round to some extent and that includes ellipses. I have stated the word circle is”
As Bill quadruples down on stupid and very weird.
So a theme is appearing here: since nothing in the real world fits ‘perfectly’ in a category, there really are no categories or boundaries between categories that cant be distorted, relaxed as needed.
Circles. There are no perfect circles in the world, thus any closed curve is pretty much a circle.
Rigid body. Since there are no perfectly rigid bodies, any material, even vacuum with a gravity field can be called a Rigid Body.
Free body. There are no truly free bodies in the universe. Everything is controlled by some galaxy far far away a long time ago. So its pointless to apply free body physics to anything.
What else? Kinematics..might as well blur the lines between it and Dynamics.
In Bills universe, all facts are flexible.
Nate, A circle is used to describe both translations and rotations. Thus it cannot be used as a unique qualifier for rotations.
what other argument do you have?
” circle is used to describe both translations and rotations. Thus it cannot be used as a unique qualifier for rotations.”
Both rotation and translation are unambiguously defined. Yet you are still confused.
Lets see the quote that is confusing you.
You have argued that an elliptical orbit is also a ‘rotation’ even though it doesnt satisfy the Kinematic definition.
Give us your alternative definition of ‘rotation’ then.
It must be clear and unambiguous.
Nate says:
” circle is used to describe both translations and rotations. Thus it cannot be used as a unique qualifier for rotations.”
Both rotation and translation are unambiguously defined. Yet you are still confused.
—————–
Thats correct if the particles move in concentrically its a rotation and if they don’t its a translation.
thus the moon’s orbit is a rotation.
“Thats correct if the particles move in concentrically its a rotation and if they don’t its a translation.”
So your definition of rotation is ‘all particles must move in concentric somethings around a fixed axis’ ?
Concentric what? Any shape ok? Square shape ok? Highly eccentric ellipse ok? Any close curve? What if not a closed curve?
Nate says:
” ”Thats correct if the particles move in concentrically its a rotation and if they don’t its a translation.”
So your definition of rotation is ‘all particles must move in concentric somethings around a fixed axis’ ?
Concentric what? Any shape ok? Square shape ok? Highly eccentric ellipse ok? Any close curve? What if not a closed curve?”
————————
Hmmm, I think we are in agreement, or at least close. ‘all particles must move in concentric imperfect circles around a fixed axis’ So yes it could be an ellipse. The moon’s orbit is only a bit more that .05 eccentric, very low. But I see no reason for the relationship to change because of eccentricity.
As to a square, thats a lot more complicated. I would not rule it out. I don’t hold an opinion on this and it doesn’t seem to be directly addressed by Madhavi. However she does mention that uniform rotation and uniformly accelerated rotation are frequently encountered forms of rotation. That would suggest the non-uniform rotation/acceleration of a concentrical square motion could possibly be considered a rotation that might not be frequently encountered. IMO, if such a mechanism was encountered it would be useful to study its dynamics very closely.
“As to a square, thats a lot more complicated. I would not rule it out. I don’t hold an opinion on this, it doesn’t seem to be directly addressed by Madhavi. ”
All sounds very vague.
Madhavi addresses it quite directly when she defines rotation as all mass moving in circles around the axis. Squares need not apply for that job.
What is your clear, unambiguous definition of rotation? And do you have a source that agrees with you?
In science we need clear definitions that everybody understands and uses, and not left to the whims random opinion.
“So yes it could be an ellipse. The moons orbit is only a bit more that .05 eccentric, very low. But I see no reason for the relationship to change because of eccentricity.”
For a Moon in a circular synchronous orbit, where the moon keeps a face oriented, (to the center), is unambiguous. Thus all its mass moves in concentric circles around the center. It is unmabiguous, and can be called a pure rotation.
For a Moon in an elliptical synchronous orbit like ours, it will not always keep the same face to the orbit center– it has libration. And it will not have all mass moving in concentric ellipses. It will not satisfy Madhavi’s or even your proposed definition of rotation.
For a Moon in a quite eccentric elliptical orbit, the libration becomes extreme. We see the Moon wobbling back and forth so much that we will see all sides of it. And the mass will fail in the extreme to move concentrically.
Nate says:
”For a Moon in a circular synchronous orbit, where the moon keeps a face oriented, (to the center), is unambiguous. Thus all its mass moves in concentric circles around the center. It is unmabiguous, and can be called a pure rotation.”
——————
hmmmmmm, Making up conditions on the fly Nate? How about a source to back up this condition of the face being required to always point precisely at the same point?
You seem to be arguing with yourself. That condition will not be met with any imperfect circle; yet you argued vehemently for imperfect circles qualifying. You ought to make up your mind as to what the conditions are, provide source material for each condition, and ensure they are not contradictory to the wide variety of arguments you employ.
As to a square I have no disagreement with you and stated clearly I had no position on the matter. how did you arrive at a position here?
“hmmmmmm, Making up conditions on the fly Nate? How about a source to back up this condition of the face being required to always point precisely at the same point?”
Bill, your hopelessly confused by simple sentences.
I said ‘For the given situation’ you get pure rotation.
Nothing made up about it!
“You seem to be arguing with yourself. That condition will not be met with any imperfect circle; yet you argued vehemently for imperfect circles qualifying.”
The ONLY ONE who argued for that was YOU, dimwit-troll!
“As to a square I have no disagreement with you and stated clearly I had no position on the matter. how did you arrive at a position here?”
Squares are not circles, moron!
I have been consistently in agreement with Kinematics in this discussion, that Rotation involves all mass moving in concentric CIRCLES.
Where did you get a different idea?
Nate says:
October 27, 2021 at 5:22 AM
“hmmmmmm, Making up conditions on the fly Nate? How about a source to back up this condition of the face being required to always point precisely at the same point?”
Bill, your hopelessly confused by simple sentences.
I said ‘For the given situation’ you get pure rotation.
Nothing made up about it!
“You seem to be arguing with yourself. That condition will not be met with any imperfect circle; yet you argued vehemently for imperfect circles qualifying.”
The ONLY ONE who argued for that was YOU, dimwit-troll!
————-
Liar!
you argued: ”Your ongoing use of the word ‘perfect’ suggests again that categorization in the real world is pointless and cant be done.
Which is obviously FALSE!”
I said a circle was a concept of a perfect ellipse and didn’t have an analog in the real world. You took strong exception to that which is a vehement argument for imperfection.
———-
——-
——-
Nate says:
October 27, 2021 at 5:26 AM
“As to a square I have no disagreement with you and stated clearly I had no position on the matter. how did you arrive at a position here?”
Squares are not circles, moron!
I have been consistently in agreement with Kinematics in this discussion, that Rotation involves all mass moving in concentric CIRCLES.
Where did you get a different idea?
——————
Why do you have so much difficulty reading Nate. I said twice now I have no position on that matter. To arrive at a position for me isn’t just accepting authority as it is obviously for you. You are a born sycophant. I may well agree with you but to arrive at that I would need to see a sample mechanism and then I would limit my opinion to that mechanism. You though just ignore that circles are not being used as a unique qualifier even by Madhavi.
And when you accept that then you may begin to understand that kinematics is a branch of dynamics and that its classification system is based on dynamics. And it might even come to you at some point after you accept that, that the use of a word isn’t a law in kinematics, but instead is just a sample. These are the things that experience teaches you once you start using the tools taught to you as a kid.
“you argued vehemently for imperfect circles qualifying.”
Real world circles qualify. Circles with imperfections that are within an acceptable error is what i said.
Ellipses with 5% deviations from a circle, 20,000 km are well outside a tolerable error for most applications of astrophysics or space science need.
If you thought i agreed with you that elliptical orbits qualify as ROTATIONS then you have not been paying attention. No surprise.
So becoming an expert at a subject like physics, then using it correctly is, to you, being a sycophant.
Whereas, not really studying a subject, instead using intuition, and thus getting a lot of it wrong, is being an independent thinker!
Right?!
Ok so I never bothered to study or learn Auditing theory or practice, but by winging it and using intuition, I should be able to out do you!
Riiight?
“The moons orbit is only a bit more that .05 eccentric, very low. But I see no reason for the relationship to change because of eccentricity.”
so here you are making it quite clear that even an ellipse of extreme eccentricity, not remotely circular, should qualify as a ROTATION.
Then you need STILL need to define ROTATION in a way that works for such cases, but not for squares because.
Concentricity won’t work for our Moon, its mass is not moving concentrically.
For extreme ellipses, the paths of various parts of the moon may even cross each other.
And AGAIN, whatever your definition, show us a source that agrees with it.
We’ve seen three sources that insist ROTATIONS are circular motions.
If you continue to argue that there are no perfect circles so we can’t use CIRCULAR as descriptor in the real world, then you will need to argue it out with Brown, Madhavi, UW, and most of humanity.
The point is this.
Since Kepler we have understood that describing orbits as elliptical is a BETTER and much more accurate description of the motion than circular. in fact some orbits, like comets, have high eccentricity, and approximating them as circular is ludicrous.
They needed a Kinematic description of orbits that is universally applicable. Thus orbits are not considered rotations because in general they are not circular.
Orbits are thus described as translations on an elliptical path. Axial rotations are separate parameters.
IDK why that bothers you guys so much, given that you cannot point out instances where it has failed.
Nate says:
Real world circles qualify. Circles with imperfections that are within an acceptable error is what i said.
==================
So what the heck Nate are you the arbiter of what is ”acceptable”? If not then provide a source.
And there is no application in astrophysics that demands a kinematic description of the moon’s rotation around the earth. Navigating to the moon doesn’t change a nit by properly identifying the axis. Perhaps you could come up with something relevant. . . .though I suppose you don’t understand what would be relevant.
Nate says:
”If you thought i agreed with you that elliptical orbits qualify as ROTATIONS then you have not been paying attention. No surprise.”
—————
Nope! you agreed that imperfect circles qualified.
Now we are waiting for a rationale that applies to kinematics that would establish how imperfect, though, Madhavi certainly didn’t create any limitations.
Nate says:
So becoming an expert at a subject like physics, then using it correctly is, to you, being a sycophant.
————————–
Perhaps Nate. Actually most physicists do only what they are instructed to do.
Nate says:
Ok so I never bothered to study or learn Auditing theory or practice, but by winging it and using intuition, I should be able to out do you!
—————————–
Out doing someone can occur many ways. . . .like coming in on budget. But to be an auditor Nate you would have to develop an attitude of skepticism to have a prayer of even getting the job done no matter how long you took.
Nate says:
Concentricity wont work for our Moon, its mass is not moving concentrically.
—————–
That would be incorrect.
”For extreme ellipses, the paths of various parts of the moon may even cross each other.”
——————–
That also would be incorrect.
Nate says:
Weve seen three sources that insist ROTATIONS are circular motions.
—————–
Circular is not a science term it applies to tracks of all sorts of shapes. Synonyms for circular: circuitous, indirect, roundabout.
this is a problem you have with virtually everything you post where you read stuff written by a scientist and you impute a precise meaning to every word in the study that simply isn’t referenced or proven anywhere in the study. If you actually had any real world experience as a scientist you would be aware of what you are doing.
Nate says:
in fact some orbits, like comets, have high eccentricity, and approximating them as circular is ludicrous.
——————
Says who?
“Circular is not a science term it applies to tracks of all sorts of shapes. Synonyms for circular: circuitous”
If you really think that then no wonder you are confused.
This is a good example of you winging it and using (bad) intuition rather that real science.
A circle has precise geometric definition. And no doubt Rigid Body Kinematics courses are using that one!
Just stop with ridiculousness.
“Actually most physicists do only what they are instructed to do.”
You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. And your constant anti-science bias is not appealing on a science blog.
Maybe go troll elsewhere.
Nate you simply are too inexperienced to understand the purpose of kinematics. At this point in time you have failed to express anything that has anything to do with dynamics that are the basis of kinematic classifications.
You want to use language of your personal Gods as the defining characteristic of a dynamic concept. . . .when in fact they are based on their dynamic nature instead.
Madhavi rules nothing out except motions that upon inspection are not due to the controlling nature of the axis of rotation.
I expressed this many months ago. I have experience in structural engineering and get it. In this case ‘control’ is the main characteristic. Madhavi expresses that indirectly with a large number of examples of rotating lever arms, with the axis being the point around which the lever operates.
Control for the moon is manifested in its axis at the COM of earth, not at its own COM axis. If it did have some spin on that axis it would require its own positive force to put it in motion and would be additive to the forces responsible for motion of the moon.
You guys even realize that in some of your awkward arguments for example when you claim the moon’s motion is the residual of a more rapid spin sometime in the past.
But thats a poor excuse because that could only occur if the present spin was in the same direction as the historic spin. . . .a 50/50 proposition assuming the historic spin was either directly in line with the current spin or directly opposed to it. . . .a proposition that has infinite possibilities of a historic spin on an axis pointing in a different direction. Thus the probability of such a condition is incredibly small. Synchronous rotation by coincidence has such a low probability one can just discard the idea.
And even if it were in the same direction and in line with the current axis you would have to ignore the axis of control. You go to great lengths to ignore the dynamics of the moon’s motion in order to satisfy your sycophantic reverence to the words of your heroes of bygone times. . . .you are like a Bible thumper reading every word in the Bible as the word of God.
No sorry Dude but that so naive and so ignorant of the concept of dynamics its actually laughable.
“Nate says:
in fact some orbits, like comets, have high eccentricity, and approximating them as circular is ludicrous.
Says who?”
Edmond Halley.
Nate it is just plain ignorant to state that the moon’s elliptical orbit is a condition that supercedes the rigid body dynamics that exist between the pull of earth’s gravity and the motion of the moon.
You wish to allow for imperfections and in fact there is no breaking of the dynamic relationship of the earth/moon system that results from earth’s gravity on the moon and the moon’s gravity on the earth. So by definition those imperfections are in fact tolerable.
Flexibility by real world scientists must be factored into every design. You though obviously studied the topic but never learned the context within which it is applied, thus you elevate form over substance and when challenged on it you will make whatever allowances you personally deem appropriate and continue to deny the dynamic relationship that clearly exists.
Then worse you are willing to lie that somebody else supports your viewpoint.
Sad sad sad sad! You have zero credibility and zero integrity.
Hunter continues to ignore basic physics, claiming that Madhavi’t lecture is proof that the Moon rotates around the Earth’s CM (actually, the common barycenter). But, to quote Madhavi:
Hunter fails to recognize that Madhavi’s examples are motion in a plane, i.e., 2-D, with rotation defined around axes perpendicular to that plane. The Moon’s rotation is well known to not be perpendicular to it’s orbital plane, thus the claims of 2-D rotation around an earth centered axis are clearly false.
Hunter claims:
Hunter again demonstrates that he completely fails to understand gyroscopic motion and conservation of angular momentum. There’s no need for a “positive force” (does he mean torque?) to keep the Moon rotating, once it started spinning. That the rate of rotation is tidally locked to the Earth does not disprove rotation of the Moon around an axis thru it’s CM.
Most of what you post is vague and indecipherable, Bill. It thus cannot be falsified, and maybe that is the goal.
Its pointless to complain about the standard definition of Rotation in Kinematic textboks without offering a clear alternative.
Show us YOUR definition of Rotation, and how it can work for our Moon and an eccentric ellipse, but not a square.
Swanson says:
”Hunter again demonstrates that he completely fails to understand gyroscopic motion and conservation of angular momentum. There’s no need for a “positive force” (does he mean torque?) to keep the Moon rotating, once it started spinning. That the rate of rotation is tidally locked to the Earth does not disprove rotation of the Moon around an axis thru it’s CM.”
Once again Swanson’s mind goes off the physics road. Angular momentum is always conserved in absolutely any rotating device. We saw that in this discussion months ago of a vinyl LP flying apart from being spun at an excessive speed. The point you are making is correct but you can’t see that it has absolutely zero weight in defining axes. You need to bone up in a big way on your kinematics dude!
Your argument on tidally locked is not supported by evidence. Kinematics is a study of motion and a tidally locked moon qualifies in every way to have its rotation to be a result of its orbit around earth. If you can make a different argument founded in dynamics be my guest. Until you decide to tackle that, however, your arguments are irrelevant, without evidence, and without logic.
Nate says:
Most of what you post is vague and indecipherable, Bill. It thus cannot be falsified, and maybe that is the goal.
Its pointless to complain about the standard definition of Rotation in Kinematic textboks without offering a clear alternative.
Show us YOUR definition of Rotation, and how it can work for our Moon and an eccentric ellipse, but not a square.
——————–
I have already answered that many times. I took no position on a rotation in the shape of a square. That is because at the moment I can’t think of how I would design a machine to move something in a square without creating a parallel pathway for it, making it a translation.
But that’s the beauty of imagination simply because I can’t off the top of my head think of a way to do that, doesn’t amount to proof it can’t be done. That is an argument from ignorance. Seems you love arguments from ignorance and love to substitute an argument from authority at a drop of the hat. I don’t. If I am going to do that I need a reason to make such an uninformed decision when science is lacking.
I have taken a position on the moon, but only after careful deliberation and observation of the system itself that results in the motion. What dynamic facts amount to the motion. Well there is an axis and that axis is connected to the moon via gravity. Another way is to look at from the standpoint of how one would build a machine to do what the moon does. It would be much different than a machine to do say what the earth does. thats just more evidence you are all wet behind the ears on this.
Hunter wrote:
I’ve presented such arguments before and you “no spin” yo-yos simply ignore the physics.
First off, the Moon’s motion and rotation occurs in three dimensions. Your kinematics arguments only work in 2-D.
Second, considering rotational dynamics in space requires the use of an inertial reference frame, not any arbitrary set of coordinates. That’s because angular rotation and momentum can only be properly defined wrt inertial space. In inertial space, the Moon rotates and it’s axis is not perpendicular to the Moon’s orbit, which would be necessary if the Moon actually rotated around your cult’s external axis.
Third, describing the Moon’s motion mathematically can most easily be described as a translation of the CM in an elliptical orbit coupled with an angular rotation once an orbit. That’s the way NASA (and the courses in dynamics I received) approaches the orbital problem. You yo-yos have NEVER provided any math which can describe the real motions, including librations, as measured over hundreds of years.
Your “no spin” cult refuses to provide ANY MATHEMATICAL MODEL of the Moon’s motion. It’s your responsibility, not mine, to provide a complete analysis of the “no spin” conjecture, given that the rest of the physics world disagrees with you.
E. Swanson says:
”First off, the Moon’s motion and rotation occurs in three dimensions. Your kinematics arguments only work in 2-D.”
———–
thats just an advance complication beyond your entry level knowledge of kinematics. The path is actually two dimensional in regards to total gravitational influences that govern its rotation. In no case do any of those influences and motions originate from the COM of the moon.
”Second, considering rotational dynamics in space requires the use of an inertial reference frame, not any arbitrary set of coordinates. ”
——————
A view of the solar system from a distant start is an inertial reference frame from which it is easy to see the moon rotating around the earth. You simply are ignorantly and unnecessarily placing your hand over one eye so as to not see that. . . .the evidence being the diagrams you have submitted from time to time omitting portions of the dynamic orbital system.
”Third, describing the Moon’s motion mathematically can most easily be described as a translation of the CM in an elliptical orbit coupled with an angular rotation once an orbit.”
—————–
One cannot impute an angular momentum to a translation, yet. . . .it is done for the moon’s angular momentum.
”Fourth, Your “no spin” cult refuses to provide ANY MATHEMATICAL MODEL of the Moon’s motion. It’s your responsibility, not mine, to provide a complete analysis of the “no spin” conjecture, given that the rest of the physics world disagrees with you.”
Complete nonsense! You have never provided a mathematical model that specifies the axis must be at COM moon.
Bill,
You clearly are unable to come up with a clear dedinition of Rotation that works for your beliefs.
Its just gut feelings that you know it when you see it. You ‘know’ an elliptical orbit is a rotation and you ‘believe’ that a square path is not a ‘rotation’.
That aint science, and probably aint good Auditing practice.
Hunter, Your repeated posting of red herrings doesn’t change the facts. From Madhavi’s lecture notes:
Your standard “no spinner” claims are based on a kinematic model which assuming the Moon exhibits “rotation” around the Earth’s CoM while revolving in the orbital plane. As you have previously agreed, the Moon actually exhibits rotation around an axis which is tilted wrt it’s orbital plane.
Sorry, guy, these facts can not be ignored as it is obviously impossible. As a result, the “No Spin” cult is clearly wrong.
Furthermore your comment:
displays a complete misunderstanding of inertial reference frames, which are coordinate systems which do not exhibit acceleration or rotation. While not necessary, such coordinates might have the origin placed at the CoM of the Earth or the Moon. When measured against any inertial reference frame, the Moon clearly rotates once an orbit.
“One cannot impute an angular momentum to a translation, yet. . . .it is done for the moon’s angular momentum.”
Of course one can, showing you lack a basic understanding of angular momentum.
Here’s an example. A kid is running in a straight line on a path tangential to the outer edge of a stationary Merry-Go-Round on a playground. He is only Translating and not Rotating.
Now as he passes the edge of the MGR, he jumps up onto it. What happens? He and the MGR start rotating! They have angular momentum.
How can Conservation of Angular Momentum be satisfied, unless the kid had angular momentum BEFORE jumping on the MGR?
Because of course he DID have angular momentum wrt to the center of the MGR!
Simply by translating tangentially at a distance r from a point, a mass has L = mvr of angular momentum wrt that point.
One should be careful tossing around terms that one doesnt fully understand.
Nate says:
”You clearly are unable to come up with a clear dedinition of Rotation that works for your beliefs.
Its just gut feelings that you know it when you see it. You ‘know’ an elliptical orbit is a rotation and you ‘believe’ that a square path is not a ‘rotation’.
That aint science, and probably aint good Auditing practice.”
———————————–
Well since you don’t have clue one regarding good auditing practice let me educate you.
Broadly auditing is about getting to the substance of an issue and not getting distracted by the form it is presented in. That rules out relying upon words, definitions, and anything symbolic like circles, etc.
In the current case non-spinners have presented definitions relentlessly and you either don’t understand them or you just out and out reject them and instead deem to rely upon symbolic definitions (e.g. words) mostly born of perfect concepts for which you are totally unprepared to argue for what is ”perfect enough”. That is what all bad auditors get caught up in they begin to confound ‘official’ form for substance.
So what is the substance of a rotation? The first step is to recognize that this is a branch of dynamics.
”dynamics is a branch of physical science and subdivision of mechanics that is concerned with the motion of material objects in relation to the physical factors that affect them: force, mass, momentum, energy.”
Rotation is a condition of revolving around an axis to which there is a physical connection whereby materially the axis is fixed and particles move concentrically around it. One can imagine an axis in the middle of a chalked circle on the deck of merry-go-round but where is the dynamics in that? the particles that move concentrically around this imagined axis aren’t affected by physical factors that produce the rotation, thus that isn’t a real axis in fact it can’t be as this circle is solidly bonded to a rotating disk that provides the perception of a rotation about the axis in any chalked circle.
Its actually pretty simple if you don’t let your senses be confused by rigid concepts (forms you were taught) and you doggedly seek out the substance of the rotation.
The wheel rolling on a road has an axis in the middle of the wheel based upon substance. Thats because you can observe that the rotation of the wheel is being caused by the friction of the tire on the road.
In the case of the Madhavi 2(a) curvilinear translation there is no rotation as particles are not materially moving concentrically. the only particles moving concentrically are the connecting arms and a lack of rigidity exists in the connection to the moving plate.
So the substance of the dynamical relationship must be examined and conclusions drawn about dynamic connectivity and the nature of the motion of particles in the moving object. So its not a simple definition that can be described exhaustively for every possible shape. Its a definition born within the study of dynamics. What is the substance of the motion and its connections to a cause of motion. Its an empirical definition for which there are many possibilities. Beside auditing I have spent many years building stuff both professionally and as a constant hobby when working as a consultant or an auditor. I have a particular fascination of gearing systems. A field that hardly a day goes by where somebody doesn’t come up with a better idea to accomplish something that has not been accomplished before. Defining the limits of that? LMAO!! Experience teaches you to not be so moronic.
Swanson I am bored with responding to all the declarations you make without you providing a single reference or shred of logic. You simply focus on forms you have been taught without an apparent shred of having had to put anything at risk that the substance of what you say has any grounds.
When you do offer a reference it has nothing to do with the substance of your declaration (i.e. specifying an axis of rotation).
So unless you change your ways and actually move away from random and inapplicable declarations I won’t be responding to you any more.
“So what is the substance of a rotation? The first step is to recognize that this is a branch of dynamics.”
Uhh no.
Kinematics is the branch that describes motion, like rotation. That is self evident from Madhavi and Brown
Dynamics is connecting that motion to forces and causes.
How bout you stop making up your own alternative facts, in a field you dont understand.
“Rotation is a condition of revolving around an axis to which there is a physical connection whereby materially the axis is fixed and particles move concentrically around it.”
Ok so heres a definition that we can check and falsify.
First there is no material connection between the Moon and Earth. Nor is one required for a Rotation according to Madhavi. So that is wrong.
For an elliptical orbit, its not possible for all particles on a moon in that orbit to move concentrically, and satisfy conservation of angular momentum.
Example Halleys comet orbit. A moon in thst orbit spends ~ 75 y on one side of the sun and far from it, and about 3 months on the other side and near the sun.
If synchronous, it must rotate once in 75 y, and at a uniform rate to conserve momentum.
So for the 3 month portion on one side of the sun, it only rotates about 1 degree. That means the paths of front side and back side cross each other. IOW not concentric.
Nate says:
October 29, 2021 at 1:07 PM
“So what is the substance of a rotation? The first step is to recognize that this is a branch of dynamics.”
Uhh no.
—————-
uhh you are wrong again nate
http://tornado.sfsu.edu/Geosciences/classes/e465/handouts/Kinematics.htm#:~:text=Kinematics%20%2D%2D%20The%20branch%20of,to%20force%2C%20momentum%20or%20energy.
Nate says:”First there is no material connection between the Moon and Earth. Nor is one required for a Rotation according to Madhavi. So that is wrong.”
again you rely on an irrelevant formula (form/symbolic definition) as opposed to the real world substance of a connection. That states you are inexperienced, inculcated, and relying upon rote memory vs understanding. There isn’t a discipline I am aware of where this distinction isn’t the greatest barrier to success for a student transitioning to a professional. All inventors make this transition and learn to think outside the artificial symbolic boxes that the tools of your education give you more than intended and undesirably so.
And 3 months of 75 years gives you the equivalent of just over 1 degree of a rotation. so whats your point?
not to speak of allowing yourself to fall into the same kind form over substance trap whereby concentricity speaks to the connection with the axis where as in a translation either no axes exist or multiple ones do. kepler’s 2nd law relates angular momentum to an orbit. angular momentum is a rotational element and thusly an orbit cannot be a translation unless there is another axis that is influencing the movement of particles of the orbiting body. . . .e.g. multiple axes.
however i would argue that in the case of orbiting spinning objects the angular momentum is a pair of vectors as opposed to no angular momentum. but that is just an argument for which i don’t have evidence.
Bill,
The overall field is Mechanics.
Kinematics and Dynamics ore sub-branches of that field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics
Kinematics-“describes the motion of point, bodies (objects), and systems of bodies (groups of objects) without considering the forces that cause them to move.”
Dynamics- “, is concerned with the relationship between motion of bodies and its causes, namely the forces acting on the bodies and the properties of the bodies, particularly mass and moment of inertia.”
“again you rely on an irrelevant formula (form/symbolic definition) as opposed to the real world substance of a connection.”
What irrelevant formula? What real world substance?
In the real world, there is no substance between Moon and Earth. What ‘real world’ do you inhabit?
What psychedelic drugs are you on, Bill? Id like some, pls.
“rely on (form/symbolic definition)”
Yep, and no apologies for that.
Science, and most fields really, not just me, rely on clear definitions.
Science and engineering has evolved to put laws, principles in mathematical form. It has worked well.
No apologies for that!
“That states you are inexperienced, inculcated, and relying upon rote memory vs understanding.”
This is just more pointless ad-homs in the place of facts, science, or a real rebuttal of the science in my post.
It is loser talk.
“There isnt a discipline I am aware of where this distinction isnt the greatest barrier to success for a student transitioning to a professional.”
More loser talk from someone who doesnt know what they are talking about, and gets many things wrong in a field outside their expertise.
Good example is above, you declaring facts about angular momentum that were simply incorrect.
“All inventors make this transition and learn to think outside the artificial symbolic boxes that the tools of your education give you more than intended and undesirably so.”
How is it that getting facts about angular momentum wrong is going to HELP you invent something?
Understanding basic physics and math is essential to invention of new technology in the modern world.
That is why all engineers are taught it. This approach to educating engineers has evolved over a couple of centuries for good reasons.
It seems to work. Buildings and bridges and infrastructures of various kinds, in general, dont fail. Innovation continues at record pace.
Your notions that educating people in basic science is somehow a bad thing are bizarre and unsupported by any evidence.
Bill,
“And 3 months of 75 years gives you the equivalent of just over 1 degree of a rotation. so whats your point?
not to speak of allowing yourself to fall into the same kind form over substance trap whereby concentricity speaks to the connection with the axis where as in a translation either no axes exist or multiple ones do.”
This is substance based argument, so I thought you would understand.
The substantive point is that 1 degree of rotation is happening when the Moon must make a nearly 180 degree U-turn along its orbital path at the perihelion.
That means that on the ingoing path as it passes the sun, a point on the moon, 1, is facing the sun. A point 2 on opposite side is facing away from the sun.
On the outgoing path, the orientation of the moon has changed 1 degree. So point 1 is now facing directly away from the sun, and point 2 is facing the sun.
The paths of point 1 and point 2 cross each other. No concentric motion here.
FTOPs demo illustrates what Im talking about well.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fgwe7dsr1m
For our Moon in an elliptical orbit, you can see the paths of the two points will not be concentric.
Nate says:
”The overall field is Mechanics.
Kinematics and Dynamics ore sub-branches of that field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics”
——————–
LOL! A Wikipedia scientist you are. LMAO! Who are you going to believe? Wikipedia or the University?
Read your own description below and you can see the relationship.
”Kinematics-describes the motion of point, bodies (objects), and systems of bodies (groups of objects) without considering the forces that cause them to move.”
”Dynamics- , is concerned with the relationship between motion of bodies and its causes, namely the forces acting on the bodies and the properties of the bodies, particularly mass and moment of inertia.”
It is clear your definition of dynamics includes the motion of bodies (kinematics)
I would add from Britannica’s Science/Physics definitions: ”kinetics, branch of classical mechanics that concerns the effect of forces and torques on the motion of bodies having mass. … They include under dynamics both kinetics and kinematics (the description of motion in terms of position, velocity, and acceleration, apart from the influence of forces, torques, and masses).”
https://www.britannica.com/science/kinetics
Britannica notes some authors reduce the hierarchy by leaving out kinetics. Which might be appropriate in some particular situations. But it doesn’t include Madhavi despite your belief it does.
You probably shouldn’t rely on Wikipedia. Its a great beginning source for the expansion of a study but its not always accurate. In this case your dismissal of Madhavi on the premise its Kinematics is simply ignorant. Consider if you will the title to Madhavi’s work that we have been talking about for months. ”Dynamics of Rigid Bodies”
Madhavi’s Dynamics of Rigid Bodies is a limited look at the most common of situations. A broader look is what you have to learn to do when after you pass her course and become a real scientist and have to confront real world complexity. As a graduate you are but a pre-apprentice. Going to graduate school never replaces an apprenticeship it just shortens the length of it as you get more playtime with your tools.
So a rotation is a large group of motions with a particular dynamic relationship. Its not limited to circles. . . . it is limited only in being not a translation.
I will repeat translation does not have an angular momentum around a dynamic/mechanical axis.
But we know that the moon is considered to have an angular momentum (angular momentum being a rotational element) around the COM of earth. You can’t apply a rotational element to a non-rotation. You may be able to apply an angular momentum to a translation but it will not be calculated on a dynamic axis (e.g. an axis providing the force/momentum/energy for the rotation) because if it is its a rotation.
So out the window goes all your arguments of the past several months and all you have managed to do is to show how limited your knowledge is on this topic. My knowledge is limited, especially from an academic perspective. However it is experience rich and I can read the title of Madhavi’s paper.
Nate says:
”The substantive point is that 1 degree of rotation is happening when the Moon must make a nearly 180 degree U-turn along its orbital path at the perihelion.”
You do understand you can draw a curve with a 1 degree arc like a shallow bowl and put an object in it that the rims of the bowl are higher than the top of the object (like putting a cornflake in the bottom of bowl with one degree of arc.). FYI, that is not a U turn.
You seem attached to overly simplified arguments when the important dynamics argument is the purity of the motion in regards to rotational elements like angular momentum as established by Kepler.
Hunter’s reply shows his determination to ignore reality, writting:
I’ve quoted Madhavi and NASA, among other references. You and the other “no spin” cult refuse to accept the scientific reality that all rotations ultimately must be quantified wrt inertial references, i.e., non-rotating coordinates, with the stars being most nearly so.
When the Moon’s rotation is measured against an inertial reference frame, it is clearly found to be rotating. That is not some “random and inapplicable declarations”, it’s a statement of physical fact which you continue to ignore.
“It is clear your definition of dynamics includes the motion of bodies (kinematics)”
Duh, because dynamics is about finding causes of the motion thats been described using Kinematics.
Describing motion is Kinematics. As noted “without considering the forces that cause them to move”
This is the point I have been trying hard to make with you from the beginning!
Do you get it now?
“So a rotation is a large group of motions with a particular dynamic relationship. Its not limited to circles. . . . it is limited only in being not a translation.”
False, as Madhavi, Brown, UW, and everyone else show.
“I will repeat translation does not have an angular momentum around a dynamic/mechanical axis.”
False. This has already proven to be wrong. It is abundantly clear that you dont understand angular momentum.
You did not rebut my example above.
You get no points for restating proven Falsehoods over and over.
They dont become true by repetition!
“You do understand you can draw a curve with a 1 degree arc like a shallow bowl and put an object in it that the rims of the bowl are higher than the top of the object (like putting a cornflake in the bottom of bowl with one degree of arc.). FYI, that is not a U turn.”
No Bill, you horribly twisted what I wrote. On purpose?
The ORIENTATATION of the moon changes by 1 degree.
The orbital path arc length changes by ~ 180 degrees. That is a U-turn. This is NOT a shallow bowl.
An orientation change of 1 degree during a U-turn in the orbit explains the non-concentricity paths.
Nate says:
”Describing motion is Kinematics. As noted “without considering the forces that cause them to move”
This is the point I have been trying hard to make with you from the beginning!
Do you get it now?”
—————–
I get you don’t get it Nate. Yes describing motion is kinematics. That is a straight line motion or a curved line motion. For a curved motion the motion can be a circle, ellipse, or it can meander.
However a rotation goes beyond a description of a motion and includes kinetics. Madhavi’s paper is not entitled Dynamics of Rigid Bodies for no reason at all.
So you need to abandon your argument that rotation is merely a kinematic description of a motion. That is incorrect. It is a description of a motion together with the kinetics that are affecting it.
Madhavi says: the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles.
A circle is a kinematic description of a motion. To get to the dynamics of the motion one must distinguish between a rotation and a translation on the basis of the kinetics of force, mass, momentum, and energy.
So far you haven’t taken a shot at doing that yet you continue to argue for the wrong answer. Do you even know you have to do that? Or are you still considering a rotation as just a description of a motion without regards to any kinetics?
Nate says:
”You do understand you can draw a curve with a 1 degree arc like a shallow bowl and put an object in it that the rims of the bowl are higher than the top of the object (like putting a cornflake in the bottom of bowl with one degree of arc.). FYI, that is not a U turn.”
No Bill, you horribly twisted what I wrote. On purpose?
The ORIENTATATION of the moon changes by 1 degree.
The orbital path arc length changes by ~ 180 degrees. That is a U-turn. This is NOT a shallow bowl.
An orientation change of 1 degree during a U-turn in the orbit explains the non-concentricity paths.
———————-
Nate:
”At aphelion in 1948, Halley was 35.25 AU (3.28 billion miles or 5.27 billion kilometers) from the Sun, well beyond the distance of Neptune. The comet was moving 0.91 kilometers per second (2,000 mph). At perihelion on February 9, 1986, Halley was only 0.5871 AU (87.8 million km: 54.6 million miles) from the Sun, well inside the orbit of Venus. Halley was moving at 122,000 mph (54.55 kilometers per second).”
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/asteroids-comets-and-meteors/comets/1p-halley/in-depth/#:~:text=At%20aphelion%20in%201948%2C%20Halley,per%20second%20(2%2C000%20mph).
A Uturn is a 180 degree turn. A line drawn through the sun’s COM does not anywhere near denote the point where the uturn is completed.
“Yes describing motion is kinematics. That is a straight line motion or a curved line motion. For a curved motion the motion can be a circle, ellipse, or it can meander.”
Great!
“So you need to abandon your argument that rotation is merely a kinematic description of a motion. That is incorrect”
Whoops. Why are you contradicting your own statements?
Again, Kinematics”
“the branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion.”
Rotation is motion. Yes? It is most certainly described in Kinematics! No need to abandon it.
This is a pointless argument.
Nate says:
Rotation is motion. Yes? It is most certainly described in Kinematics! No need to abandon it.
This is a pointless argument
=========================
LOL! Indeed. There are kinematics of a rotation but a rotation possesses more than kinematics.
“A Uturn is a 180 degree turn. A line drawn through the suns COM does not anywhere near denote the point where the uturn is completed.”
OK. the velocity of the moons COM doesnt turn 180 degrees.
But the vector that connects the center of the sun to the center of the moon indeed rotates through 180 degrees of arc during that swing around perihelion. That is HALF of the rotation that vector does during the complete orbit.
Yet the orientation of the moon changes by 1 degree.
Thus at the start of that 180 degree swing around the sun, point 1 on the moon points to the sun and point 2 on the moon points away from the sun.
At the end of the swing around the sun, point 1 points 179 degrees away from the sun and point 2 points 1 degree away from the sun. They have switched places. Their paths have crossed!
This means their paths are not concentric. Your concentric model is not applicable.
And of course not, because it is not a real model, just an unverified hunch.
Nate says:
But the vector that connects the center of the sun to the center of the moon indeed rotates through 180 degrees of arc during that swing around perihelion. That is HALF of the rotation that vector does during the complete orbit.
Yet the orientation of the moon changes by 1 degree.
Thus at the start of that 180 degree swing around the sun, point 1 on the moon points to the sun and point 2 on the moon points away from the sun.
At the end of the swing around the sun, point 1 points 179 degrees away from the sun and point 2 points 1 degree away from the sun. They have switched places. Their paths have crossed!
This means their paths are not concentric. Your concentric model is not applicable.
============================
Wow Nate are you loaded or what?
First, the moon is not tidal locked to the sun.
Second, we were talking about Halley’s Comet in my quote.
Third, You haven’t stated that Halley’s Comet is tidal locked to the sun.
Fourth, If Halley’s Comet is tidal locked to the sun your claim is through 180degrees of the orbit the comet only rotates 1 degree? That means if its tidal locked it must rotate 359 degrees in the next 180 degrees of the orbit.
You seem confused. . . .and apparently somewhat lacking in evidence for your claim. Personally I know very little about Halley’s Comet other than it shows up about once every 75 to 80 years. It seems to have a rather variable orbit, I assume attributable to the gravity of the many planetary orbits it crosses in its journey giving it variations in its speed depending on how close the planet is to the comet when it crosses an orbital path.
Bill,
“Wow Nate are you loaded or what?
First, the moon is not tidal locked to the sun.
Second, we were talking about Halleys Comet in my quote.
Third, You havent stated that Halleys Comet is tidal locked to the sun.
Fourth, If Halleys Comet is tidal locked to the sun your claim is through 180degrees of the orbit the comet only rotates 1 degree? That means if its tidal locked it must rotate 359 degrees in the next 180 degrees of the orbit.”
Looks like youve lost track of what’s being discussed, again. You seemed to be keeping track, but.. then suddenly lose all memory of what this was about. How convenient!
Here’s a quick review.
B: “‘all particles must move in concentric imperfect circles around a fixed axis’ So yes it could be an ellipse. The moons orbit is only a bit more that .05 eccentric, very low. But I see no reason for the relationship to change because of eccentricity.”
N: “For an elliptical orbit, its not possible for all particles on a moon in that orbit to move concentrically, and satisfy conservation of angular momentum.
Example: Halleys comet orbit. A moon in thst orbit spends ~ 75 y on one side of the sun and far from it, and about 3 months on the other side and near the sun.
If synchronous, it must rotate once in 75 y, and at a uniform rate to conserve momentum.
So for the 3 month portion on one side of the sun, it only rotates about 1 degree. That means the paths of front side and back side cross each other. IOW not concentric.”
Is your memory jogged? Hopefully so.
Now you should understand that this is an example of how an elliptical orbit, even a synchronous one, will NOT have CONCENTRICITY, as you originally proposed.
Time to ditch that model of rotation and find a new one!
Or, continue to deny facts and reality.
Nate I was referring to your statement:
”Yet the orientation of the moon changes by 1 degree.
Thus at the start of that 180 degree swing around the sun, point 1 on the moon points to the sun and point 2 on the moon points away from the sun.”
I get that you are talking about a real libration regarding the moon’s orientation in reference to a position of individual particles traveling perfectly parallel to the orbit path.
But all this stuff you are posting about Halley’s comet is meaningless for the reasons I listed.
If you wish to make a case give me how much out of perfect concentricity the moon exhibits r.e. its orbit path. Then we can compare that to typical imperfections found in say common place engineering where rotation is an accepted fact.
I realize you are still trying to keep in the air all your favorite failed bullshit arguments (like unreal perceived libration and objects don’t ‘rotate’ in elliptical paths)
You have already agreed that an imperfect circle doesn’t rule out all rotations in the world on the premise no perfect circles exist. The only argument left is how much imperfection is allowable. And all you are now doing is bullshiting to avoid making a case for your position.
“But all this stuff you are posting about Halleys comet is meaningless for the reasons I listed.”
Bill, it is written in plain english:
“Example: Halleys comet orbit. A moon in that orbit…”
which is relevant to a moon in an eccentric orbit, which you claimed would have concentricity.
IOW meaningful to the discussion!
The reasons listed by some moron who can’t read plain english are red herrings.
Sorry, you lose again.
The rest is just more flimsy excuses. Enough.
Nate says:
Bill, it is written in plain english:
“Example: Halleys comet orbit. A moon in that orbit…”
which is relevant to a moon in an eccentric orbit, which you claimed would have concentricity.
IOW meaningful to the discussion!
The reasons listed by some moron who can’t read plain english are red herrings.
Sorry, you lose again.
The rest is just more flimsy excuses. Enough.
————————–
Its simple to look at Madhavis diagrams of Figures 2(a) and 2(b) and see the difference between rotations and a curvilinear translation that many confuse.
It is clear in those diagrams that all the moon’s particles in Figure 2(b) are going around a single axis. Thats a rotation.
Whereas in Figure 2(a) some particles are going around one axis while other particles are going around a completely different axis in parallel curves. That is a curvilinear translation.
You keep trying to snatch concepts out of thin air to created different conditions like a perfect circle that doesn’t exist in the real world. Fact is there isn’t an object in the real world that has a perfect rotation, they all have some wobble that causes paths to cross each other. . . .just not to the extent they don’t all go around the same axis.
Going around different axes is precisely why objects in curvilinear translation don’t have rotational elements.
“simple to look at Madhavis diagrams of Figures 2(a) and 2(b)”
So first off, your definition of rotation involving concentricity, utterly failed for a non circular orbit! You cannot rebut this.
Second, why do you keep citing Madhavi, who unambiguously defines Rotation as ‘all particles moving in circles around an axis’, which clearly, obviously, unambiguously, resoundingly, disagrees with you!
What is wrong with your logic chip?
I realize there are supply chain issues, but dude, get it replaced ASAP!
Nate says:
So first off, your definition of rotation involving concentricity, utterly failed for a non circular orbit! You cannot rebut this.
—————-
Nate, the argument is whether the motion is a rotation or translation.
Rotations have all particles traveling in concentric paths from going around a ‘common’ axis. Translations have all particles traveling in parallel paths.
You can’t argue that a motion that has minor imperfections where paths cross over each other changes a rotation into a translation.
Instead you need to observe whether there is a concentricity about the motion around a common axis or there is no such concentricity.
We know the axis of the orbit is the COM of earth at any given moment and is the barycenter of the earth moon system as a mean position of the earth knowing that the moon moves the earth as well.
We also know the moon’s orbit has a constant angular momentum that is only applicable to rotations.
But thus far all you have done is nitpick in a way that destroys your alternative position to the equal degree it calls into question the actual fact of the moon’s rotation around the earth.
If you pile all this on a scale you have yet to make an argument that adds anything to your side of the scale without also adding to the other side. If it were a football game it would be something like 100 to nothing. You have no defense nor any offense.
Bill, we simply cant continue if you refuse to deal rationally with facts and logic when they dont go your way.
Nate says:
Bill, we simply cant continue if you refuse to deal rationally with facts and logic when they dont go your way.
———————————–
So you are going to desperately cling to the claim that its allowable for parallel lines to cross each other but not concentric lines?
How is that logical?
“cling to the claim that its allowable for parallel lines to cross each other”
Nope. Never did.
The point here is that concentric curves don’t cross each other. You SHOULD agree with this basic fact.
Why don’t you?
Madhavi and others quite obviously do not agree with you on Rotation. Yet you defy logic to claim that they still, somehow, do.
The basic rule here seems to be that Bill is never allowed to be wrong about anything, even when he is obviously wrong.
Sorry, I can’t debate under those rules.
Nate says:
November 4, 2021 at 7:12 AM
“cling to the claim that its allowable for parallel lines to cross each other”
Nope. Never did.
The point here is that concentric curves don’t cross each other. You SHOULD agree with this basic fact.
Why don’t you
———————————
Now you are lying.
You have described the moon’s orbital motion as a translation. A translation is where particles of the object travel in parallel paths.
A rotation is particles traveling in concentric paths. Concentric paths of particles are simply particles traveling in parallel paths around a common axis.
So logically you are arguing unless the paths are perfectly parallel the motion cannot be a translation or a rotation.
So what is the orbital motion of the moon? In your view?
Of course my answer is the moon’s orbital motion is a rotation with a slight wobble that corrects itself 100% with each complete rotation.
A slight wobble is part and parcel to any rotation of a real object it is also part and parcel to any translation of a real object.
All you are doing rather awkwardly is try to impose perfection where you desire it to be imposed and deny it where you don’t want to acknowledge the lack of it. Same kind of cherry picking you do on every subject you comment on Nate.
There is absolutely no basis in claiming an orbital motion is not a rotation. It has its own unique rotational elements that are widely calculated by science and denied by the flat earth element of science that thinks only in terms of the perfect concepts they have been inculcated with. . . .you know Nate. . . .flat earthers like you who can’t come up with a single science-based source to support your viewpoint.
“You have described the moons orbital motion as a translation. A translation is where particles of the object travel in parallel paths.”
Twisting my words, standard Bill BS.
An Orbit without axial rotation is simply curvilinear translation, is what I have been saying, and what Newton and Astronomy says.
The Moon has axial rotation and is orbiting, is what I have always maintained.
“A rotation is particles traveling in concentric paths. Concentric paths of particles are simply particles traveling in parallel paths around a common axis.
So logically you are arguing unless the paths are perfectly parallel the motion cannot be a translation or a rotation.”
Nope.
In Curvilinear Translation, particles move in parallel paths, which need not be concentric!
See projectile motion below. Top and bottom move in parallel paths. Not concentric.
https://physicscatalyst.com/article/translational-motion/
“There is absolutely no basis in claiming an orbital motion is not a rotation”
Repeating your unsupported opinion does doesnt make it a fact.
The basis is legitimate sources: Madhavi, Brown, UW, and many more defining rotation as circular movement of a body.
An ellipse with nonzero eccentricity does not qualify as a circle. Basic geometry
Orbits are ellipses, most often w non zero eccentricity.
The logic is clear. Orbits dont qualify as rotations.
The basis is
1.Sources,
2.Geometry
3. Logic.
Show us these 3 items to form a basis for your claim above. Not hand waving, not your feelings, not gish galloping.
If you cannot show a clear basis, then sorry, you are wrong.
Nate says:
”In Curvilinear Translation, particles move in parallel paths, which need not be concentric!”
Nate does that brain of yours have an ‘on’ button?
The particles of the moon are neither moving in a perfect circle nor are they moving in parallel paths.
Brain on! When paths are parallel they don’t cross over each other!!!
Concentric paths are merely parallel paths that go around a common axis!
We know the moon goes around a common axis. There is a motion going on. According to you the paths of the moon’s particles are not parallel and thus also not concentric despite the paths going around a common axis.
So what kind of motion is it? And provide a source that supports that view.
——
———–
———
Nate says:
”An Orbit without axial rotation is simply curvilinear translation, is what I have been saying, and what Newton and Astronomy says.”
who cares what anybody ”says” Nate? Academic scientists are just an ordinary but clever band of brigands, pirates, con men, and nice guys just like any other unregulated band of clever people.
this is a philosophic discussion here about the nature of the moon’s rotation and the dynamics of that motion. You have provided zero references to the moon’s dynamics in support of the motion of the moon being around its own internal axis and instead you just believe what you have been told!!!!
You have, in my opinion, fallen into a common trap of educated people who start believing in their tools over the actual substance of something. You would have me believe that the moon is the movement of a point mass without any particles around the earth while the moon rotates around its own internal axis.
But the fact is the particles have to move and this is why a tidal locked motion involves only one rotation and non-tidal locked motions involve multiple rotations.
Seems to me (since you only rely upon what people say) your view arises entirely out of what you were taught rather than any kind of uniform dynamics-based understanding of the motion.
A general plane motion is a different kind of motion than a pure rotation because the dynamics are there to support it with a tire rolling on a surface. But the moon does not roll around the earth. There are no dynamics to support such a roll.
So for the moon that dynamic does not exist.
There needs to be explanations and causes of motions considered in order to ”properly” classify them. Astronomy simply does not do that because there is no need to do it.
And it seems to be a fringe group of them who love to con folks and provide an non-intuitive and totally unsupported answer using academic teaching simplifications to run the con.
And of course for the sake of trying to look smart you even try to stuff words into the mouth of Newton and treat him like you would Donald Trump, namely pretend he said something he didn’t to move your own agenda just like a brigand marketeer.
So lets either end this conversation or you actually come up with a explanation supported by dynamics to make an argument as to the causes you believe in that creates the moon’s motion. . . .which will tell everything anybody wants to know about the moon’s rotation.
You seem to have missed this part
“Not hand waving, not your feelings, not gish galloping.”
And you went with all 3!
Alright, lets skip textbook definitions since you think they can be ignored..
Lets go with what most people (pretty sure even you) would understand to be a pure rotation and what would not be.
1. If your friend stands on the edge of a Merry-G0-Round (MGR), and you push the MGR around 180 degrees, most people would understand that your friend has been given a pure 180 degree rotation, around an axis thru the center of the MGR.
Since pure rotation is just movement thru an angle, and nothing else.
2. Now if you continue to push the MGR another 180 degrees, but at the same time your friend walks halfway to the center, I think most people would understand that your friend has done more than a pure rotation.
Explain what translation is to people, and most would understand that what your friend’s motion was a rotation plus a translation.
3. Now continue another 180 degrees and have your friend walk back to the edge. That was clearly also a rotation plus a translation.
Put #2 and #3 motions together and you have a motion quite similar to our Moon’s is in its elliptical orbit. It goes around but also moves nearer and farther from the axis.
Most people, after the MGR example, would understand that this Moon motion cannot be a pure rotation. They would have to conclude , logically, it must be a rotation plus a translation.
You?
Nate with pure rotation you have gone back to perfect circular rotation. You flip flop back and forth. I agree if the guy walks to the center that is a translation, he is dynamically powering his movement toward the central axis of his rotation by translating toward it.
But before he starts walking the rotation you agree with is NOT pure nor perfect. He will wobble some even then before he starts moving his legs. All materials in motion will wobble. We have a good understanding of why, namely that there is no place in the universe you can be free of extraneous forces.
As long as you demand a perfect circle you rule out all rotation.
You ignorantly pursue that course and even double down on your ignorance by ignoring that a translation is going to wobble too and have its parallel paths crossing over each other.
The moon rotates around the earth’s COM, possesses the rotational element of that rotation around that axis. . . .it is NOT a translation as it is a movement around a single axis.
No its not perfect it is as much as 5% out of perfect but being imperfect does not change the movement to a translation. The translation you are referring to is its wobble. The wobble is the translation because that wobble is due to dynamics other than the dynamics that create the rotation.
You example is absolutely in line with that. The rotating man isn’t translating untile he dynamically begins to move his legs which translate him toward the middle of the mgr.
And of course in translating toward the middle the translation will have a wobble as he shifts the power from leg to leg.
I am OK with you acknowledging this guy is rotating around the central axis of the mgr and when he chooses he can translate toward the center and translate back to the outer edge.
In fact lets call the moon’s wobble a translation that wobbles back and forth as an artifact of the dynamics that create an elliptical orbit vs a perfect circle. That is applicable to absolutely every single rotation in the real world to various degrees from Halley’s comet to the most circular orbit in the universe.
When categorizing things in dynamics they should be categorized by the dynamics. So unless you can create a evidence-based case that the moon is forced to rotate around its own axis I am going to stick with the most obvious notion it rotates around the earth’s axis due to the scientifically known fact of earth’s gravity and the effects of that on the moon.
I can also acknowledge a pre-existing translation of the moon at a velocity and vector that did not fit perfectly with earth, its gravity, and a perfectly circular orbit.
So there you go Nate a rotation of the moon around the earth and a preexisting artifact of a translation of a different cause that manifests itself currently as a wobble.
Nice and tidy. And analogous to your example too, which your viewpoint of the moon is not analogous to.
So thanks for that Nate. As soon as you open your mind to facts and drop your sycophantic worship of a brigand gang of scientists promoting their own cleverness we might actually get somewhere.
“I agree if the guy walks to the center that is a translation,”
Good, then you agree with Joe Public that rotation plus translation are required to account for the motion.
Then you agree that rotation plus translation are required to explain the Moon’s motion.
As previously discussed, the notion that geometric classification cannot be applied to the real world, is self-evidently nonsense.
I think we’re done here.
Anf fyi
“Brain on! When paths are parallel they dont cross over each other!!!”
In curvilnear translation they certainly can. Turn your brain on and read!
Just consider a projectile, in pure translation on its parabolic path. Its front travels on a parabola shifted sideways relative to one for the back. Two side by side parabolas. They cross!
Nate says:
”In curvilnear translation they certainly can. Turn your brain on and read!
Just consider a projectile, in pure translation on its parabolic path. Its front travels on a parabola shifted sideways relative to one for the back. Two side by side parabolas. They cross!”
Wrong yet again!
madhavi says: ”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.”
for a projectile the backend starts and lands behind the front end never catches up during flight unless some other force causes it to tumble.
parallel means the paths don’t cross.
where is your source?
“for a projectile the backend starts and lands behind the front end never catches up”
Yep.
“parallel means the paths dont cross”
Nope!
Yet another glaring example of Bill’s declared ‘truth’ which is actually just a feeling, not a fact.
Draw a picture of two side by side parabolas. They cross!
This is really dumb. What are you imagining? Shooting a projectile on a level path and having it fly up in the sky to form a parabola?
If you fire a projectile at a high degree of elevation the back of the projectile follows the same path as the front. Fire it level and there is only half a parabola and they never cross either.
We had this settled. The motion is like a guy on a merry-go-round who in addition to being rotated around the center of the merry-go-round takes a pace forward and a pace backwards in the direction of the mgr axis one time per rotation, tracing an ellipse.
So you might say an elliptical orbit is a circular orbit with a residual translation. For sure the guy on the merry-go-round doesn’t just go up on a toe like a ballerina and independently start spinning. If he did he would show all sides of himself to the mgr axis no matter what the speed of his spin was.
“This is really dumb. What are you imagining? Shooting a projectile on a level path and having it fly up in the sky to form a parabola?”
No. The situation being discussed was clearly stated, and it was not that.
“Just consider a projectile, in pure translation on its PARABOLIC path. ‘
This was meant to be a clear example of curvilinear translation, Bill.
Do you not know what that is?
It means JUST translation. No orientation change. No rotation allowed.
The front and back of the projectile stay level, while the projectile travels on a curved, parabolic path.
As such, the paths of the front and the back cross each other.
You are not allowed to change the example into something different, that is not curvilinear translation, just to avoid being wrong about the paths crossing.
Nate says:
The front and back of the projectile stay level, while the projectile travels on a curved, parabolic path.
As such, the paths of the front and the back cross each other.
——————-
Nate you have completely lost it!
How does the backend of this bullet cross over the path of the front end of the bullet. Does it use the Starship Enterprise’s Transporter moving the back end of the bullet through the front end and the bullet ends up going backwards while remaining level?
A projectile needn’t be a bullet shape, to lead you astray. Are u unable to think outside that box?
It could be a sphere. Think about a basketball in a free-throw, with no spin.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/physical-science/72-galilean-conceptions-vertical-motion-horizontal-motion-and-projectile-motion/3098402366842634/
A cannonball is what Galileo had in mind for projectiles.
His description of projectile motion is exactly what is happening here. It is a curvilinear translation.
http://www.mcm.edu/academic/galileo/ars/arshtml/mathofmotion2.html
Sorry, but that is the situation. Now turn your brain on, and notice that the paths cross.
Just to further clarify,
The FRONT and the BACK of the cannonball or basketball lie on a horizontal (level) line at the launch.
Since “Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion.”, the horizontal line connecting FRONT and BACK stays level during the motion.
Nate says:
Just to further clarify,
The FRONT and the BACK of the cannonball or basketball lie on a horizontal (level) line at the launch.
Since “Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion.”, the horizontal line connecting FRONT and BACK stays level during the motion.
—————————
You aren’t helping yourself Nate. The back starts behind the front, it falls at the same rate as the front and when it hits the ground it will still and always have been behind the front. That means the path is behind and below the front throughout the trajectory.
Bill,
A child can understand that the paths cross, by drawing side by side parabolas.
Why cant you?
Even the famous Moon on the Right, which is only translating, everyone but you understands that the paths of the two sides of the moon form side-by-side overlapping circles!
If you are so highly determined to stay ignorant then no one can stop you.
“when it hits the ground it will still and always have been behind the front. ”
Duh! If their paths cross it is at different times for the two points!
Nate please draw the two trajectories from the backend of a projectile and the front end so one can see what the heck you are talking about.
“please draw”
Bill, you can easily do this yourself. Just turn your brain on, and direct your hand to draw the trajectory of a cannonball fired up at a 45 degree angle, and moving from left to right.
Its path is a parabola. Yes?
Now draw a second, identical parabola, shifted to the right a bit.
These represent the paths of right and left sides of the cannonball. Do the paths cross?
Pls come back and report your results.
Nate says:
Bill, you can easily do this yourself. Just turn your brain on, and direct your hand to draw the trajectory of a cannonball fired up at a 45 degree angle, and moving from left to right.
Its path is a parabola. Yes?
==========
LOL!
You changed the conditions! You were saying fired level!
You were all f++ked up like I said! Its a half a parabola under your initial conditions and nothing crosses.
So what the heck is the point you are trying to make? The moon DOES NOT maintain zero rotation with respect to the stars because it rotates around the COM of earth and that is all that is required for a rotation.
Madhavi’s has adjacent circular motions of a solid object on multiple axes as an example of a translation. ”
So where are you going with this argument? Are you trying to claim that because the motion of a moon that does not rotate with respect to the stars is not a translation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?
“You changed the conditions! You were saying fired level!”
Nope. I never said that.
Heres the setup:
“Just consider a projectile, in pure translation on its parabolic path. Its front travels on a parabola shifted sideways relative to one for the back. Two side by side parabolas. They cross!”
Then when you got confused about it once, I already corrected you!
Bill says
“This is really dumb. What are you imagining? Shooting a projectile on a level path and having it fly up in the sky to form a parabola?”
Nate says
“No. The situation being discussed was clearly stated, and it was not that. ‘Just consider a projectile, in pure translation on its PARABOLIC path.'”
Furthermore, I gave you this example.
“Think about a basketball in a free-throw, with no spin.”
Is a basketball in a free throw, ever fired level?
Bill, You’re pathetic, and it is hopeless discussing anything with you.
Nate says:
” ”You changed the conditions! You were saying fired level!”
Nope. I never said that.”
———————-
There you go lying again Nate. You have no credibility you just keep moving the goal posts everytime you are proven to be a moron.
You said: ”The FRONT and the BACK of the cannonball or basketball lie on a horizontal (level) line at the launch.”
the front is the direction the projectile is moving and the back is the the trailing particles.
So where are you going with this argument Nate? Are you trying to claim that because the motion of a moon that does not rotate with respect to the stars is not a translation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?
Here you are, Bill, above, perfectly aware of what was being discussed.
“If you fire a projectile at a high degree of elevation the back of the projectile follows the same path as the front.”
And still, getting it wrong! Loser.
You said: “The FRONT and the BACK of the cannonball or basketball lie on a horizontal (level) line at the launch.”
Yep. And the line stays horizontal because its a translation.
“the front is the direction the projectile is moving and the back is the the trailing particles.”
Nope. You are the one changing things!
Basketballs in free throws launched horizontally?
Turn your brain on, loser-troll.
So where are you going with this argument Nate? Are you trying to claim that because the motion of a moon that does not rotate with respect to the stars is not a translation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?
#3
”
So where are you going with this argument Nate? ”
Read the excessively lengthy discussion above– this time pay attention.
“Are you trying to claim that because the motion of a moon that does not rotate with respect to the stars is not a translation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?”
No, and that makes no sense.
Nate says:
”Are you trying to claim that because the motion of a moon that does not rotate with respect to the stars is not a translation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?”
No, and that makes no sense.
===========================
I agree Nate it makes no sense. Its just like your identically constructed argument:
”the motion our moon is not a rotation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?”
You just pull these stupid arguments from deep out of your arse without any support that stands up to scrutiny.
Madhavi said a curvilinear translation is a motion around parallel circles (e.g. circles not on a single axis). So what do you do?
You just argue the idea that circles are the determining factor, pulling that argument straight out of your arse. Then you argue that such an argument ”makes no sense” for a curvilinear translation and then you flip flop and argue it makes perfect sense for a rotation. LMAO!
Its just yet another case of you cherry picking evidence to suit your case.
I do agree with you potentially in principle on the concept you put forth, apparently in the midst of confusion, of a rotation of a man walking on a rotating merry go round.
That might be a general plane motion combining a rotation and a translation. The man rotating around the COM of the mgr while he takes steps toward the center and back with each rotation.
But you spinners in trying to define the motion try to couch the rotation of the moon around the earth as a non-rotation. That’s obvious because you define the moon as a point mass rather than a real object with dimensions.
So no one should accept the spinner argument until they have actually observed a point mass rotating around an object. e.g. you can actually show the moon in its own frame rotating around its own COM and in the next frame you see a point mass revolving around the COM of earth. If you can do that you can then argue for two separate motions. But you can’t do that because their is no known real world analogy to a point mass.
“You just argue the idea that circles are the determining factor, pulling that argument straight out of your arse.”
No, Bill,
I have repeatedly pulled this idea from a direct quote of Madhavi, and various other similar textbook sources, so fuck you very much.
Nate says:
”No, Bill,
I have repeatedly pulled this idea from a direct quote of Madhavi, and various other similar textbook sources, so fuck you very much.”
————————
Madhavi’s distinction in this case is:
”the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
You can’t claim Madhavi as a source when you cut her distinction in half and only accept the part you want to accept.
If you take the moon’s particle paths into consideration they definitely are not ‘parallel’ ellipses and they are ‘concentric’ ellipses.
So in fact you did just pull your distinction right out of deep in your arse with exactly zero science-based support.
“cut her distinction in half”
Nope. Its all been discussed ad-nauseum. You didnt pay attention the first half dozen times!
If its just rinse and repeat, dont bother.
Search ‘Madhavi’ to find her direct, unambiguous, quotes that I gave you several times.
And this time, drink some strong coffee, try to focus, read, understand, and resist temptation to mix her quotes or mine with gobbldegook or BS.
Dont bother searching, too many ‘Madhavi’.
Just pay careful attention to this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-931980
bill hunter says:
November 9, 2021 at 8:05 PM
So where are you going with this argument Nate? Are you trying to claim that because the motion of a moon that does not rotate with respect to the stars is not a translation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?
#4
Really? A DREMT toadie.
Nate says:
Really? A DREMT toadie.
————————————-
You can’t answer Nate’s argument either. You simply just pull stupid stuff straight out of deep in your arse and claim Madhavi supports your view when clearly she doesn’t.
Madhavi says:
”For example, the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel CIRCLES,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric CIRCLES.” (ALL CAPS MINE)
So Nates deeply thought out argument is that since the moon’s path is not a circle. . . .it must be that Madhavi thinks it is a curvilinear translation. (how stupid of an argument is that?)
Believing your argument and properly reading Madhavi eliminates the moon’s motion from being a curvilinear translation or a rotation since it isn’t moving in a perfect circle.
And since it isn’t traveling a straight line. . . .Nate must believe it can’t be a curvilinear translation, or a translation, or a rotation!
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb!
Bill,
I gave you the relevant quote from Madhavi but you ignore it, because it contradicts your assertions. None of it whatsoever came out of my arse, dimwit.
“Just pay careful attention to this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-931980”
Quote from this one and tell us why its wrong, and why your personal ‘definition’ of rotation should replace Madhavis.
Nate says:
Bill,
I gave you the relevant quote from Madhavi but you ignore it, because it contradicts your assertions. None of it whatsoever came out of my arse, dimwit.
——————–
It wholly and 100% does come straight out deep up your arse!!
You quote Madhavi explaining two illustrative conceptual examples. Yet we know and you have admitted that there is no such motion in the universe by real objects. No perfect circles. A circle isn’t a circle unless its perfect. You have been challenged to provide an argument of how imperfect is going to allowed and still be considered a circle, but instead of providing that argument you just reach up deep in your arse and pull out the same BS.
Additionally, as DREMT has provided sources for, astronomers do consider the moon to rotate around the earth and you have recognized that.
Then finally you cut Madhavi’s quote precisely before it gets the point that shows your argument to be inconsistent.
Madhavi continues to explain beyond where you cut her off:
”For example, the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
She goes on to say:
”In the first case,(curvilinear translation) any given straight line drawn on the plate will maintain the same direction, ”
(this a condition you woefully attempt to apply to the 2nd case instead of the first case.)
”whereas in
the second case, point O remains fixed. Because each particle moves in a given plane, the rotation of a body about a fixed axis is said to be a plane motion.”
Indeed for the moon point O is the COM of earth.
Absolutely none of this is supportive of your notion and all of it is supportive of the moon rotating around the COM of earth.
Now if you wish you are welcome to find other sources but you should keep your hand out of your arse in locating them.
Madhavi says:
”A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion. ”
Yep that rules out your claim of the moon being in curvilinear translation.
Brown University says: ”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.”
Yep that rules out your claim of the moon being in curvilinear translation, too.
Wang says: ”Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion.”
Yep that rules out your claim of the moon being in curvilinear translation, yet again.
Seems all your own selected sources disagree vehemently with you Nate.
Bill,
“Yep that rules out your claim of the moon being in curvilinear translation, yet again.
Seems all your own selected sources disagree vehemently with you Nate.”
One more example of you twisting what I said into something I NEVER EVER said, then arguing with it.
You are hopelessly confused and it is impossible to have a rationale debate with you!
Here is what I have consistently said:
“A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars but travelling on an elliptical orbit is clearly consistent with the motion described as Curvilinear Translation.
A body in elliptical orbit AND changing its orientation wrt the stars can only be described as General Plane Motion.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-931980
Since I have always been clear that the Moon IS changing its orientation wrt the stars, its motion is NOT Curvilinear Translation!
From now on QUOTE ME DIRECTLY if you want to argue with what Ive said!
Or even better, just go troll elsewhere!
“. No perfect circles. A circle isnt a circle unless its perfect. You have been challenged to provide an argument of how imperfect is going to allowed and still be considered a circle”
Madhavi teaches Rigid Body Kinematics to engineers, wherein she defines Rotation as “all mass moving in circles around an axis”
Why is she teaching definitions to engineers that, according to you, are inapplicable to the real world??
Does she ever say ‘this rule I just taught isnt applicable to the real world’??
Of course not. Because that would be idiotic.
Geometry doesnt apply in the real world? Because there are no perfect circles, ellipses, pentagons, etc?
That’s utterly stupid.
IN the real world we can and do quite regularly put shapes into different categories.
How is that possible, if there are no perfect geometric shapes?
A Keplerian orbit has specific measurable properties. It is not just an ellipse. And an ellipse has specific geometric properties. It is not just an imperfect circle!
In science, words have definitions.
Rotation has to mean something specific. Else it isnt useful to science.
You are just pulling more stuff out of your arse Nate with no support. Negative support does not support your viewpoint that the moon’s orbital path is a curvilinear translation. And you can’t try to hide your error by claiming it to be combined with a completely different motion an independent spin on the moon’s internal axis.
Worse when you do that you end up with a rotation around the moon’s internal axis and an ellipital motion by a non-particle that carries most of the angular momentum of the system.
Non-particles don’t have angular momentum Nate. You are just fooled into thinking that having the ability to reduce an equation into two parts that the two parts are independently reflective of reality and thus they must be real motions.
A classic type of neophyte error of elevating form over substance.
Why? Its simple you view a general plane motion to be a combination of two separate motions.
The earth’s orbital path is a rotation around the earth’s COM and if the moon was not tidal locked its movement around its internal axis would also be a rotation.
Madavi, though says ”a general plane motion is neither a rotation nor a translation”. Note the construct of that sentence Nate. ‘a general plane motion’ means a single motion, yet you think Madhavi says its two motions and she should have said ‘general plane motions’ to refer to multiple motions.
In all of Madhavi’s examples general plane motions are delineated by a single motion.
And last February you said: ”An elliptical path is an OBVIOUS example of curvilinear translation!”
No it is not Nate! You pulled that one straight out of your arse also. A circular motion could be a curvilinear translation or a rotation.
And that is reinforced by Madhavi when she said: ”Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation. For example, the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles. while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles. ”
You are simply confounding particles and objects. The object in Madhavi’s curvilinear translation is moving in circles and the particles are remaining aligned in a single direction.
Fact is a movement of an object in circles can be either a curvilinear translation or a rotation.
The determinate factor is if the motion is around an axis or not.
Curvilinear translations are guided motions without axes or with multiple axes. Rotations are guided motions with a single axis.
So you can’t just reach deep up into your arse and pull out an exception for rotations and ignore the same exceptions apply to curvilinear translations.
Proof you are reaching far up your arse for your entire argument is you have no sources backing you up. You misread sources and ignore the fact the distinctions you draw are not even in the words of the source you are misquoting.
You must be absolutely horrible at those tests where you were supposed to compare and contrast two different things reaching up in your arse and completely making stuff up.
“Negative support does not support your viewpoint that the moon’s orbital path is a curvilinear translation.”
Not my viewpoint, scumbag.
With repeated lies, repeated distortion of what I am saying, and repeated gobbledegook that makes absolutely no sense, you have lost the right to debate with me.
Correction.
you said “Negative support does not support your viewpoint that the moon’s orbital path is a curvilinear translation.”
Again you didnt quote me directly and missed a key part.
I had said in prior post.
“A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars but travelling on an elliptical orbit is clearly consistent with the motion described as Curvilinear Translation”
This is simply SELF EVIDENT from the definitions YOU QUOTED from Madhavi.
“1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion. and adds:
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.”
Now
“A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars” CERTAINLY MEETS the definition of
“1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
Then
“but travelling on an elliptical orbit”, satisfies this part:
“If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a CURVILINEAR translation.”
And ellipse certainly consists of a path that is a curved line!
Thus Support for this viewpoint is, again, DIRECT from Madhavi.
Nate says:
“Negative support does not support your viewpoint that the moon’s orbital path is a curvilinear translation.”
Not my viewpoint, scumbag.
—————————
That is precisely the reason you and so many other exclusively academically trained scientists get so much wrong.
Academics seldom learn until their bridge collapses. But what the heck who cares? No sweat off your brow. No accountability, no responsibility, no liability. Right?
In your view without an official announcement from a select pooh bah positively confirming an ellipse is a rotation, it must not be a rotation.
You haven’t provided a single rational reason why an ellipse would not be a rotation beyond comparing its shape in your head to a curve. Precisely as you say: ”If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a CURVILINEAR translation.”
Why not compare a circle to a curve and declare it isn’t a rotation either? A tidal locked moon traveling in a perfectly circle orbit has particles traveling in curved parallel paths too. But that apparently hasn’t dawned on you yet.
Oh thats right! You have to have a rotation to cover the rest of your stupid argument! Totally pulled right out of deep up your arse!
As Forrest Gump says: ‘Stupid is as stupid does!’
Im using YOUR quotes from textbooks.
I dont know why you quote these academic sources, then, when it turns out, they dont agree with you, you turn around and dismiss them as merely ‘academic sources, inculcation, the system, yada, yada, nonsense’..
Which is basically an admission that all you have in the end is your feelings, intuitions, opinions. And none of them supported by evidence or legitimate sources.
So, as ever, science will keep calm and carry on, without you.
“You havent provided a single rational reason why an ellipse would not be a rotation beyond comparing its shape in your head to a curve. Precisely as you say: ‘If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a CURVILINEAR translation.’.”
Good job quoting me, and Madhavi, but bad job in cherry picking, removing the prior sentences that clearly establish the motion as a TRANSLATION.
As a Translation, it cannot be a Rotation.
When you dont have facts on your side, whats left is tactics– dirty tactics.
Nate says:
‘If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a CURVILINEAR translation.’.
Good job quoting me, and Madhavi, but bad job in cherry picking, removing the prior sentences that clearly establish the motion as a TRANSLATION.
==================
I don’t see that. Your quote combined with the preceding sentences is:
”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.”
Its obvious to me that according to Madhavi the moon is most definitely not moving in a curvilinear translation and that would go for any ellipse where the object maintains the same direction during the motion.
And to anticipate where your mislogic seeks refuge and you then say its not a curvilinear translation and is instead a general plane motion. General plane motion is clearly one motion (e.g. a rolling wheel going down the road or a bob sled shooting curves down a course.)
Your view of the moon is clearly two disconnected motions. One which is a spin on its own axis and another that is an orbit around the earth’s COM.
Nope.
Nate says:
Nope.
———–
Nate resorts to denier tactics having run out of arguments.
Bill youve had 3 chances to read this post,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1002648
and argue with it.
And you still failed to read the whole post.
Each time you cherry picked, thus missing the point, 3 times.
Clearly with intent.
Thus enabling you to LIE 3 times when you claim
“You havent provided a single rational reason..”
Youre a scumbag and a loser.
Nate says:
Bill youve had 3 chances to read this post,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1002648
and argue with it.
And you still failed to read the whole post.
Each time you cherry picked, thus missing the point, 3 times.
Clearly with intent.
—————————-
No I haven’t cherry picked anything.
You say: ”A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars but travelling on an elliptical orbit is clearly consistent with the motion described as Curvilinear Translation.”
I would say you are cherry picking a non-existent motion to make a purely conceptual point with absolutely zero, zilch, nil, nada real world substance.
Kinematics: the branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion.
What you fail to understand that while there is no reference to the forces that cause the motion. . . .there are other real world aspects to how kinematic motions are classified.
Describing an impossible motion as a kinematic motion isn’t a science reality. It is as if you believe kinematic classifications are purely arbitrary, when they are not.
The conceptual concept you are trying to elevate above has no real world analog and has no unique rotational elements. . . .yet the moon’s rotation around the earth does.
Further not only does it have a rotational element that rotational element cannot be divided up into two rotational elements in any way other than purely conceptually of a motion that doesn’t exist.
So I can see how you have needed to take extra time on this response. Its an awfully loooooong reach deep up into your arse.
I realize your sphincter muscle may have trapped your arm up there but this goes directly to Tesla’s and DREMT’s observations that Lorb+Lspin is not divisible. The rotational element L is that indivisibly. If you want the moon to show all its faces to earth (maintain a certain direction relative to the stars) you need to create another motion.
“No I havent cherry picked anything.
You say: ‘A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars but travelling on an elliptical orbit is clearly consistent with the motion described as Curvilinear Translation.'”
Well finally, you STOPPED cherry picking and decided to read and consider what I actually wrote!
And it seems now you have no more argument against this motion indeed being Curvilinear Translation.
Wow! Progress.
Now we need a NEW and flimsier excuse!
“I would say you are cherry picking a non-existent motion to make a purely conceptual point with absolutely zero, zilch, nil, nada real world substance.”
Hence we get the now classic, ‘It doesnt exist in the real world’ excuse!
And the ever-popular MOVE THE GOALPOST trick!
You are getting predictable, Bill.
Who sez it cannot exist?
“The conceptual concept you are trying to elevate above has no real world analog and has no unique rotational elements”
As made clear countless times, but not apparently not enough for you to actually read, this MOTION is just the ORBITAL MOTION.
” Since I have always been clear that the Moon IS changing its orientation wrt the stars, its motion is NOT Curvilinear Translation!”
‘A body in elliptical orbit AND changing its orientation wrt the stars can only be described as General Plane Motion.'”
The Moon’s motion is accounted for with this ORBITAL MOTION plus ROTATION on its axis.
And as explained countless times, this separation of Orbital and Rotational motion, is the most useful and most universal model of PLANETARY MOTION, and that is why it is used by Astrophysics.
Actually our Moon’s axial rotation plane is tilted wrt the orbital plane, so even a General Plane Motion model is insufficient.
Nate says:
Now we need a NEW and flimsier excuse!
==========================
Its not new nor flimsy. I have been saying you have been grabbing these ideas out of your arse. More graphically you reaching into your arse with your hand transiting your colon, stomach, esophagus, nasal passages and extracting from your brain a purely conceptual notion of the limits of the various kinematic motions.
This has been your modus operandi as you have no explicitly complete description of the limits of motions and instead rely upon simplistic and common examples of real motions as completely defining the class.
I am instead arguing that motions must be classified by real differences. The difference between a rotation and a translation is an axis of rotation. Only when you have an axis can you describe the rotational elements of a rotation.
We can describe the rotational elements of the rotation of the moon around the earth and it is indivisible from the sense of motion of a rigid object. Replace the object with a point mass and you no longer have a real rotation as point masses have no direction, no particles, and thus are not a real object much less a rigid one whereby you could determine the relative orientation of the point. But the fact is you can’t make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
————-
————-
————-
Nate says:
As made clear countless times, but not apparently not enough for you to actually read, this MOTION is just the ORBITAL MOTION.
————————–
I completely 100% agree!!
It just happens to be an orbital motion in the kinematic classification of a rotation. . . .for which rotational elements can be calculated. That motion is commonly quantified as Lorb+Lspin.
If you remove Lspin you no longer have a motion. You just have an imagined motion you pulled out of your arse. A motion fundamentally requires an object. . . .a rigid object at that, particles, and all the other real stuff inherent to an object whether it is moving or not.
This explanation of kinematics hits home: ”Kinematics explains the terms such as acceleration, velocity, and position of objects. The mass of the object is not considered while studying the kinematics.” Yet your definition relies entirely not on an object but instead a ”point mass”.
That fact is why any spin on the moon’s internal axis results in the moon exposing all 360 degrees of its sides to the earth. Because it has to be a separate motion and that separate motion will do that all the time.
Kinematics explains the terms such as acceleration, velocity, and position of objects. The mass of the object is not considered while studying the kinematics.
https://byjus.com/physics/difference-between-kinetics-and-kinematics/
“As made clear countless times, but not apparently not enough for you to actually read, this MOTION is just the ORBITAL MOTION.
————————–
I completely 100% agree!!
It just happens to be an orbital motion in the kinematic classification of a rotation”
If you completely agree that is JUST ORBITAL motion, and you earlier agreed (it seemed) that it was a translation, then NO.
If it is just a translation, then it cannot also be a rotation.
So contradiction.
” Yet your definition relies entirely not on an object but instead a ‘point mass’.”
Nope you ARE MISTAKEN.
Everything discussed has been about rigid body motion.
Remember the whole thing about defining Translation by keeping lines in the body pointed in the same direction.
That cannot be about a point mass which has no lines within it!
Nate says:
If you completely agree that is JUST ORBITAL motion, and you earlier agreed (it seemed) that it was a translation, then No
————-
no thats incorrect. i am a non-spinner and if anything at all should be clear to you non-spinners regard orbital motion to be a rotation around the orbited body. spinners such as yourself have described it as a translation.
what do you regard to be the unique difference between a rotation and a translation? with a source quote please.
If you completely agree that is JUST ORBITAL motion, and you earlier agreed (it seemed) that it was a translation, then No”
“no thats incorrect. i am a non-spinner”
Yes I know what your religion is!
But that is not what we were discussing.
What was established was the way I (and Astrophysics) define Orbital Motion, is in fact, a curvilinear translation.
You could not dispute that THIS MOTION, as I defined it, was a curvilinear translation.
You simply moved the goal post and complained of its non-existence in the real world!
But we were clearly discussing THIS MOTION!
Nate “this MOTION is just the ORBITAL MOTION.”
Bill sez: “I completely 100% agree!!”
But this shows again, that what we are discussing at any moment is completely lost on you.
One more reason that discussion with you is pointless!
Nate says:
What was established was the way I (and Astrophysics) define Orbital Motion, is in fact, a curvilinear translation.
You could not dispute that THIS MOTION, as I defined it, was a curvilinear translation.
—————————
How can I dispute a claim of yours if you don’t provide sources to support your claim ‘Astrophysics’ unanimously supports your viewpoint?
Your viewpoint seems to be that you believe that case to be true but you can’t support the notion that ‘astrophysics’ has science supporting the viewpoint.
————–
————–
————–
Nate says:
You simply moved the goal post and complained of its non-existence in the real world!
But we were clearly discussing THIS MOTION!
Nate “this MOTION is just the ORBITAL MOTION.”
Bill sez: “I completely 100% agree!!”
But this shows again, that what we are discussing at any moment is completely lost on you.
One more reason that discussion with you is pointless!
————————
Nate it seems lost on you that the debate isn’t about orbital motion but is precisely instead about that orbital motion is a translation rather than a rotation.
Once you figure out correctly what the argument is about it is indeed pointless having a discussion with you.
I also notice that you also dodged answering: what do you regard to be the unique difference between a rotation and a translation? with a source quote please.
If you never present any argument beyond an unsupported claim that everybody that counts agrees with you there certainly is no point to this discussion.
“what do you regard to be the unique difference between a rotation and a translation? and source, please”
Source is Madhavi, Brown, UW. You should know how Madhavi defines translation and rotation because we’ve both quoted her many times!
Do you just not retain this information?
“How can I dispute a claim of yours if you don’t provide sources to support your claim ‘Astrophysics’ unanimously supports your viewpoint?”
Bill their view has been shown to you countless times.
The definition of Orbit has been shown to you many times!
“Orbit-
The path in space followed by a celestial body.”
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/frames.html
Newton’s quotes on the Moon’s rotation. Sources describing synchronous rotation of the Moon, youve seen countless times,
“A synchronous orbit is an orbit in which an orbiting body (usually a satellite) has a period equal to the average rotational period of the body being orbited (usually a planet), and in the same direction of rotation as that body.”
Every astronomical sources listing the lunar properties such as Axial Tilt (obliquity), locations of its North and South Poles, Axial precession, orbit-type: synchronous. You have been showed these data countless times. Look them up!
https://www.britannica.com/place/Moon/Distinctive-features
None of these items make sense unless the Moon has rotation on its own axis.
You simply dismiss it, and don’t retain the information, so this just a waste of my time.
Notice the moons rotational axis here:
https://cdn.britannica.com/53/4253-050-771327A7/Earth-each-other-pull-plane-Moon-system.jpg
Above wrong IGNORE synchronous orbit.
The Moon has a ‘Synchronous rotation’
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
Nate says:
“what do you regard to be the unique difference between a rotation and a translation? and source, please”
Source is Madhavi, Brown, UW. You should know how Madhavi defines translation and rotation because we’ve both quoted her many times!
Do you just not retain this information?
—————————–
The unique difference Madhavi uses is the existence of a rotational axis.
You keep pointing out circles when circles are not presented as a unique differentiation. A circle can be a translation or a rotation. An ellipse can therefore also be a translation or a rotation unless of course you can find a source that points out something unique about circles over ellipses that explicitly eliminate ellipses as a potential rotation. You haven’t done that Nate. If you believe you have you are an idiot.
——————
—————–
—————–
Nate says:
‘Orbit-
The path in space followed by a celestial body.’
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/frames.html
——————–
Your source says nothing about an orbit being a translation. What is the matter? Having trouble understanding the question?
——————
—————–
—————–
Nate says:
None of these items make sense unless the Moon has rotation on its own axis.
———————
Translation definition per Nate: Whatever he chooses to pull straight out of his arse.
——————
—————–
—————–
Nate says:
https://cdn.britannica.com/53/4253-050-771327A7/Earth-each-other-pull-plane-Moon-system.jpg
Above wrong IGNORE synchronous orbit.
The Moon has a ‘Synchronous rotation’
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
——————
Of course it has a synchronous rotation Nate. Orbiting tical locked celestial objects have no other choice.
“The unique difference Madhavi uses is the existence of a rotational axis.
You keep pointing out circles when circles are not presented as a unique differentiation. A circle can be a translation or a rotation.”
How can you remain still be so confused about these BASIC definitions?
How does Madhavi DEFINE rotation? It aint what you said above!
How does Madhavi DEFINE translation?
Its like we havent had this weeks long discussion at all.
ROTATION is simply ANGULAR displacement. Draw a line (vector) from the axis through the rigid body. Draw a dashed line parallel to the vector next to it.
Rotate the vector and the rigid body along with it by some angle away from the dashed line. Any line within the rigid body that is parallel to the vector remains parallel to it. Every line in the Rigid body is no longer parallel to the dashed line.
No point in the rigid body moves toward or away from the axis. If it did, that would be TRANSLATION.
Another way to get a rotation: Center a camera over the axis. Rotate the camera by some angle around that axis. The Rigid Body will have rotated within the picture. Nothing else in the picture changes!
Translation. The rigid body moves from one x,y,z position to another with no rotation. Every line within the rigid body remains parallel to the dashed line.
Curvilinear translation. The rigid body translates along a curved PATH of x,y,z postions. Every line in the rigid body remains parallel to the original direction of dashed line.
Orbit. The rigid body translates along the PATH of x,y,z positions defining the orbit. Every line in the rigid body remains parallel to the original direction dashed line.
Nate says:
ROTATION is simply ANGULAR displacement. Draw a line (vector) from the axis through the rigid body. Draw a dashed line parallel to the vector next to it.
———————–
Yes thats correct Nate!
Thus what we are dealing with is 2 rotations. One rotation on the COM of earth and another on the internal axis of the moon.
Since you have wanted to limit the discussion of rotations to kinematics you should have been prepared to realize you are also just talking conceptually.
But the English language can be confusing to some when they switch from conceptual motions to real motions that do have kinetic causations.
——————-
——————-
——————–
Nate says:
Translation. The rigid body moves from one x,y,z position to another with no rotation. Every line within the rigid body remains parallel to the dashed line.
Curvilinear translation. The rigid body translates along a curved PATH of x,y,z postions. Every line in the rigid body remains parallel to the original direction of dashed line.
Orbit. The rigid body translates along the PATH of x,y,z positions defining the orbit. Every line in the rigid body remains parallel to the original direction dashed line.
======================
Nate returns to grabbing fecal matter out of his arse by making up incorrect definitions of translation designed purely to suit his argument.
Here is a correction:
Curvilinear translation. The rigid body translates along a curved PATH of x,y,z postions. The orientation of lines drawn between particles does not change direction. (it is incorrect to say they follow the dashed lines as that is a rotation unless the dashed lines are straight).
You can similarly correct your incorrect definition of an orbit.
An object following a curved path such as a bob sled both translates and rotates as it negotiates the bob sled track.
Madhavi’s first condition for a translation is. ”A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
Thats exactly the opposite of what you say for curvilinear translation where the object follows a curved path and the lines rotate to follow the curved paths.
So that said lets look where we are at. We have two synchronous rotations.
To a thinking/experienced man, realizing that perfection doesn’t occur in the real world and thus nothing is perfectly synchronous unless its a single real motion.
Thus, one of those rotations seems most likely to be a rotation purely in a kinematic sense without any kinetic reality beyond those provided by the such laws as conservation of energy.
(E.g. long play ‘LP’ records flying apart from excessive rotation where the actual bonds holding the LP together snap completely.)
Thus it is extremely highly likely that only one of the rotations survives beyond the concept stage of kinematics.
This is where the concept of synchronicity becomes important it allows astronomers to treat the unreal motion as real for explicit purposes whereby the real source of rotation isn’t important. Thus it has as I said a usefulness and allows for a great deal of simplification.
And of course one of the two rotations must have a kinetic cause. Here the concept of synchronicity finds its limits. It requires experience to know when you can and when you can’t and the inexperienced, such as Swanson, who only looks at work where you can. . . .begins to think its the only.
You argue correctly that a rotation is something without regard to kinetics. And you try very hard to eliminate one of the rotations by attempting to mold new limits to the kinematic definition of rotation to eliminate a rotation conceptually. Of course you failed miserably at this and the botched definition above only serves to underline your botch job.
You are on a fool’s errand. I probably shouldn’t have told you this as its so funny how you have been biting on DREMT’s anchovy like a hungry cod. I have to admit he had me going for a while too as I also have little experience in this area of the physical world. But the record seems to be well enough established to embarrass you in how you apply your inexperienced, half baked ideas throughout virtually every topic you touch upon.
“Yes thats correct Nate!”
Yay. We agree on what a rotation is!
“Thus what we are dealing with is 2 rotations. One rotation on the COM of earth and another on the internal axis of the moon.”
Well, progress! But still not quite…
In the definition of rotation:
“No point in the rigid body moves toward or away from the axis. If it did, that would be TRANSLATION.”
Thus the elliptical orbit of the Moon is not simply a rotation. It could be a combo of rotation and translation.
“Nate returns to grabbing fecal matter out of his arse by making up incorrect definitions of translation designed purely to suit his argument.
Here is a correction:
Curvilinear translation. The rigid body translates along a curved PATH of x,y,z postions. The orientation of lines drawn between particles does not change direction. (it is incorrect to say they follow the dashed lines as that is a rotation unless the dashed lines are straight).”
My dashed line was fixed, not rotating. Lines stay parallel to it, is consistent with ‘The orientation of lines drawn between particles does not change direction.”
So it looks like we agree on what Translation and Curvilinear Translation are!
“Madhavis first condition for a translation is. ‘A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.’
Yep!
“Thats exactly the opposite of what you say for curvilinear translation where the object follows a curved path and the lines rotate to follow the curved paths.”
Nope I never said that!
Heres where you are AGAIN not directly quoting me and getting what I said completely wrong! Uggghhh
I said:
“Translation. The rigid body moves from one x,y,z position to another with NO ROTATION. Every line within the rigid body remains parallel to the dashed line.
Curvilinear translation. The rigid body translates along a curved PATH of x,y,z postions. Every line in the rigid body remains parallel to the ORIGINAL DIRECTION of dashed line.”
Again the dashed line was fixed at the start. I supposed you missed that.
Nate says:
My dashed line was fixed, not rotating. Lines stay parallel to it, is consistent with ‘The orientation of lines drawn between particles does not change direction.”
——————–
What a moron!
The lines between particles do not change direction in the case of a translation. That is in reference to a ‘frame’ it is not in reference to the dashed lines (path of the object). The direction of the path is only the same as the lines between particles in the case of rectilinear translation.
Your definition of a curvilinear translation could not have been more wrong.
If you want to argue otherwise come up with a source that agrees with you and stop just blabbering and pulling fecal substances out or your arse to offer up as an argument!
The primary attribute of a translation is that lines through the object do not change their direction. If they do change direction they are in rotation, when they don’t they are in translation.
You better slow down and engage the brain as you are only making a fool of yourself.
“The lines between particles do not change direction in the case of a translation.”
Yep!
And I am agreeing with you! Trust me you are misreading what I wrote.
Just stop trolling.
Nate says:
The lines between particles do not change direction in the case of a translation.
Yep!
And I am agreeing with you! Trust me you are misreading what I wrote.
Just stop trolling.
——————————–
Nate you said the lines remain oriented in the same direction as the original path. The lines in an object do not need to align with any path. In fact there is an infinite number of possible lines that do not and relatively very few that do.
Alignment with a path is irrelevant. Its like you have no idea what you are talking about.
With curvilinear translation, the object and its particles remain aligned not with the original path but the original orientation. they don’t rotate even if the path is circular.
“Nate you said the lines remain oriented in the same direction as the original path.”
Nope! Never did, dimwit. The dashed line was not a path
Just stop making things up!
Nate says:
“but it is far simpler. rotations have a rotational axis, whether internal or external. translations dont.”
Sorry, Im happy with the definitions we already have, they dont need addendums.
————————
Still talking nonsense because you can’t find a source to change that simple explanation Nate?
Madhavi starts out by listing 2 motions: Translations and Rotations around a fixed axis.
Nate says:
It seems newly invented definitions are only coming from you guys’ collective arse!
—————
That would be incorrect. DREMT provided you the source for that many moons ago.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Seems you are the only one pulling stuff out of your arse without a single supporting source.
Nate says:
”ONLY YOU guys who are insisting that an ORBIT means a specific funny walk that MUST involve Rotation.”
Any answers for this?
———————–
Don’t need any Nate, the motion is around a fixed axis. Thats all I need. You already completely conceded it can have wobbles and imperfections from being circular so we are done.
Nate again displays his ignorance of Madhavi:
”Madhavi NEVER teaches that a curvilinear translation STOPS being a curvilinear translation just as soon as it goes around a point that YOU want to call an axis.
Once again she states:”
” ”For example, the
plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles. In the first case, any given straight line drawn on the plate will maintain the same direction” ”
——————————
Nate the difference between parallel circles and concentric circles is the circles in the translation are going around different axes and the particles are not changing their orientation.
When the go around a single axis the particles change their orientation and the circles are concentric.
Nate says:
Based on what? Certainly not Kinematics.
——————-
Absolutely based upon kinematics Nate. Kinematics is a study of motions. . . .that study includes deriving multiple motions arising from multiple sources of movement. That is described in examples of the proper utilization of the word, re: ‘The researchers also studied the lift off and landing of A. ipsilon in addition to their wingbeats and other kinematics.’
e.g. its not just the flying its all the motions occurring within the flight.
+
+
+
+
Nate says:
We have already agreed that the orbit I showed you with 0 rotation is a POSSIBLE motion.
————————
No zero is not a possible motion. zero means no motion in the sense that a counter rotating planet slows to zero then accelerates to synchronize with the orbit. No motion at zero is possible because as soon as motion occurs it begins to accelerate from zero in lockstep with the laws of physics.
The laws of physics prevent a ‘zero rotation’ motion in any object connected to an axis. If the object has an independent motion that motion, only if counter rotating is going to first decelerate a counter rotation to zero and instantaneously begin to develop a rotation in the correct direction. Passing through zero does not allow for a pause where the orbiting moon suddenly begins to translation without acceleration. In the presence of forces producing that acceleration that is impossible.
+
+
+
+
Nate says:
The point is that a 0-rotation orbit, a translation on a path thru space is simply a reference point, the orbital portion of a planet’s motion.
—————————-
No its a single motion due to the connection to the axis of the orbit by the orbiting moon.
You cannot have a translation unless you break up that connection.
Breaking it up mathematically for analysis isn’t a real break up. Thus you have concluded a real physical outcome arising from what is really just a brilliant simplification of analysis by Newton and Kepler.
An orbit isn’t an individual motion that can stand alone in the case of any physical connection known to man.
You just imagine it to be so. You confound mathematical derivations as individual motions and they aren’t then are part of one single motion, a mathematical simplification like dissecting angles for the application of the Pythagorean theorem to simplify the process of making measurements.
I keep saying it and it passes straight through your empty head. You display all the symptoms of a rote learner with zero experience in the application of the tools you learned in school. Its like you were a no show for lab work. Or you did your lab work using rote instructions and lack the vision of understanding where scientific analysis ends and reality begins.
My stalker admonishes Swanson. Will Swanson listen?
It is astonishing that any adult could think this is a clever retort.
Will Swanson listen?
pups, why should anyone listen to people like you who don’t understand physics and repeatedly ignore facts?
The Moon rotates wrt the stars, including our local Sun. From a point on the Sun-Moon vector, the Moon always appears fully illuminated, but each day presents a different “face”, which proves rotation. Of course, the Sun-Moon vector is not a inertial reference frame, since it rotates once a year wrt the stars.
Yes, Swanson. The moon rotates…
…but not on its own axis.
…as observed on the moon.
“Just look at Ball4 and bobdroege, for instance”
Ball4 would argue that in Madhavi Fig. 2(b) the rectangle is rotating on its own internal axis once per rev. inertially. Despite that being physically impossible due to the rod connecting the rectangle to point O.
…being physically impossible more or less than once per rev. due to the rod connecting the rectangle to point O.
As bill writes 8:59am, DREMT also forgot to mention whether that’s observed with “one hand over one eye” or not.
See? He actually does argue that! Plenty of “Spinners” would disagree with him…will they challenge him here?
“An object following a curved path such as a bob sled both translates and rotates as it negotiates the bob sled track.”
Sure, a planet is not a bobsled. You need to get out of your terrestrial box.
“Madhavis first condition for a translation is. ‘A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.’
Yep.
“Thats exactly the opposite of what you say for curvilinear translation where the object follows a curved path and the lines rotate to follow the curved paths.”
Nope I never said that!
Here’s where you are not directly quoting me and getting what I said completely wrong! Uggghhh
I said:
“Translation. The rigid body moves from one x,y,z position to another with NO ROTATION. Every line within the rigid body remains parallel to the dashed line.
Curvilinear translation. The rigid body translates along a curved PATH of x,y,z postions. Every line in the rigid body remains parallel to the ORIGINAL DIRECTION of dashed line.”
Again the dashed line was fixed at the start. I supposed you missed that.
Nate says:
I said:
”Translation. The rigid body moves from one x,y,z position to another with NO ROTATION. Every line within the rigid body remains parallel to the dashed line.”
Thats only true if the dashed line doesn’t change direction Nate.
In addition.
If a path is a perfect circle one does not know yet if a translation is occurring or if a rotation is occurring.
It depends upon whether lines drawn between any two particles in a rigid object are changing direction during the motion. If they are changing direction its a rotation, if they are not changing direction its a translation.
A curvilinear translation is precisely a curved path (a path that changes direction) of a rigid object where the lines drawn between any two particles in the rigid object are NOT changing direction.
You need to understand this very basic concept or you will never understand kinematic definitions of motion.
Orbits always involve rotation. Thats because of the absence of a kinetic element that would hold the object without any rotation in the presence of ubiquitous forces bringing about rotations.
And that explains why there are no orbiting bodies in the universe that are translating. They are all rotating. . . .some due to events or forces that bring about secondary rotations in addition to a primary one.
Yes I understand it! Fake controversy.
Now, orbits.
“Orbit-
The path in space followed by a celestial body.
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/frames.html
Your source says nothing about an orbit being a translation.”
Yep. Nor does it say anything about rotation or orientation.
A path in space is a set of xyz positions in space. To move between these the object needs to simply translate.
Are you claiming that a path in space has a set of orientations specified for every position?
If so, that has many problems
1. I have never seen Path defined that way. You? Please show it.
2. Many vehicles have a front that points in the direction of motion. Unlike terrestrial vehicles, planets dont have a front and can freely spin at any rate. Same for cannonballs and basketballs and many other balls.
3. Only circular orbits with synchronous rotation actually ‘fit’ this description. But many other planets that are not synchronpus nor circular are still in orbits. So you are assigning specificity to the word Orbit that it just doesnt have.
4. An object in an elliptical orbit simply cannot stay oriented along its path without violating conservation of angular momentum.
5. Our Moon doesnt align to its orbital path. See #4.
6. This notion that an orbit involves translation and sychronous in-plane rotation, does not work for tilted rotational axes, like our Moon’s.
7. All and all it is much simpler for planetary rotation, its rate, its sxis, to be specified as a separate parameter from orbital path. Thus astronomy does just that!
Nate says:
”A path in space is a set of xyz positions in space. To move between these the object needs to simply translate.”
—————-
Yes Nate!
”Are you claiming that a path in space has a set of orientations specified for every position?”
————
You aren’t making any sense Nate.
”1. I have never seen Path defined that way. You? Please show it.”
————————-
Huh? A path is either straight or curved. If its a translation any line connecting any 2 particles must not change their orientation during the move.
Source: Madhavi: ”1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the SAME DIRECTION during the motion.”
”2. Many vehicles have a front that points in the direction of motion. Unlike terrestrial vehicles, planets dont have a front and can freely spin at any rate. Same for cannonballs and basketballs and many other balls.”
LMAO! What a moron!
”3. Only circular orbits with synchronous rotation actually ‘fit’ this description. But many other planets that are not synchronpus nor circular are still in orbits. So you are assigning specificity to the word Orbit that it just doesnt have.”
————————-
Your brain fog is getting thicker. If the lines between particles in the object don’t change direction during the motion it is a translation. Otherwise the act of changing direction is a rotation. This only applies to the orientation of the object and has nothing to do with the path.
”4. An object in an elliptical orbit simply cannot stay oriented along its path without violating conservation of angular momentum.”
If it cannot stay oriented then it is rotating Nate.
”5. Our Moon doesnt align to its orbital path. See #4.”
There is no requirement for a rotation to align with its path.
”6. This notion that an orbit involves translation and sychronous in-plane rotation, does not work for tilted rotational axes, like our Moon’s.”
Source please Nate, your ignorant babblings are getting tiresome.
”7. All and all it is much simpler for planetary rotation, its rate, its sxis, to be specified as a separate parameter from orbital path. Thus astronomy does just that!”
I have been saying for months that synchronic rotation is a conceptual simplification of what is going on for the sake of making various problems easier to calculate. You seem to think that synchronicity is a physical property comparing two different motions.
I have been saying repeatedly your error is mistaking form over substance in the words of everything you read. Students are taught very little about reality and a lot about concepts. When it comes time for an apprenticeship youngsters begin to learn how to apply the concepts they learn in school to real world situations.
“Your brain fog is getting thicker. If the lines between particles in the object don’t change direction during the motion it is a translation. Otherwise the act of changing direction is a rotation. This only applies to the orientation of the object and has nothing to do with the path.”
etc.
Sounds like you a agree that “A path in space is a set of xyz positions in space. To move between these the object needs to simply translate.”
The given the definition of Orbit (not mine, from Astro),
“The path in space followed by a celestial body.”
For an object to be in an Orbit– for an object to Orbit, it need only TRANSLATE.
It may also ROTATE, but that is entirely separate from Orbiting.
I think we’re done here.
And just to be absolutely clear, by agreeing that
Orbit ‘the path followed by a celestial body’
And agreeing with this:
‘A path in space is a set of xyz positions in space. To move between these the object needs to simply translate.’
–
Yes Nate!
Then you are breaking from your colleague, DREMT, Clint, etc, who have always maintained that,
‘Orbital motion without axial rotation’ is in fact movement like the ‘Moon on the Left’, which is an object that HAS ROTATION, and keeps the same face to the center.
“I have been saying for months that synchronic rotation is a conceptual simplification of what is going on for the sake of making various problems easier to calculate. You seem to think that synchronicity is a physical property comparing two different motions.”
Remember synchronous rotation is only synchronous on average.
All mathematical descriptions of motion are conceptual. They are not reality.
Treating Orbit and spin (rotation) separately has sound physics motivation. Newton’s solution of the two-body gravity problem gives the path thru space. The Orbit only, not the spin.
The orbit has varying angular velocity.
The spin, obeys conservation of angular momentum, and has constant angular velocity.
Sum these two and we get libration that is in fact observed.
See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1013827
Nate says:
Sounds like you a agree that A path in space is a set of xyz positions in space. To move between these the object needs to simply translate.
The given the definition of Orbit (not mine, from Astro),
”The path in space followed by a celestial body.”
———————————
Sorry Nate you are still pulling stuff out of your arse. Translation is not the only form of motion. Motion is defined as moving from one place to another in space.
You are getting desperate dude!
——————
——————
—————-
Nate says:
Then you are breaking from your colleague, DREMT, Clint, etc, who have always maintained that,
Orbital motion without axial rotation is in fact movement like the Moon on the Left, which is an object that HAS ROTATION, and keeps the same face to the center.
——————–
I don’t keep a catalog of what everybody else is saying. Though I do know DREMT defines orbiting in addition to a rotation on the moon’s internal axis as a motion that would expose all sides of the moon to an observer on earth.
I agree with that. And I have no idea why your brain cells can’t retain that after reading it from DREMT probably at least a hundred times.
——————
——————
—————-
Nate says:
Remember synchronous rotation is only synchronous on average.
——————–
Synchronous is a concept that allows calculation shortcuts if and only if you understand what it applies to. If you are a dumbass and don’t you will probably make some significant errors. Thats called learning how to use the tools taught to in school in a real world environment Dude!
“I don’t keep a catalog of what everybody else is saying. Though I do know DREMT defines orbiting in addition to a rotation on the moon’s internal axis as a motion that would expose all sides of the moon to an observer on earth.
I agree with that. ”
“A path in space is a set of xyz positions in space. To move between these the object needs to simply translate.”
—————-
Yes Nate!
“Are you claiming that a path in space has a set of orientations specified for every position?”
————
You aren’t making any sense Nate.”
You are not being consistent with your own statements above. You would like to have science facts and your religion to. But they do not agree.
And more confusions:
We have this:
“A path in space is a set of xyz positions in space. To move between these the object needs to simply translate.’
–
Yes Nate!”
Then this:
“Sorry Nate you are still pulling stuff out of your arse. Translation is not the only form of motion. Motion is defined as moving from one place to another in space.
You are getting desperate dude!”
I fully agree that Translation is not the only form of motion. So to get from point A to point B one COULD do so in countless different ways (See Monty Python, Ministry for Funny Walks).
While the definition of Orbit says: “The path in space followed by a celestial body.”
And indeed it was ‘the path in space followed by a celestial body’ that Newton found when solving the 2-body gravity problem.
A path is NOT a mode of transport. It is simply a series of positions.
It is ONLY YOU guys who are insisting that an ORBIT means a specific funny walk that MUST involve Rotation.
“You can similarly correct your incorrect definition of an orbit.
An object following a curved path such as a bob sled both translates and rotates as it negotiates the bob sled track.”
And your church agrees with you, specifying the precise rotation rate that an object in Orbit has:
“Orbital motion without axial rotation is in fact movement like the ‘Moon on the Left’, which is an object that HAS ROTATION, and keeps the same face to the center”
When in reality ORBIT specifies NO SUCH THING because it is just a path!
So this is pure fantasy from you guys.
Nate all you want to do is pull some new definition for a rotation straight out of your arse so you can claim the moon doesn’t rotate around the earth.
but it is far simpler. rotations have a rotational axis, whether internal or external. translations don’t.
a third kind of motion exists that is one that is neither a translation or rotation because some part of the motion does not have a rotational axis.
and you have multiple motions like a rotating orbiting moon in addition to having an unrelated additional motion of rotating on its own internal axis.
if you wish to try to add conditions. . .do so by providing a source.
you keep asking questions of me, but i have nothing additional to offer.
and to clarify, an object
“Nate all you want to do is pull some new definition for a rotation straight out of your arse”
Hmmm.
We already fully agreed on the definition of rotation! And translation!
I have not changed either of those.
But here, it seems, YOU are trying to do just that.
“but it is far simpler. rotations have a rotational axis, whether internal or external. translations dont.”
Sorry, Im happy with the definitions we already have, they dont need addendums.
It seems newly invented definitions are only coming from you guys’ collective arse!
We already agrees that an Orbit is a path thru space. And you already agreed that a path thru space is just a series of xyz positions.
Then what about this?
“ONLY YOU guys who are insisting that an ORBIT means a specific funny walk that MUST involve Rotation.”
Any answers for this?
“Don’t need any Nate, the motion is around a fixed axis. Thats all I need.”
Bill, This was you saying this, right?
“Curvilinear translation. The rigid body translates along a curved PATH of x,y,z postions. The orientation of lines drawn between particles does not change direction.”
A curved path can certainly go around a fixed point. Do you see anything in the definition that says: Oh no you cant?
So this new feeling of yours is just that, a feeling! It is nowhere in the definition of curvilinear translation.
This is movement away from the facts and definitions you and I already agreed to.
It is reversion to religious dogma.
And you said this:
“Huh? A path is either straight or curved. If its a translation any line connecting any 2 particles must not change their orientation during the move.”
Again, movement on a curved path CAM BE a translation if NO CHANGE in orientations are occurring.
Nothing precludes that curved path from going around a point.
In the case of a Keplerian orbit, the path is going around the focus of an ellipse.
Where in ANY definition NOT out of your ass, does it say that motion must be now be a Rotation!
Nate says:
””Don’t need any Nate, the motion is around a fixed axis. Thats all I need.”
A curved path can certainly go around a fixed point. Do you see anything in the definition that says: Oh no you cant?
So this new feeling of yours is just that, a feeling! It is nowhere in the definition of curvilinear translation.”
————————
Nate I did not say a curved path translation cannot go around a random point in space. In fact every curvilinear translation has at least partial rotation around a random point in space.
I said if it is a rotation it goes around an ‘axis’. These are not my words.
”Again, movement on a curved path CAM BE a translation if NO CHANGE in orientations are occurring.”
Nothing precludes that curved path from going around a point.”
Yes I agree.
”In the case of a Keplerian orbit, the path is going around the focus of an ellipse.
Where in ANY definition NOT out of your ass, does it say that motion must be now be a Rotation!”
Going around a focus of an ellipse is an imaginary point in space its not an axis.
To clarify going around a random point in space does not mean a motion is a curvilinear translation, it just doesn’t rule it out. However, if the object is changing its orientation while it does it isn’t a translation and if the point it is going around is an axis it also isn’t.
So the moon’s orbit isn’t a translation for two reasons. You just doggedly continue to hang on to the idea when its obvious it isn’t. And my view is consistent with the sources.
“Nate I did not say a curved path translation cannot go around a random point in space. In fact every curvilinear translation has at least partial rotation around a random point in space.”
Indeed.
“I said if it is a rotation it goes around an ‘axis’. These are not my words.”
And the difference between going around a random point, and going around an axis is what?
“To clarify going around a random point in space does not mean a motion is a curvilinear translation, it just doesnt rule it out. ”
Ok, going around a random point in space also doesnt make a motion a rotation. But you guys insist it is! You guys insist an orbit it a rotation!
“However, if the object is changing its orientation while it does it isnt a translation”
It means it can be a general plane motion, a translation plus a rotation.
“and if the point it is going around is an axis it also isnt.”
Again DEFINE going around an axis.
“So the moons orbit isnt a translation for two reasons.”
What are TWO reasons?
You already agreed that an elliptical orbit is not a pure rotation, that it must include translation. Are you now changing your mind?
As I always indicated, the Moon’s motion is translation plus rotation.
Nate says:
”And the difference between going around a random point, and going around an axis is what?”
Now you are really getting weird Nate. A rotation around an axis being a unique motion is fundamental to kinematics. It is itemized as such by all 3 of your sources.
Nate says:
”Ok, going around a random point in space also doesnt make a motion a rotation. But you guys insist it is! You guys insist an orbit it a rotation!”
Geez Nate an orbiting body doesn’t rotate around a random location in space. It rotates on a physical axis.
Nate says:
”It means it can be a general plane motion, a translation plus a rotation.”
Possibly. . . . with the rotation being the physical axis the orbit goes around. That doesn’t help your cause. But its a complication that is completely unnecessary. . . .uh. . . .beyond you grabbing stuff out of your arse to cast shade.
Nate says:
”Again DEFINE going around an axis.”
Why? Because you can’t?
Nate says:
” ”So the moons orbit isnt a translation for two reasons.”
What are TWO reasons?”
1. Its a motion around an axis, and
2. The moon and every other orbiting body in the universe changes orientation as it rotates.
Nate says:
”You already agreed that an elliptical orbit is not a pure rotation, that it must include translation. Are you now changing your mind?”
No I did not. I said it was ”possible” that it could be a general plane motion but it probably isn’t. I am not up on all the rotational element math and in there perhaps you could find a reason to call it a general plane motion. . . .but my general inclination due to Kepler’s work there is no extraneous energy that is unassociated with rotational elements that would need to be accounted for as a minor translation such as your walking man on the merry-go-round.
Nate says:
”As I always indicated, the Moon’s motion is translation plus rotation.”
Prove it! Meanwhile I will stick with the KISS principle.
“What are TWO reasons?
1. Its a motion around an axis, and
2. The moon and every other orbiting body in the universe changes orientation as it rotates.”
Thats really only one, Bill. Changing orientation is evidence of rotation.
This is the key point. You seem to lose track of what you already agreed to. Such as here:
Nate says:
‘You already agreed that an elliptical orbit is not a pure rotation, that it must include translation. Are you now changing your mind?’
No I did not. I said it was ‘possible’ that it could be a general plane motion but it probably isnt. I am not up on all the rotational element math and in there perhaps you could find a reason to call it a general plane motion. . . .but my general inclination due to Keplers work there is no extraneous energy that is unassociated with rotational elements that would need to be accounted for as a minor translation such as your walking man on the merry-go-round.”
Bill, this is the talk of religious belief straight out of your ass..
After coming to an agreement on how translation and rotation are defined you are acting as if they havent been and they can be violated if you feel like it!
So Bill, lets try to clarify what you think is a rotation, translation or combo.
In this demo, the 3 moving dots represent the COM and two opposite sides of a Moon orbiting on an elliptical orbit, but without axial rotation. The COM is connected by a line to the barycenter.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wrfpir2phq
As you can see, the three dots are always aligned horizontally.
So for you, is this Moon rotating or translating or what? And why?
Nate says:
1. Its a motion around an axis, and
2. The moon and every other orbiting body in the universe changes orientation as it rotates.
Thats really only one, Bill. Changing orientation is evidence of rotation.
———————
No! A motion is not a translation if only one of two conditions exist. Where is the requirement a rotation must change orientation? Kind of fuks up your straight out of your arse thinking doesn’t it not even having a source for that!
Nate says:
”After coming to an agreement on how translation and rotation are defined you are acting as if they haven’t been and they can be violated if you feel like it!”
I don’t recall taking a position on ‘pure rotation’. If I used the term it would be in a common emphasis sense to emphasize (yes it is a rotation!). If there is a technical description of a ‘pure rotation’ as opposed to say a general plane motion it is not likely I could study it for a few weeks as business commitments are running quite high right now.
So rather than simply trying to fuk with me, why not you explain what you are thinking about pure rotation.
“Where is the requirement a rotation must change orientation? ”
Uhhh…after discussing what is rotation and translation for a month, you still dont underatand that?!
OMG. Maybe you should ask the guy that said this:
“It depends upon whether lines drawn between any two particles in a rigid object are changing direction during the motion. If they are changing direction its a rotation”
And after disucssing for a month, you are no longer able to answer whether my simple orbiting moon is a rotation, or not!
Cuz you still require more time to ‘study’ what rotation means..?!
Hilarious!
Nate says:
November 22, 2021 at 12:27 PM
“Where is the requirement a rotation must change orientation? ”
Uhhh…after discussing what is rotation and translation for a month, you still dont underatand that?!
OMG. Maybe you should ask the guy that said this:
“It depends upon whether lines drawn between any two particles in a rigid object are changing direction during the motion. If they are changing direction its a rotation”
And after disucssing for a month, you are no longer able to answer whether my simple orbiting moon is a rotation, or not!
Cuz you still require more time to ‘study’ what rotation means..?!
Hilarious!
—————————–
Incorrect Nate. I know what rotation means. The question is what additional constraints, if any, are enacted by the idiom ‘pure rotation’. Personally I think rotation is rotation. You will need to at least stick with the question you asked and perhaps, if you even know, explain what pure rotation is.
Secondly, your claim that the statement: ”It depends upon whether lines drawn between any two particles in a rigid object are changing direction during the motion. If they are changing direction its a rotation” is in conflict with my question: ”Where is the requirement a rotation must change orientation?”
is so ignorant on so many levels it truly is hilarious.
For example:
1. I asked a question and did not make a statement. So obviously you don’t understand that questions with question marks can never be considered a statement.
2. You obviously work on a basis of flawed logic. The question asks why actual change in orientation is required for for an object going around an axis.
But you claim that someone else’s statement (offered without a source) says an object changing orientation is in rotation.
Concluding that if the object is not changing orientation its not rotating neither follows from my question nor the statement you quoted.
To conclude the statement you quoted rules out a non-orientation object rotating around a fixed axis is not rotating is a case of affirming the consequent, a fallacy. In fact the first fallacy taught in most logic classes.
example of the fallacy:
If it rains the sidewalk gets wet.
The side walk is wet
therefore, it rained. Wrong the sidewalk could be wet because of sprinklers.
Your fukked up logic follows the same pattern:
If an object changes orientation its in rotation.
The object has not changed orientation.
Therefore it is not rotating.
LMAO!
The logical reason is simple Nate.
This would be a correct interpretation of DREMT’s that if there was a rotation of the moon whereby it showed all its sides to earth exactly once each orbit it would both appear from a distant star to not rotate but it would require exactly one spin in the opposite direction on the moon’s internal axis per orbital rotation to accomplish it.
You really need to bring yourself up to speed in these arguments, and logic, if you want to actually stay up with the class.
“Incorrect Nate. I know what rotation means. ”
You really dont seem to know whether you know what rotatipn means or not, and your excuses make no sense.
But if you do know what it is, then you should be able to easily answer whether my simulated moon is rotaing or not!
And Bill, the word ‘pure’ means what it always means.
Nate says:
November 22, 2021 at 6:30 PM
And Bill, the word ‘pure’ means what it always means.
——————————
Good! Then we agree that pure rotation is a rotation without other motions to modify the movement of the object. However, Madhavi shows it to be a conceptual idea when she derives an instantaneous rotation from a general plane motion and terms that as a pure rotation. In other words if you remove the inevitable wobble you have left pure rotation.
Bill,
“Then we agree that pure rotation is a rotation without other motions to modify the movement of the object.”
Yes.
“However, Madhavi shows it to be a conceptual idea when she derives an instantaneous rotation from a general plane motion and terms that as a pure rotation. In other words if you remove the inevitable wobble you have left pure rotation.”
Her ‘conceptual idea’ IS the definition of rotation that is actually used in the real world! So it matters not that you still ‘wobble’ on it.
But given your now ‘clear’ picture of what rotation means and translation means:
“Madhavis first condition for a translation is. ‘A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.’
I am not sure why you are STILL unable to decide whether my orbiting moon is a rotation, a translation, or both?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1013827
Here’s a Hint:
The three dots representing front, back and COM of the moon are forming a line in the body that keeps the same direction during the motion.
Nate says:
”Then we agree that pure rotation is a rotation without other motions to modify the movement of the object.”
Yes.
”However, Madhavi shows it to be a conceptual idea when she derives an instantaneous rotation from a general plane motion and terms that as a pure rotation. In other words if you remove the inevitable wobble you have left pure rotation.”
Her conceptual idea IS the definition of rotation that is actually used in the real world! So it matters not that you still wobble on it.
————————–
incorrect. if thats the case the ‘pure rotation’ doesn’t provide additional conditions.
The correct take is ‘rotation’ means real world rotations, which you already agreed were always imperfect. And pure rotation deals with the geometric/mathematical perfect circle. But since you never got beyond the academic you never learned that.
//////////////////
”Madhavis first condition for a translation is. A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion. ”
But given your now clear picture of what rotation means and translation means:
I am not sure why you are STILL unable to decide whether my orbiting moon is a rotation, a translation, or both?
Heres a Hint:
The three dots representing front, back and COM of the moon are forming a line in the body that keeps the same direction during the motion.
———————
sorry Nate but that is only one condition. the other condition is it is not a rotation around a fixed axis. that should be obvious to a third grader as without that condition nothing would be a rotation around a fixed axis. LMAO!
“The three dots representing front, back and COM of the moon are forming a line in the body that keeps the same direction during the motion.
sorry Nate but that is only one condition.”
Confusing…
Then what? You are still afraid to answer what the motion is????
Nate says:
The three dots representing front, back and COM of the moon are forming a line in the body that keeps the same direction during the motion.
sorry Nate but that is only one condition.”
Confusing…
Then what? You are still afraid to answer what the motion is????
————————–
If those three dots on a mythical moon are not changing position; it is because it is involved in two rotations.
In addition to undergoing an orbital rotation around an external axis, it also rotates exactly one time synchronistic in the opposite direction of it’s orbital rotation on its internal axis.
To relate that two motions as defined by all three of your sources. . . .there are two fundamental motions. A translation and a rotation around a fixed axis.
Now a automobile going down a road can translate because it isn’t going around a fixed axis. The same would be true for a wheel with no axle. The key is getting the correct motion for the object in question. If that ‘object’ is rotating around a fixed axis it is not translating.
If you are incapable of sorting this out then you will never be able to engineer this stuff.
”Now a automobile going down a road can translate because it isnt going around a fixed axis. The same would be true for a wheel with no axle. The key is getting the correct motion for the object in question. If that object is rotating around a fixed axis it is not translating.”
correction!
Now a automobile going down a road can translate because it isnt going around a fixed axis. OTOH, a wheel with no axle rolling down a road would be a general plane motion. It isn’t a translation as the object is changing orientation.
The key is getting the correct motion for the object in question. If that object is rotating around a fixed axis it is not translating nor is it a general plane motion. That is because the fixed axis physically restricts the motion of the object to prevent both a translation and a general plane motion.
you just get confused on that point. It can’t translate as the fixed axis forces a rotation (whether elliptical or circular) and in the case of the rolling wheel a fixed axis would not allow a general plane motion for the exact same reason
so obviously there are multiple heirarchies of rotations in the universe, but when looking at a motion one must be conscious first and foremost to not exclude any existing fixed axis associated with any motion. if you do you will be a disaster at building any such systems because a fixed axis in such a system is critical to getting the correct motion. eliminating the earth in the earth moon system would dramatically change the motion of the moon and that is why the spinner position is so ignorant.
Pretty simple question, what is the motion: rotation, translation, or combo, but you are still unable to answer!
According to Madhavi the answer is obvious:
” 1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
And clearly in this simple example, the 3 dots form a straight line, inside the body, and they keep the same direction during the motion. This moon is simply TRANSLATING.
So you must be taking the 5th, out of a desire not to incriminate your religion!
Instead we get a fantasy backstory:
“If those three dots on a mythical moon are not changing position; it is because it is involved in two rotations.
In addition to undergoing an orbital rotation around an external axis, it also rotates exactly one time synchronistic in the opposite direction of it’s orbital rotation on its internal axis.”
This is like a movie Prequel explaining why Batman is bad sometimes!
Bill, if anything in this long discussion is direct from someone’s anal orifice, this would be it!
Well that should settle this argument for once and all.
All three of Nate’s sources agree. In describing the two basic classes of motions and a third general class of motion that include all motions, if the movement of the object is around a fixed axis. . . .it is a rotation.
There is no other possibility because none of the other classes of motions have a fixed axis incorporated to effectively limit the motion.
After determining the correct motion then consideration needs to be given outside of kinematics in the areas of kinetics and dynamics the forces, momentums, masses, flexibility, durability, susceptibility to vibration, and etc. the factors that keep the motion in rotation, whereupon arises the real skill in engineering.
So we should be done here.
According to Madhavi the answer is obvious:
”1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
This is true.
However, the point you are missing is logical fact in this case you are looking at ”a motion”.
Simultaneous rotation on two different axis isn’t ‘a motion’ it is two motions. Two rotations on two different axes. In case you didn’t notice not one of your sources specified that a motion must include the net effect of all relevant motions.
You should catch a clue in that no such simultaneous synchronistic rotation is known to exist in the universe. Yet so-called scientists even today try to claim two simultaneous synchronistic rotations are common when it involves tidal locked moons. Statistically that has to be dumb. If statistical science can produce such irrational results how could one ever rely upon it?
At least its a clear proof of how little scientists actually understand about the real world.
“Simultaneous rotation on two different axis isnt a motion it is two motions. Two rotations on two different axes. In case you didnt notice not one of your sources specified that a motion must include the net effect of all relevant motions.”
Sure, but it still your invention. As you have often complained, it is purely conceptual. There is nothing measurable to it!
You might as well say its 4 rotations plus 6 translations. But they all cancel!
The only measurable thing we can be sure about this motion is that it is a Translation, with no rotation.
It could ALSO have Rotation, like our Moon. In that case the line of internal dots would be changing their orientation.
Nate says:
Sure, but it still your invention. As you have often complained, it is purely conceptual. There is nothing measurable to it!
You might as well say its 4 rotations plus 6 translations. But they all cancel!
The only measurable thing we can be sure about this motion is that it is a Translation, with no rotation.
It could ALSO have Rotation, like our Moon. In that case the line of internal dots would be changing their orientation.
——————
Nate it is no more preposterous than suggesting such a moon would have a rotation with synchronistic timing to an orbit.
If that were the connection between the two you would never find either. As it is one is common and one hasn’t been found.
Must be a reason for that.
the only question at hand is whether you can figure out what that reason is.
“Nate it is no more preposterous than suggesting such a moon would have a rotation with synchronistic timing to an orbit.”
We agree then that your scenario is invented and preposterous.
It is not logical to invent two or more motions that perfectly cancel and thus are undetectable and are not falsifiable. That is the essence of religion.
As far as synchronous rotation, that model fits and explains several observable facts.
1. The motions: orbit, and rotation, do not perfectly cancel and thus are detectable.
2. Again, the fact of longitudinal libration is explained by having a varying orbital angular velocity (due to elliptical orbit) and a constant rotational angular velocity.
3. It allows for orbit and rotation occurring in different planes.
4. It explains the fact of the existence of Lunar poles, and accounts for where they are located.
5. It explains laditudinal libration due to the axial tilt. With axial tilt, the Poles move in and out of our view during the orbit.
6. The motions satisfy the laws of physics, such as conservation of angular momentum.
The scenario of Orbit being a single motion with orientation always following the direction of motion does not satisfy the laws of physics.
You just can’t keep ignoring such facts and hope to win a debate that way.
Nate says:
Nate it is no more preposterous than suggesting such a moon would have a rotation with synchronistic timing to an orbit.
We agree then that your scenario is invented and preposterous.
It is not logical to invent two or more motions that perfectly cancel and thus are undetectable and are not falsifiable. That is the essence of religion.
———————-
Nate its exactly the same odds of any object rotating coincidentally in a synchronistic rotation in space. OTOH all moons rotate so adding a synchronistic rotation has the same odds no matter what as if it weren’t synchronistic to the orbit it wouldn’t be synchronistic at all.
Nate says:
”1. The motions: orbit, and rotation, do not perfectly cancel and thus are detectable.
2. Again, the fact of longitudinal libration is explained by having a varying orbital angular velocity (due to elliptical orbit) and a constant rotational angular velocity.
3. It allows for orbit and rotation occurring in different planes.
4. It explains the fact of the existence of Lunar poles, and accounts for where they are located.
5. It explains laditudinal libration due to the axial tilt. With axial tilt, the Poles move in and out of our view during the orbit.
6. The motions satisfy the laws of physics, such as conservation of angular momentum.
7. The scenario of Orbit being a single motion with orientation always following the direction of motion does not satisfy the laws of physics.
You just cant keep ignoring such facts and hope to win a debate that way.
—————————————
Nate you resort yet again to your 7 claims pulled straight out of your arse without a shred of support.
You can’t just reach up in your arsehole and make up conditions for what a rotation is. You already caved into the argument that if circular motion had to be perfect it wouldn’t have any usefulness in the real world. . . .yet you continue to vascillate and reach for such conditions when nobody else has.
Nate says:
1. The motions: orbit, and rotation, do not perfectly cancel and thus are detectable.
As are the imperfections of any real world rotation.
2. Again, the fact of longitudinal libration is explained by having a varying orbital angular velocity (due to elliptical orbit) and a constant rotational angular velocity.
Any elliptical rotation is going to have changes in angular velocity. You are just trying to make a kinematics argument by the introduction of the forces necessary to modify the rotation. That has nothing to do with changing the kinematic definition of a motion. And you already argued that exact point and thus are in agreement you should not be looking at the forces that influence the shape of a rotation.
3. It allows for orbit and rotation occurring in different planes.
The reason for this is well known by science. It is the variation of direction of forces on the elliptic in relationship to the orbital tilt of the moon. Again these are irrelevant forces regarding the kinematic classification of the motion by your own argument. . . .which you violate at will to make your stupid points.
4. It explains the fact of the existence of Lunar poles, and accounts for where they are located.
Ditto
5. It explains laditudinal libration due to the axial tilt. With axial tilt, the Poles move in and out of our view during the orbit.
More motions caused by non-kinematic factors such as momentum.
6. The motions satisfy the laws of physics, such as conservation of angular momentum.
Yes but they are not part of the kinematic classification system.
7. The scenario of Orbit being a single motion with orientation always following the direction of motion does not satisfy the laws of physics.
LMAO! You mean you have to involve kinetics to explain all this? ROTFLMAO!
“Nate you resort yet again to your 7 claims pulled straight out of your arse without a shred of support.”
Nope, these are all well established facts. Your denial of them does not change that.
This is just loser tactics.
Nate all your added conditions are violations of the rules of kinematics and do not apply to the definition of a rotation.
You made that argument yourself not that long ago. So you are in agreement with that.
Now you are just lying.
“1. The motions: orbit, and rotation, do not perfectly cancel and thus are detectable.
As are the imperfections of any real world rotation.”
Your two rotations are DESIGNED to perfectly cancel to account for the lack of an OBSERVED rotation in the simulated orbit I showed.
Libration is a specific, predictable motion that is observed in the real world and in simulations. It is not random noise due to random ‘imperfections’.
“conditions are violations of the rules of kinematics”
Just declared nonsense.
No evidence, no specifics, no credit.
Nate says:
1. The motions: orbit, and rotation, do not perfectly cancel and thus are detectable.
As are the imperfections of any real world rotation.
Your two rotations are DESIGNED to perfectly cancel to account for the lack of an OBSERVED rotation in the simulated orbit I showed.
Libration is a specific, predictable motion that is observed in the real world and in simulations. It is not random noise due to random imperfections.
—————————
Where is your engineering source that argues imperfections must never be predicted?
You just make stuff up on the fly Nate.
Nate says:
conditions are violations of the rules of kinematics
Just declared nonsense.
No evidence, no specifics, no credit.
——————–
Nate says:
October 30, 2021 at 5:24 AM
Bill,
The overall field is Mechanics.
Kinematics and Dynamics ore sub-branches of that field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics
Kinematics-”describes the motion of point, bodies (objects), and systems of bodies (groups of objects) without considering the forces that cause them to move.”
————————
Nate says:
1. The motions: orbit, and rotation, do not perfectly cancel and thus are detectable.
Sure they totally cancel Nate. If they didn’t the moon would show all sides to the earth.
2. Again, the fact of longitudinal libration is explained by having a varying orbital angular velocity (due to elliptical orbit) and a constant rotational angular velocity.
As Madhavi says: ”Two particular cases of rotation are frequently encountered:
1. Uniform Rotation.
2. Uniformly Accelerated Rotation.”
How did you get to all inclusive from frequently encountered? Source please.
3. It allows for orbit and rotation occurring in different planes.
Ever rotated on the Octopus ride Nate? There are plenty of rotations that have multiple planes. You need to provide a source that this is a necessary condition for a rotation.
4. It explains the fact of the existence of Lunar poles, and accounts for where they are located.
Ditto
5. It explains laditudinal libration due to the axial tilt. With axial tilt, the Poles move in and out of our view during the orbit.
Ditto
6. The motions satisfy the laws of physics, such as conservation of angular momentum.
So what? If you think orbital rotation doesn’t, please provide a source.
7. The scenario of Orbit being a single motion with orientation always following the direction of motion does not satisfy the laws of physics.
Who claimed this is a requirement? The fact is a rotation can be accompanied other influences. In fact, it is a job of an engineer to identify all the importantly material possibilities.
If you think its a requirement for the kinematic classification of an orbit as a rotation please provide a source as opposed to grabbing fecal matter out of your arse.
“Sure they totally cancel Nate. If they didn’t the moon would show all sides to the earth.”
OK, so you’re just going to deny the reality of libration.
Loser-troll tactics.
“As Madhavi says: ”Two particular cases of rotation are frequently encountered:
1. Uniform Rotation.
2. Uniformly Accelerated Rotation.”
Red herrings! There is no accelerated rotation going on here. What we have is a Keplerian ORBIT that obeys Keplers area law. As discussed and demonstrated, is simply curvilinear translation.
“3. It allows for orbit and rotation occurring in different planes.
Ever rotated on the Octopus ride Nate? There are plenty of rotations that have multiple planes. You need to provide a source that this is a necessary condition for a rotation.”
You’re an idiot, Bill. Rotations in different planes can never cancel, as yours are DESIGNED to do. Your whole scenario of an orbit being a single rotation does not FIT this observed phenomena at all.
You cannot just keep dismissing/ignoring real world observations that just don’t fit your model!
Well you can, but then you are admitting that you are just here to troll.
“6. The motions satisfy the laws of physics, such as conservation of angular momentum.
So what? If you think orbital rotation doesn’t, please provide a source.”
Your answer is # 7.
“7. The scenario of Orbit being a single motion with orientation always following the direction of motion does not satisfy the laws of physics.”
“Where is your engineering source that argues imperfections must never be predicted?”
Oh just shut up, troll!
Nate says:
OK, so you’re just going to deny the reality of libration.
Loser-troll tactics.
——————–
LMAO. Libration is an optical illusion Nate. Its not a motion! Your eye sees it as a motion because your position changes.
Nate says:
“As Madhavi says: ”Two particular cases of rotation are frequently encountered:
1. Uniform Rotation.
2. Uniformly Accelerated Rotation.”
Red herrings! There is no accelerated rotation going on here. What we have is a Keplerian ORBIT that obeys Keplers area law. As discussed and demonstrated, is simply curvilinear translation.
————————-
Curvilinear translations do not have fixed axes. A fixed axis is the defining characteristic of a rotation that changes both translations and general plane motions into a rotation.
Nate says:
“3. It allows for orbit and rotation occurring in different planes.
Ever rotated on the Octopus ride Nate? There are plenty of rotations that have multiple planes. You need to provide a source that this is a necessary condition for a rotation.”
You’re an idiot, Bill. Rotations in different planes can never cancel, as yours are DESIGNED to do. Your whole scenario of an orbit being a single rotation does not FIT this observed phenomena at all.
You cannot just keep dismissing/ignoring real world observations that just don’t fit your model!
Well you can, but then you are admitting that you are just here to troll.
————
Not true the pull of gravity creates a bulge that will stop any rotation on any plane. I have even pointed out the axis will shift due to loss of torque from the loss of independent rotation.
It BS I am dismissing stuff. The stuff you try to keep adding you do so by just pulling it out of your arse with zero sources.
If thats not true surprise me with a source.
“6. The motions satisfy the laws of physics, such as conservation of angular momentum.
So what? If you think orbital rotation doesn’t, please provide a source.”
Your answer is # 7.
Nate says:
“7. The scenario of Orbit being a single motion with orientation always following the direction of motion does not satisfy the laws of physics.”
That is your statement Nate that you pulled out of your arse. I already answered it.
Nate says:
November 27, 2021 at 6:17 AM
“Where is your engineering source that argues imperfections must never be predicted?”
Oh just shut up, troll!
—————————-
Nate admits to just pulling this stuff out of his arse. Its an engineers job to predict the stuff that will affect a rotation. Obviously you know nothing about applied physics. There are no perfect rotations Nate in the real world, only your imaginary green-horn academic world. An engineer building rotational device must predict what forces the devices environment will put on the device (like axial tilt from the pull of gravity from the sun). We wouldn’t need engineers if this weren’t the case. We would just need greenhorn graduates. . . .we could forget the professional certification process.
“LMAO. Libration is an optical illusion Nate. ”
Yep this is pretty much your troll strategy now, any fact you don’t like is called an illusion.
Any deviation of reality from your cult-model is just called an ‘imperfection’.
Any definition from Madhavi, Brown, and UW that doesnt work for you is amended with your own secret sauce of BS.
Engineers learn about Kinematics from Madhavi, Brown, and UW, etc while you simply make up your own nonsense.
Madhavi NEVER teaches that a curvilinear translation STOPS being a curvilinear translation just as soon as it goes around a point that YOU want to call an axis.
Once again she states:
“For example, the
plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles. In the first case, any given straight line drawn on the plate will maintain the same direction”
Thus an orbiting object whose “straight lines drawn on (it) maintain the same direction” is a Curvilinear Translation!
For YOU to claim that it is instead a ROTATION is to give a big middle finger to Madhavi and all Engineers!
And Madhavi NEVER teaches that her definitions don’t apply to the real world because there are no perfect geometric shapes in the real world.
Because that would be idiotic.
These are all YOUR anal excretions that have no support anywhere!
Just stop trolling.
Nate says:
Any deviation of reality from your cult-model is just called an ‘imperfection’.
—————————
Its not a cult model Nate. Its a kinematics model.
You already admitted imperfections are allowable and does not disqualify a motion Nate.
But its really hard to figure that since a rotation is the only motion with a single axis exactly what your argument is for that motion being anything but a rotation. Obviously to anybody but a moron the moon rotates around the earth on an axis located at the COM of earth. They have been teaching 2nd graders that forever.
If you want to start hedging on that you need to produce a source for how one would determine qualification.
But you haven’t been an abject failure in making any kind of case for that and you have no sources to back you up.
So all you are doing is being bullheaded.
Nate says:
Madhavi NEVER teaches that a curvilinear translation STOPS being a curvilinear translation just as soon as it goes around a point that YOU want to call an axis.
—————————-
According to all Kinematic sources the only motion that has a single axis is a rotation.
Two axes or more producing parallel circles of motion can produce a translation that is a single motion with potentially a single force.
You should be much clearer, and provide sources if want to fine tune the definitions provided.
If you want to do it without sources you should use physics to explain how such a motion could be produced without it being two motions. Madhavi, Brown, and Wang provide diagrams and explanations of how all their motions are produced. Why can’t you?
Nate says:
Once again she states:
“For example, the
plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles. In the first case, any given straight line drawn on the plate will maintain the same direction”
Thus an orbiting object whose “straight lines drawn on (it) maintain the same direction” is a Curvilinear Translation!
——————-
A translation doesn’t exist if the particles change their orientation. . . .thats true whether it is a curvilinear or rectilinear translation. So the moon is eliminated as a translation by this Nate.
As to the impossible case of an orbiting moon without its particles changing orientation (you know the one you can only imagine, can’t find, and can’t begin to explain how to create without a second force on an inactive axis), I am just speechless on that one. Denying it seems as futile as denying the existence of God.
Nate says:
For YOU to claim that it is instead a ROTATION is to give a big middle finger to Madhavi and all Engineers!
——-
So claims Nate, the moronic non-engineer! You still have produced no support for your propositions. I will wait until you can find another moron here to back you up. Indeed, they are plentiful around here.
Just repeating same debunked BS over and over. You are making up your own facts and definitions. They dont agree with Kinematics. They dont agree with the sources.
You had a pre-concieved notion of what you believed, and all facts are filtered, rejected or accepted, in order to preserved that belief, right or wrong.
That’s not how science is done. Thats how religion is done.
Nate says:
You are making up your own facts and definitions. They dont agree with Kinematics. They dont agree with the sources.
————————
You have some severe pronoun reference problems in those sentences making them totally unintelligible.
No wonder discussion with you is so difficult.
Maybe ask a 5th grader to explain the meaning of this plain English, Bill.
“You had a pre-concieved notion of what you believed, and all facts are filtered, rejected or accepted, in order to preserve that belief, right or wrong.”
Here is a perfect example of that, Bill.
“Obviously to anybody but a moron the moon rotates around the earth on an axis located at the COM of earth. They have been teaching 2nd graders that forever.”
So after we discussed ad-nauseum the Kinematic meanings of ROTATION and TRANSLATION and CURVILINEAR TRANSLATION and ORBIT, and what is taught to engineering students at universities about these motions, these meanings and definitions are SET ASIDE, as if they just don’t matter.
Instead you return to what ‘they have been teaching 2nd graders’ and what ‘anybody but a moron’ knows.
And as we all should know by now, what they have been teaching second graders forever, like all about the first Thanksgiving, has turned out to not be very accurate.
The point is, science that is taught in universities to scientists and engineers, goes well beyond what ‘anybody but a moron’ or any second grader knows. And it often does not agree with one’s prior intuition.
And that’s the whole point of higher education.
Nate says:
“Obviously to anybody but a moron the moon rotates around the earth on an axis located at the COM of earth. They have been teaching 2nd graders that forever.”
So after we discussed ad-nauseum the Kinematic meanings of ROTATION and TRANSLATION and CURVILINEAR TRANSLATION and ORBIT, and what is taught to engineering students at universities about these motions, these meanings and definitions are SET ASIDE, as if they just don’t matter.
And that’s the whole point of higher education.
————————-
Nate you never provided a source supporting a defined kinematic motion for an orbit. Stop pretending you did. You also never provided any engineering sources that claims the motion of a non-rotating moon would be a translation. So stop pretending like you did. Thats childish behavior!
Obviously you missed the point of higher education where they teach you to provide footnotes to your reports.
Again, the only motion described by any kinematic expert that goes around a fixed axis is a rotation. If you want a translation to go around a fixed axis you should either
1) provide a source that describes that
or
2) describe and diagram how such a motion could occur in nature. Bottom line is if you knew anything about physics it couldn’t occur. It can only occur if you imagine it occurring.
Yes I did show you a definition of Orbit Bill, and we discussed it thoroughly.
And we discussed thoroughly the elliptical orbit demo that, by Kinematic defintions, was a translation. Where were you?
Just stop lying.
Nate says:
Yes I did show you a definition of Orbit Bill, and we discussed it thoroughly.
And we discussed thoroughly the elliptical orbit demo that, by Kinematic defintions, was a translation. Where were you?
Just stop lying.
—————————
Indeed if you want to classify spew out or your arse a discussion, then you did discuss it at extraordinary length.
However you never provided a science source for your spew nor did you describe how in a real physical world such a motion could exist.
“cience source for your spew nor did you describe how in a real physical world such a motion could exist.”
Oh just stop with the bullshit!
You are correct Nate you should stop the BS and just admit you can’t do it rather than constantly beating around the bush. . . .or. . . . just do it. . . .ROTFLMAO!
Bottom line is the physics nature of any real axis will cause a rotating object to change the orientation of its particles as there is no physical axis that isn’t going to cause friction. . . .thus the particles in the object are going to change their orientation.
The only way to keep it from changing orientation is spiking it in place with a 2nd axis or providing a motive force to create a motion in the direction opposite to the rotation.
You are just dead stupid stuck on the idea of motion always needing to be perceivable from some distant star when in fact its a matter of relativity instead.
None of that should be hard to comprehend thus it would be foolish to even try to explain how such a translation could be created on a single fixed axis.
“Bottom line is the physics nature of any real axis will cause a rotating object to change the orientation of its particles as there is no physical axis that isn’t going to cause friction. . . .thus the particles in the object are going to change their orientation.
The only way to keep it from changing orientation is spiking it in place with a 2nd axis or providing a motive force to create a motion in the direction opposite to the rotation.”
Why is it that when we discuss the actual observable motion, and I use textbook Kinematics to classify it, that is so often dismissed as ‘out of my arse’??
But THEN you turn around and post incomprehensible speculation, that is pure FICTION straight out of your anal orifice.
Do you really not see the contradiction in here?
Why is it perfectly ok for YOU to make up your own nonsense, then turn around and accuse others of being guilty of this heinous crime?
Nate says:
Why is it that when we discuss the actual observable motion, and I use textbook Kinematics to classify it, that is so often dismissed as out of my arse??
========================
Kinematic experts spend 100% of their time geometrically defining ‘possible’ motions. Only dipshits get into the world of impossible theoretical motions. The bounds of possibility make the divisions between the motions much more clear.
Nate says:
But THEN you turn around and post incomprehensible speculation, that is pure FICTION straight out of your anal orifice.
Do you really not see the contradiction in here?
-==========================
I have no idea what what your reference is toward. Is it so painful to just say what you disagree with?
““Bottom line is the physics nature of any real axis will cause a rotating object to change the orientation of its particles as there is no physical axis that isn’t going to cause friction. . . .thus the particles in the object are going to change their orientation.
The only way to keep it from changing orientation is spiking it in place with a 2nd axis or providing a motive force to create a motion in the direction opposite to the rotation.”
As I said, this is incomprehensible speculation.
Make it comprehensible, evidence-based, and falsifiable, and I’ll tell you what I disagree with.
“Only dipshits get into the world of impossible theoretical motions. ”
What is impossible? Curvilinear translation?
Madhavi showed you an example, so it is obviously possible.
An elliptical orbit without rotation? I showed you a demo. Its obviously possible.
Newton solved the two-body gravity problem and found THIS motion in his Principia. He showed it was possible.
Why impossible? Evidence please, not from second grade memories.
Nate says:
““Bottom line is the physics nature of any real axis will cause a rotating object to change the orientation of its particles as there is no physical axis that isn’t going to cause friction. . . .thus the particles in the object are going to change their orientation.
The only way to keep it from changing orientation is spiking it in place with a 2nd axis or providing a motive force to create a motion in the direction opposite to the rotation.”
As I said, this is incomprehensible speculation.
Make it comprehensible, evidence-based, and falsifiable, and I’ll tell you what I disagree with.
—————————–
There is no question that the moon is tidal locked to the earths orbit due to friction. Moon’s not yet tidal locked are changing their orientation are at least partly changing their orientation due to friction.
Go right ahead if you wish and deny that the moon’s rotation has nothing to do with friction caused by earth’s gravity, but along the way provide some source to support this rather than, as usual, just pulling it out of your arse.
Nate says:
Bottom line is the physics nature of any real axis will cause a rotating object to change the orientation of its particles as there is no physical axis that isnt going to cause friction. . . .thus the particles in the object are going to change their orientation.
The only way to keep it from changing orientation is spiking it in place with a 2nd axis or providing a motive force to create a motion in the direction opposite to the rotation.
As I said, this is incomprehensible speculation.
Make it comprehensible, evidence-based, and falsifiable, and Ill tell you what I disagree with.
—————————–
There is no question that the moon is tidal locked to the earths orbit due to friction. Moon’s not yet tidal locked are changing their orientation are at least partly changing their orientation due to friction.
Go right ahead if you wish and deny that the moon’s rotation has nothing to do with friction caused by earth’s gravity, but along the way provide some source to support this rather than, as usual, just pulling it out of your arse.
Nate says:
”Only dipshits get into the world of impossible theoretical motions.”
What is impossible? Curvilinear translation?
———————————-
Strawman Nate!
What is impossible is a curvilinear translation around a single axis. Curvilinear translations are very possible, just not around a single axis. As explained previously.
“There is no question that the moon is tidal locked to the earths orbit due to friction. Moons not yet tidal locked are changing their orientation”
Where have I ever disputed tidal locking?
Bill this is just repetitively dumb.
The causes of motion are not what is being discussed, nothing to do with what the present motion IS according to Kinematics.
If you are a witness to crime you can state only what you saw. Your speculations about motive that you didnt see are inadmissable!
“What is impossible is a curvilinear translation around a single axis.”
You are calling some point within an elliptical orbit a single axis. Why?
What is the Evidence that the orbit in the demo, which clearly had no rotation is impossible?
Real evidence, Bill. Not just your feelings, 2nd grade wisdom, or speculations.
Ill remind you that in the demo, the 3 dots in the orbiting moon remained horizontal.
And also it was YOU that stated:
“It depends upon whether lines drawn between any two particles in a rigid object are changing direction during the motion. If they are changing direction its a rotation, if they are not changing direction its a translation.”
So by your own words what we see in the demo is a moon that is clearly just translating, while orbiting on an elliptical path.
Nate you haven’t done a ”demo” of anything. A demonstration is a proof, an actual enactment. Thus a demo can be a video or a live demonstration.
What you did was a ”illustration” the difference between a demo and an illustration is an illustration can be an illusion and thus does not qualify as a proof.
So if you want to demonstrate a curvilinear translation going around a single axis you will need to provide proof such a motion is possible. So far no credible expert in kinematics have ever pointed out such a real motion.
If I am wrong there you can simply provide a source.
Nate says:
”You are calling some point within an elliptical orbit a single axis. Why?”
I am not calling some random point an axis Nate. The earth’s COM is an axis for the moon’s orbit/rotation around the earth. An axis not a random point. It is a physical presence with a very identifiable and physical existence.
Bill, no need for proof of possibilty of this motion. Newton showed it is possible. The demo is simply graphing the equation for a Kepler orbit, the one Kepler observed and Newton derived. The demo clearly obeys the laws of physics. YOU made the argument that it is a translation, without rotation.
You are claiming impossibility, but offer no rationale other than vague declarations about an undefined ‘axis’.
What law of physics prevents it? Newtons laws? Certainly not. Conservation of angular momentum? Energy? Certainly not.
These laws are not just theoretical. They have been thoroughly tested in the real world.
Nate says:
Bill, no need for proof of possibilty of this motion. Newton showed it is possible.
==============================
So you say Newton proved the existence of an axis that creates zero friction?
ROTFLMAO!
Newton was working in our universe.
You?
Bill,
The current topic is you are claiming an elliptical orbit without rotation is impossible.
But you can’t seem to find a real physics or Kinematics reason why it is impossible.
It appears to be, once again, just a feeling of yours.
I have never disputed tidal locking. We can try to disagree about it if you want! But that is another topic.
Lets wrap this one up first.
Nate says:
December 1, 2021 at 4:30 PM
Newton was working in our universe.
You?
——————–
Nate ducks the question.
Actually Bill,
My question came first:
“You are claiming impossibility” of elliptical orbit without rotation.
“What law of physics prevents it? Newtons laws? Certainly not. Conservation of angular momentum? Energy? Certainly not.”
You are dodging, and are using standard troll evasion tactics of throwing up chaff and changing the subject.
Nate says:
My question came first:
“You are claiming impossibility” of elliptical orbit without rotation.
“What law of physics prevents it? Newtons laws? Certainly not. Conservation of angular momentum? Energy? Certainly not.”
You are dodging, and are using standard troll evasion tactics of throwing up chaff and changing the subject.
——————
Your problem is you see an object rotating around a random point as not being a definitive attribute of a type of kinematic motion.
But we aren’t talking random points. A rotation around a fixed axis means a ‘physical’ connection to the rotating object of adequate rigidity to govern the motion.
THERE IS NO SUCH PHYSICAL CONNECTION IN THE UNIVERSE THAT CAN DO THAT WITHOUT FRICTION. Thus it is impossible for an object rotating on an external axis to not change its orientation as its orientation will be changed by the friction.
Believing that you can construct such a system of a translation around a single axis is to believe you can construct a perpetual motion machine. Motion is a relative concept as show by Einstein. . . .yet you insist on treating it like classical mechanics and while doing that you imagine you can overcome friction with a simple single motion and make for a translation out of an object rotating around an external axis. Yes you can imagine that but no author in kinematics is going to back you up and we are left with you spewing out of your arse.
“Your problem is you see an object rotating around a random point as not being a definitive attribute of a type of kinematic motion.”
Well, I do think that is the topic of discussion. What is the motion? What is it according to Kinematics?
YOU definitely identified the motion being discussed as translation. And I agree with that. Not rotation, because lines in the body are remaining horizontal.
But now it seems you want to change your testimony, and call it a rotation, without giving a valid physics reason. You said something about one axis therefore it must be a rotation, but that is vague and not consistent with the Kinematics definition mentioned above.
That didnt go anywhere.
So then you decided to call it impossible, without giving a valid physics reason.
That didnt go anywhere, so now you are bringing up friction and claiming that since there is always friction our kinematic definitions need to change or something?
The judge declares you a hostile witness!
As far as friction, that is getting into the CAUSES of motion, a different topic!
As I indicated I agree that tidal locking is a thing. But not all orbiting things in our solar system are tidally locked! Not all orbit/rotation rates are determined by tidal friction!
For you to claim that one type of orbit (synchronous) somehow rules all others and changes how we DEFINE orbit makes no sense. And there is no evidence to support it.
Nate says:
That didnt go anywhere, so now you are bringing up friction and claiming that since there is always friction our kinematic definitions need to change or something?
———————–
No change necessary. Nate it is very clear. . . .a rotation around a fixed axis is the only motion with a single fixed axis. Obviously there is no translation around a fixed axis as no such motion can exist.
NO SENSE CHANGING DEFINITIONS JUST TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE CLASSIFICATION OF IMPOSSIBLE MOTIONS.
Being impossible takes just fine care of that without any help.
As to greenhorns having problems with that. . . .some actual building experience will get those straightened out without any additional help. That’s what apprenticeships are for.
“No change necessary. Nate it is very clear. . . .a rotation around a fixed axis is the only motion with a single fixed axis. Obviously there is no translation around a fixed axis as no such motion can exist.”
Then you need to explain it to the guy who said this:
“It depends upon whether lines drawn between any two particles in a rigid object are changing direction during the motion. If they are changing direction its a rotation”
Honestly I don’t understand how you can still be uncertain about this.
“a rotation around a fixed axis is the only motion with a single fixed axis.’
How can this motion be a rotation if the “lines drawn between any two particles in the object are NOT changing direction during the motion.” ?
How can it be a rotation without any rotation??
What you are claiming is a fundamental contradiction, Bill!
Nate says:
“a rotation around a fixed axis is the only motion with a single fixed axis.’
How can this motion be a rotation if the “lines drawn between any two particles in the object are NOT changing direction during the motion.” ?
How can it be a rotation without any rotation??
What you are claiming is a fundamental contradiction, Bill!
——————————-
Nate you still don’t understand the rules.
If say you have a large wheel (like the one on wheel of fortune)
And you have an object hanging from an axis at the edge of this WofF and that axis does not go through the COM of that hanging object.
When you spin the WofF the object would rotate around the axis of the WofF but its particles would not change their orientation because gravity would impart a perfectly timed counter rotation and override the force that would cause it to change the orientation of its particles in the same direction as the rotation of the WofF.
This second rotation driven by gravity overrides the rotation imparted by the WofF.
So it is indeed possible to have no change in orientation when you have two motions working contrary to one another and the secondary axis has the greater rotational force working for it.
This is not difficult stuff its only difficult for you because of how heavily you have been inculcated into a different answer, an inculcation you can’t even point to a single study for support, an inculcation that comes entirely out of being a sycophant and believing everything you have been told by certain people you are sycophantic towards.
“And you have an object hanging from an axis at the edge of this WofF and that axis does not go through the COM of that hanging object.”
Huh?
“hen you spin the WofF the object would rotate around the axis of the WofF but its particles would not change their orientation because gravity would impart a perfectly timed counter rotation and override the force that would cause”
Uhhh this makes no sense. If it is attached to the Wof then it DOES change orientation.
If you put it on a frictionless bearing, then it can keep a fixed orientation, and it would not be rotating.
But this is due to its rotational inertia and Newtons first law for rotation.
It is not due to your fictional two cancelling rotations.
Again if you want to claim there are two cancelling rotations, then why cant I claim there are a dozen!
Both would be pure fantasy. Not detectable or falsifiable.
Look up ‘falsifiable’. You will see that science needs to be falsifiable by some test. Religion no.
To declare unfalsifiable ‘truths’ is simply a religious argument.
Oh I get the WoF thing. The wheel is vertical and the thing is hanging.
And it stays vertical. Ok.
So it has no rotation then it is simply translating.
There is no torque on it then again its simply has rotational inertia so it does not rotate.
You are trying to create an articial situatiin where two cancelling rotations could be happening. And?
At best you will be demonstrating a possible motion arising from that setup.
Not the impossibility of a different motion in a different setup.
This is yet another in an endless series of red herrings.
Sorry Nate but the wheel is engineered to produce two separate motions that cancel each other out. Both motions have their own momentum vectors that result in hanging object from changing its orientation.
A shallow and unsophisticated look at the mechanism might fool you into thinking you have a translation. . . .but a look the engineering shows clearly its two different motions with two different causes.
“Sorry Nate but the wheel is engineered to produce two separate motions that cancel each other out.”
Not really obvious. But I won’t claim it is impossible to engineer such a thing.
What would that prove about any other system lacking such an ‘engineered’ contrivance?
Why does that make a motion in a different system ‘impossible’?
Basic logic at work here, Bill.
Yet another dead-end argument.
Again, Bill, what is to stop me from declaring that there are a dozen cancelling rotations?
If none of these motions can be independently detected, than it is purely hypothetical, purely conceptual, purely from your imagination.
Your hypothetical is that there are two cancelling rotations at work in any elliptical orbit in which the orbiting object has no rotation.
How can we test this? What is the evidence, not out of your arse?
And my engineered system is a horizontal WoF with a frictionless axil poking out, which goes thru the COM of a sphere. The sphere has an N marked on it facing North.
The WOF rotates, and the sphere travels on a circular path, but the N always faces North! It has no rotation.
Why? Because with a frictionless axis there can be no torque on the sphere. And because the sphere has rotational inertia, it just won’t rotate.
Not because of two cancelling rotations!
There is only a force on the sphere thru its COM. Thus it only translates.
This is also an engineered system, but it is closer to the real system of an orbiting planet with gravity acting thru its COM.
Nate says:
‘Sorry Nate but the wheel is engineered to produce two separate motions that cancel each other out.’
Not really obvious. But I won’t claim it is impossible to engineer such a thing.
What would that prove about any other system lacking such an ‘engineered’ contrivance?
————————
Huh? Nature is the most brilliant of engineers Nate. Open your eyes and observe the connections. Run the logic through your gray matter and be aware of the implications of an object moving around a fixed axis.
Its obviously a motion, turning on the axis, breaking the friction that doesn’t want it to turn but instead follow obediently the rotation of the WofF. In this system you clearly have two drivers. Vanna White spinning the wheel and gravity spinning the object.
x
x
x
x
Nate says:
Why does that make a motion in a different system ‘impossible’?
——————–
Hmmm, that was the challenge I gave you to describe such a motion and prove its not impossible. The Kinematic authors all confine themselves to describing single motions in known possible configurations. 2 axes with rotations in opposite directions may look like a translation, may imitate a translation, but at its heart its two rotations.
x
x
x
x
Nate says:
Basic logic at work here, Bill.
Yet another dead-end argument.
Again, Bill, what is to stop me from declaring that there are a dozen cancelling rotations?
———————-
Sure just identify the axes.
x
x
x
x
Nate says:
If none of these motions can be independently detected, than it is purely hypothetical, purely conceptual, purely from your imagination.
Your hypothetical is that there are two cancelling rotations at work in any elliptical orbit in which the orbiting object has no rotation.
How can we test this? What is the evidence, not out of your arse?
x
x
x
x
Nate says:
No Nate it is your argument that your translating moon has no rotations. . . .since you are in denial that the orbit is a rotation.
Where your system get unmanageably messy is you can’t deny that the WofF being spun by Vanna White is a rotation. You want instead to pick on elliptical orbits as imperfect circles when everything is imperfect and you refuse to offer guidelines for acceptable imperfection. Real messy Nate, real messy.
“No Nate it is your argument that your translating moon has no rotations. . . .since you are in denial that the orbit is a rotation.”
Well, another Bill agreed that it was a translation, not a rotation, so…
Bill, I don’t see any attempts to rebut my arguments here.
I guess youve run out of arguments and have stopped trying..
Oh well. Thankfully this argument appears to be done.
Nate says: ”Oh well. Thankfully this argument appears to be done.”
Done? It never got started unless you think pulling claims out of your arse an argument.
Bill, the only things pulled out of assholes are coming from your side!
Declaring motions observed by Kepler and explained by Newton impossible. But unable to offer a shred of evidence.
Then the invention of mysterious hidden cancelling rotations, that can never be detected!
And this ill-logic:
“but a look the engineering shows clearly its two different motions with two different causes.”
For a planet in a Kepler orbit with no rotation evident, there is no such ‘engineering’ to look at!
It like the Joseph Smith’s mysterious ‘Golden Plates’ that gave birth to Mormonism. There are no plates to look at.
There is no evidence of two counter rotations hiding in a Kepler orbit.
Thats where religious belief is required, Bill.
Nate says:
Bill, the only things pulled out of assholes are coming from your side!
Declaring motions observed by Kepler and explained by Newton impossible. But unable to offer a shred of evidence.
======================
Nate you are a lying sack of BS!
I have been asking you to provide your source that claims an orbiting moon can maintain the orientation of its particles with respect to distant stars and you have never come up with a single source much less one from Newton or Kepler.
So that makes you a sack of BS up until you provide such a source.
Bill,
You declared the ‘truth’ that a Kepler/Newton orbit without rotation is impossible.
You gaves us the divine revelation of two hidden counter rotations in every Kepler orbit.
But few have faith in what your arse angels are telling you.
Show us the plates!
Still waiting for the source of that Kepler orbit. . . .without rotation. Kepler orbits cover all orbits with rotations. And still one without any rotation has never been sighted Nate.
“Kepler orbits cover all orbits with rotations.”
Indeed. No particular rotation rate is required for a Kepler/Newton orbit. And indeed, in our own solar system there are all sorts of rotation rates. No law of physics says that rotation rate cannot be 0.
That is a ‘law’ from your ass, Bill.
“And still one without any rotation has never been sighted Nate.”
I showed you one in a demo of a Kepler orbit. For that one you simply declared that it contained two hidden cancelling rotations.
If one is sighted, you will simply make the same ass-derived claim!
The point is there will always be a flimsy excuse to evade this reality.
Nate says:
“Kepler orbits cover all orbits with rotations.”
Indeed. No particular rotation rate is required for a Kepler/Newton orbit.
========================
That makes you a liar Nate. Obviously I did not deny Kepler orbits as you claimed.
An orbiting body that doesn’t change its orientation re: a distant star as it orbits a planet is in fact impossible due to the laws of physics.
An orbiting moon with no change in orientation re: a distant star will instantaneously begin to accelerate its orbital spin.
thus by the laws of physics the tidal locked state is a state of all rotation being on its orbital axis.
The point here is an orbit is NOT translation and cannot be a translation. One can only imitate the appearance of a translation via a counter rotation.
Only in the rarified and inexperienced world of academia do concepts run amok and appearances can deceive until you actually try to duplicate the effect through engineering or a close examination of the natural engineering.
So a moon enters and any and all independent spin is eventually converted into a full rotation around the orbited body, like little bowls floating on the surface of a larger bowl with a spin on it’s axis. It may take a long time but it is in a process of acceleration. . . .it isn’t sitting still. It is on a path toward being still re: the orbital axis.
Its inevitable and explains why no other state is possible without a continuing force to keep the object spinning on its own axis in addition to the rotation/spin on the orbital axis.
the best it can do is pass through a zero spin re: the stars (from a counterspin) toward the full rotation observed from the stars for a tidal locked moon.
“An orbiting moon with no change in orientation re: a distant star will instantaneously begin to accelerate its orbital spin.”
Oh? Which direction? Never crosses 0?
Sure thing.
Guess you’re not aware of Venus backward rotation?
Getting desperate.
“the best it can do is pass through a zero spin re: the stars (from a counterspin) toward the full rotation observed from ”
Oh I see you agree that, indeed 0 is possible!
Good time to stop.
Nate says:
Guess you’re not aware of Venus backward rotation?
Getting desperate.
Oh I see you agree that, indeed 0 is possible!
Good time to stop.
———————
Nope not quite yet. Though we are getting very close. Thank you for acknowledging what we have gone over so far.
Yes zero spin is possible as a decelerating rotation passes through zero and begins to accelerate again. But that doesn’t help your case.
You still don’t have a translation which requires a movement and the necessity for the rotational acceleration/deceleration to end so it can pause at zero. And that is the impossible part.
It must actually stop on zero for some period of time . . . .which it does not so there is zero opportunity for the orbiting to stop changing its orientation.
Keep listening Nate you are learning. Congratulations!
“The point here is an orbit is NOT translation and cannot be a translation.”
Based on what? Certainly not Kinematics.
We have already agreed that the orbit I showed you with 0 rotation is a POSSIBLE motion.
“One can only imitate the appearance of a translation via a counter rotation.”
And yet there is no evidence that you can present for this hidden counter rotation that you imagine, hope, dream is there.
It is something that cannot be proven or disproven, thus it is not falsifiable.
As thoroughly explained, Bill, that makes it religion, not science.
“The point here is an orbit is NOT translation and cannot be a translation.”
Based on what? Certainly not Kinematics.
We have already agreed that the orbit I showed you with 0 rotation is a POSSIBLE motion.
“One can only imitate the appearance of a translation via a counter rotation.”
And yet there is no evidence that you can present for this hidden counter rotation that you imagine, hope, dream is there.
It is something that cannot be proven or disproven, thus it is not falsifiable.
As thoroughly explained, Bill, that makes it religion, not science.
The point is that a 0-rotation orbit, a translation on a path thru space is simply a reference point, the orbital portion of a planet’s motion.
It is exactly what Newton’s solution of the two-body gravity problem, agreeing with Keplers laws, gave us.
It is what the equation Newton derived for a Kepler orbit specifies.
There is no particular orientation, rotation rate, rotation direction, or rotational axis specified in his equation for an orbit.
Our planets/moons have a rich variety of rotational rates, directions, and axes. But all have Kepler -Newton orbits.
Thus on tables of planetary properties, rotational parameters (rate, direction, axis) are separately specified from orbital parameters.
Its not like there aren’t huge clues as to when one transitions from reality to pure analytical work.
For an orbiting the moon the clue is as big as a full moon on a clear night.
The analysis divides one real motion into two imaginary motions.
They are a moon rotating on its own axis plus a point mass rotating around the COM of a planet. Of course a science class sycophant is going to worship the analysis rather than the reality, when in fact the analysis simply a brilliant simplification of a much more difficult analysis that one encounters in measuring such things as angular momentum of a moon orbiting a planet.
LOL! the clue is that a point mass doesn’t exist in reality its simply a derivation of one motion simplified for the sake of analysis.
Its a moon not a point mass that goes around the earth.
Likewise the moon rotating on its own axis is analytically identical to what is missing in the mathematics of a point mass vs an actual moon orbiting a planet.
Where the science sycophant has severely erred is in failing to realize that a) two real motions are separable; and b) two unreal analytical derivations are inseparable.
e.g. you can’t have a planet go around the earth without both the orbit and the spin. All you can do to alter that is to add spins.
So this is a BS claim on your part: ‘And yet there is no evidence that you can present for this hidden counter rotation that you imagine, hope, dream is there.’
The evidence is right in front of your nose. To have real motions. The motions you derive must all be possible. Since a point mass traveling around a planet isn’t a real possibility due to the fact there is no such thing as a point mass, that cannot be a motion.
Therefore, a second real motion, a counter rotation for example, would be the only possible explanation for what appeared to be a translating orbiting moon. But one really doesn’t need to worry about that until a moon that appears to be translating around a planet is found, which is highly unlikely.
The likelihood of an orbiting planet randomly having a counter rotation on its internal axis of the exact same period as the orbit is infinitesimally small and thus its not likely such a moon would ever be found, though it would take a period of observation to confirm the timing.
And you haven’t even yet addressed the elephant in the room. That the two motions you have divided an orbiting body into are inseparable. One cannot separate a motion into a motion that doesn’t exist and another pretend motion that doesn’t involve an object moving. . . .keeping in mind a point mass is not an object.
Once you accept the reality that you can’t divide the motion of an orbiting body into two motions unless there is an additional motion like an independent spin on an object in addition to the orbital motion of an object. . . .then the correct answer might dawn on you.
“Breaking it up mathematically for analysis isn’t a real break up. Thus you have concluded a real physical outcome arising from what is really just a brilliant simplification of analysis by Newton and Kepler.”
Yes, sure. That is always the way physics is advanced.
Physics is simply representing the motion with math that can be communicated to other humans. It makes predictions that are testable with later observations, like Kepler/Newton were able to do with the planet positions and eclipses, etc.
But I hope you agree that the mathematical representation of reality is not actually EQUAL TO reality.
So the way Newton and Kepler did it, and the way Astronomy does it TODAY is simply the most useful way of representing the motion.
Again, all astronomical tables list orbital and rotational properties as separate parameters.
It is useful because, as noted, rotational axes are not typically the same as orbital axes.
To mix them up, as you guys seem to prefer, is an unnecessary complication and serves no purpose.
For example, a distant planet is observed to have some rotation rate. You guys would insist on referencing that to whatever nearby object it is orbiting, even if we can’t see that object.
That makes no sense.
“It must actually stop on zero for some period of time . . . .which it does not so there is zero opportunity for the orbiting to stop changing its orientation.”
OMG,
This is, unfortunately, a quite regular pattern with you Bill.
The pattern is:
Argue, argue, argue, lose the argument, MOVE-the-goal-post, argue, argue, argue, lose the argument, MOVE-the-goal-post, on and on and on.
It is absolutely 4th-grade playground standard.
“Where the science sycophant has severely erred is in failing to realize that a) two real motions are separable; and b) two unreal analytical derivations are inseparable.”
If we have a moon orbiting in an elliptical orbit with no apparent rotation, your claim is that there are two separable cancelling rotations?
But you offer NO EVIDENCE of this. It is just something you claimed, and now double down on.
Now as a matter of fact, if you claim one of these motions is simply the Orbit, and one of these is a counter axial rotation, then how do they actually cancel?
The orbit, being elliptical, the one you want to call a rotation, has a varying angular velocity.
Then the ‘counter axial rotation’ would also have to have variable angular velocity in order to actually cancel the orbital part.
But of course, that would violate conservation of angular momentum!
Thus it is clear that these cannot be real rotations, and are not separable or measurable.
But I await some new flimsy excuses.
Nate says:
Physics is simply representing the motion with math that can be communicated to other humans. It makes predictions that are testable with later observations, like Kepler/Newton were able to do with the planet positions and eclipses, etc.
But I hope you agree that the mathematical representation of reality is not actually EQUAL TO reality.
So the way Newton and Kepler did it, and the way Astronomy does it TODAY is simply the most useful way of representing the motion.
Again, all astronomical tables list orbital and rotational properties as separate parameters.
—————————–
Glad you agree with me Nate. I started in this thread months ago noting the mathematical derivations were only maintained as a convenience. Since astronomers are not actually building worlds they really don’t need to know anything about how they are constructed.
But it gets aggravating when ignorant sycophants start arguing beyond convenience and insisting the moon rotates on its own axis and that the orbit is a translation and a plethora of other nonsense.
x
x
x
x
Nate says:
For example, a distant planet is observed to have some rotation rate. You guys would insist on referencing that to whatever nearby object it is orbiting, even if we can’t see that object.
That makes no sense.
—————————
Indeed that makes no sense. But its a misrepresentation to what the non-spinners are saying.
Yes indeed science, via the big bang theory, postulates that everything in the universe is orbiting something else, thus everything does have a rotation on some axis somewhere with some period that could range up to many billions of years.
But non-spinners do not look at a planet, note that it is rotating and blame that rotation on an orbital axis as you are suggesting above.
Non-spinners note that most objects have independent spins in addition to their orbital rotations and most frequently those independent spins are much faster than the orbital rotation. So we don’t just go out suggesting the rotation is due to the orbit, especially one we cannot see.
. . .far from it. Most objects in the universe are not tidal locked even though they may be headed in that direction at any point in time, sufficient other traumatic events are occurring in the universe apparently to create and perhaps even maintain actual spins on internal axes.
Nate says:
Where the science sycophant has severely erred is in failing to realize that a) two real motions are separable; and b) two unreal analytical derivations are inseparable.
If we have a moon orbiting in an elliptical orbit with no apparent rotation, your claim is that there are two separable cancelling rotations?
But you offer NO EVIDENCE of this. It is just something you claimed, and now double down on.
Now as a matter of fact, if you claim one of these motions is simply the Orbit, and one of these is a counter axial rotation, then how do they actually cancel?
The orbit, being elliptical, the one you want to call a rotation, has a varying angular velocity.
Then the counter axial rotation would also have to have variable angular velocity in order to actually cancel the orbital part.
But of course, that would violate conservation of angular momentum!
———————
Wow you really don’t know your physics Nate.
Angular momentum isn’t represented by angular velocity. It is represented by a combination of angular velocity and the radius of the orbit. Realizing that is now Kepler discovered that elliptical orbits sweep out equal areas in equal intervals of time.
You better hit the books Nate before opening your mouth. And before you draw stupid conclusions like: ”Thus it is clear that these cannot be real rotations, and are not separable or measurable.
But I await some new flimsy excuses.”
No excuses Nate, worse than flimsy is your stupid and wrongheaded argument.
“But non-spinners do not look at a planet, note that it is rotating and blame that rotation on an orbital axis as you are suggesting above.
Non-spinners note that most objects have independent spins in addition to their orbital rotations and most frequently those independent spins are much faster than the orbital rotation. So we don’t just go out suggesting the rotation is due to the orbit, especially one we cannot see.”
Clearly not what I said, Bill.
I said “You guys would insist on referencing that to whatever nearby object it is orbiting, even if we can’t see that object.”
Just as you do with the Moon. The Moon has rotation at rate 1/(27.3 days) wrt the stars. That is what a distant Astronomer would measure. You guys insist that this is due to its orbital angular velocity around the Earth, and thus should be subtracted! So that its independent spin must be 0.
Even though they are around different axes!
With the Earth, you insist that we subtract its solar orbital angular velocity from its rotation rate wrt the stars (at least DREMT has) to find its independent spin rate. Which of course makes no sense since its rotation is around a very different axis!
None this makes any sense, and simply adds unnecessary complications to observing and reporting planetary motions.
“Angular momentum isnt represented by angular velocity. It is represented by a combination of angular velocity and the radius of the orbit.”
Did I ever say that? Show me where dimwit-troll!
I said:
“The orbit, being elliptical, the one you want to call a rotation, has a varying angular velocity.”
Which is absolutely true.
Then I said
“The spin, obeys conservation of angular momentum, and has constant angular velocity.”
Which is absolutely true.
The angular momentum of a spinning sphere has nothing to do with the orbit radius, and is proportional to its angular velocity.
Nate says:
I said:
“The orbit, being elliptical, the one you want to call a rotation, has a varying angular velocity.”
Which is absolutely true.
Then I said
“The spin, obeys conservation of angular momentum, and has constant angular velocity.”
Which is absolutely true.
The angular momentum of a spinning sphere has nothing to do with the orbit radius, and is proportional to its angular velocity
———————
Bullshitt!!! You said, and I quote:
”The orbit, being elliptical, the one you want to call a rotation, has a varying angular velocity.
Then the ‘counter axial rotation’ would also have to have variable angular velocity in order to actually cancel the orbital part.
But of course, that would violate conservation of angular momentum!”
Nate how could it violate the conservation of angular momentum if the angular momentum doesn’t vary during an elliptical orbit?
The angular velocity varies as you point out but the angular momentum does not. If you are not stupidly equating the variable angular velocity to a change in angular momentum then you need to explain more carefully what your point is.
But the way you wrote it very clearly linked angular velocity variations to variations in angular momentum. That ain’t happening. . . .and only a person ignorant in physics would believe so.
“Bullshitt!!! You said, and I quote:
‘The orbit, being elliptical, the one you want to call a rotation, has a varying angular velocity.
Then the ‘counter axial rotation’ would also have to have variable angular velocity in order to actually cancel the orbital part.
But of course, that would violate conservation of angular momentum!
The angular velocity varies as you point out but the angular momentum does not. If you are not stupidly equating the variable angular velocity to a change in angular momentum then you need to explain more carefully what your point is.
Nate how could it violate the conservation of angular momentum if the angular momentum doesnt vary during an elliptical orbit?”
Bill, use a little critical thinking skills here.
By now you should know very well that physics is MY field, not yours. If you think I’m saying something that violates the laws of physics, chances are VERY good that YOU are misinterpreting what I am saying!
And that is the case here.
The angular momentum doesnt vary during the orbit. But the orbital angular velocity does vary, because the radius varies. This is well known for a Kepler orbit.
And that is what I said:
“The orbit, being elliptical, the one you want to call a rotation, has a varying angular velocity.”
Nor does the spin angular momentum vary during one orbit. (as I said it should obey conservation of angular momentum!).
But spin angular velocity should NOT VARY, since radius of the Moon is not varying.
But YOU claim the rotation due to SPIN is cancelling the rotation due to ORBIT.
Exactly as I said:
“Then the ‘counter’ axial rotation would also have to have variable angular velocity in order to actually cancel the orbital part.”
But as I noted:
“But of course, that would violate conservation of angular momentum!”
Because as I said above: ‘spin angular velocity should NOT VARY, since radius of the Moon is not varying.’
We have
1. Orbital angular velocity, which varies.
2. Spin angular velocity which cannot vary.
3. YOUR claim that 1 and 2 should produce rotations that CANCEL
Thus it is #3, YOUR claim of TWO cancelling rotations, that is the problem here, which is INCONSISTENT with 1 and 2.
Nate says:
But YOU claim the rotation due to SPIN is cancelling the rotation due to ORBIT.
——————-
Thats incorrect Nate. I never said that.
I said: ””e.g. you can’t have a planet go around the earth without both the orbit and the spin. All you can do to alter that is to add spins.”
This second motion doesn’t cancel or change any existing angular momentum from the orbital rotation at all. I never said it would!!
It has no effect on the rotational energies generated by the orbit. It is another separate motion that simply would provide the appearance of a translating moon that you want to claim, without a shred of evidence, to be the default motion of an orbit.
But its not the default motion as can clearly be seen by observing the universe. You can’t even find such a motion.
+
+
+
+
Nate says:
The angular momentum doesnt vary during the orbit. But the orbital angular velocity does vary, because the radius varies. This is well known for a Kepler orbit.
But of course, that would violate conservation of angular momentum!
Exactly as I said:
Then the ‘counter’ axial rotation would also have to have variable angular velocity in order to actually cancel the orbital part.
——————-
Well of course you need to explain how this alleged violation of angular momentum occurs Nate.
Oh, it can’t occur!!!! Gee, I never claimed it would occur!!! Yet that is your argument???? ROTFLMAO!!! Nate you are arguing with yourself and doing nothing but talking gibberish.
This whole idea of ‘cancelling’ was originally your invention when you said:
”What you are showing is no surprise. That an internal rotation and an external rotation can cancel to produce non-rotation.
Nothing wrong with that.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-922779
Now you want to ascribe your nonsense to me.
My position on the matter has been clear as a bell:
I very clearly said: ”e.g. you can’t have a planet go around the earth without both the orbit and the spin. All you can do to alter that is to add spins.”
You either need to learn how to read or stop making shitt up! You are the one cancelling stuff, I am just adding highly unlikely precision energies to get to your nonsensical so-called translating moon. If you actually think the world is engineered like that naturally you are nuts.
Nate says:
But YOU claim the rotation due to SPIN is cancelling the rotation due to ORBIT.
–
Thats incorrect Nate. I never said that.
I said: ”e.g. you cannot have a planet go around the earth without both the orbit and the spin. All you can do to alter that is to add spins.”
This second motion doesnt cancel or change any existing angular momentum from the orbital rotation at all. I never said it would!!
It has no effect on the rotational energies generated by the orbit. It is another separate motion that simply would provide the appearance of a translating moon that you want to claim, without a shred of evidence, to be the default motion of an orbit.
But its not the default motion as can clearly be seen by observing the universe. You cant even find such a motion.
+
+
+
+
Nate says:
The angular momentum doesnt vary during the orbit. But the orbital angular velocity does vary, because the radius varies. This is well known for a Kepler orbit.
But of course, that would violate conservation of angular momentum!
Exactly as I said:
Then the ”counter” axial rotation would also have to have variable angular velocity in order to actually cancel the orbital part.
–
Well of course you need to explain how this alleged violation of angular momentum occurs Nate.
Oh, it cant occur!!!! Gee, I never claimed it would occur!!! Yet that is your argument???? ROTFLMAO!!! Nate you are arguing with yourself and doing nothing but talking gibberish.
This whole idea of ”cancelling” was originally your invention when you said:
”What you are showing is no surprise. That an internal rotation and an external rotation can cancel to produce non-rotation.
Nothing wrong with that.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-922779
Now you want to ascribe your nonsense to me.
My position on the matter has been clear as a bell:
I very clearly said: ”e.g. you cannot have a planet go around the earth without both the orbit and the spin. All you can do to alter that is to add spins.”
You either need to learn how to read or stop making shitt up! You are the one cancelling stuff, I am just adding highly unlikely precision energies to get to your nonsensical so-called translating moon. If you actually think the world is engineered like that naturally you are nuts.
‘But YOU claim the rotation due to SPIN is cancelling the rotation due to ORBIT.
–
Thats incorrect Nate. I never said that.”
Yep thats exactly what you have been saying, Bill. You are hopelessly full of shit
“If those three dots on a mythical moon are not changing position; it is because it is involved in two rotations.
In addition to undergoing an orbital rotation around an external axis, it also rotates exactly one time synchronistic in the opposite direction of its orbital rotation on its internal axis.”
Sorry Nate but the wheel is engineered to produce two separate motions that cancel each other out. Both motions have their own momentum vectors that result in hanging object from changing its orientation.
Two axes with rotations in opposite directions may look like a translation, may imitate a translation, but at its heart its two rotations.
One can only imitate the appearance of a translation via a counter rotation.”
And now what are claiming is disproven.
Goodbye, Bill.
Yes Nate I did say it was two motions. But it is not a violation of the conservation of angular momentum as you claim.
This is exactly what DREMT has been trying to penetrate your skull on for months.
You have been claiming no spin at all is no rotation on any axis. And to further your bullshitt you have claimed that two rotations that appear as a translation would be a violation of the conservation of angular momentum.
It is absolutely unbelievable that physics is your profession!
“But YOU claim the rotation due to SPIN is cancelling the rotation due to ORBIT.
–
Thats incorrect Nate. I never said that.”
So its absolutely clear that your statement here was a LIE, no matter how you try to spin it.
And conservation of angular momentum (CAM) DOES rule it out, as thoroughly explained.
Because CAM requires CONSTANT spin rotation, while CAM allows a VARIABLE orbital rotation.
A CONSTANT spin rotation CANNOT cancel a VARIABLE orbital rotation to produce the effect you have been claiming:
“two separate motions that cancel each other out.”
“may look like a translation, may imitate a translation, but at its heart its two rotations”
Nate said:
”But YOU claim the rotation due to SPIN is cancelling the rotation due to ORBIT.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1057872
I said:
”Thats incorrect Nate. I never said that.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1060412
Nate then says:
”So its absolutely clear that your statement here was a LIE, no matter how you try to spin it.”
Obviously you are so stupid somebody needs to hold your hand to remind you what has been discussed.
Nate stupidly continues:
”And conservation of angular momentum (CAM) DOES rule it out, as thoroughly explained.”
No Nate motions don’t eliminate motions they can though eliminate the change of position of another motion.
I can’t believe I am having to explain to you something that probably every pre-schooler who ever played in a sandbox quickly learns. Child picks up his truck and moves it. Then he picks it back up and moves back to where it was. Child gasps in amazement concludes a law of physics was violated. ROTFLMAO!
Low solar activity and easterly QBOs are already causing circulation blockage in the lower stratosphere. This will cause Arctic airflow in various regions of the northern hemisphere. Arctic air will reach Europe on October 11.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_NH_2021.png
ren …”Low solar activity and easterly QBOs are already causing circulation blockage in the lower stratosphere. ”
***
Thanks, Ren.
RLH wrote –
“orbital motion without axial rotation’ means that there are no sunrise or sunset on the Moon. As there are, it is obviously not true for the Moon.”
No, it means that the Moon’s parent body (the Earth around which it falls) does not rise and set in the lunar sky.
Just as the Sun would not rise or set if the Earth was tidally locked to the Sun (around which the Earth falls).
Orbital motion for the Moon is indicated by the Earth being at one focus of the Moon’s elliptical orbit.
Feel free to fire of another silly gotcha, starting with “So that means . . .”. Or just play more silly semantic games.
The Moon orbits the Sun. The Earth only gets to play a bit part.
The Sun’s influence on the Moon is greater than the Earth’s as any calculation regarding mass, distance, etc. will show.
P.S. Orbits are only to do with the path. The orientation is a separate affair.
rlh…”P.S. Orbits are only to do with the path. The orientation is a separate affair”.
***
There is no path, an orbit is simply and instant by instant relationship between the Earth and the Moon. In other words, it’s an imaginary path created in the human mind of the summation of each instant.
The orientation is a product of curvilinear translation. Already explained that with the airliner orbiting the Equator at 35,000 feet.
An object follows a path to make an orbit of something else. Curvilinear translation is your word salad for an orbit.
You wrote –
“P.S. Orbits are only to do with the path. The orientation is a separate affair.”
And the Moon orbits the Earth, perpetually falling towards the Earth. The orbital path is elliptical, with the Earth being at one focus. If you believe the Moon is actually falling perpetually towards the Sun, in line with the Law of Universal Gravitation, you will have to indulge in some very silly semantic games.
I know you don’t like it, but that’s the reality. The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, with one face perpetually facing the Earth, not the Sun. As a result, there is no Earthrise or Earthset seen from the surface of the Moon. It does not rotate about an internal axis.
If you claim the Moon is not orbiting the Earth, but rather the Sun, then you probably realise that the same reasoning has the Earth orbiting whatever the Sun is orbiting! The centre of the Milky Way galaxy? It gets pretty silly pretty quickly.
swenson…”If you claim the Moon is not orbiting the Earth, but rather the Sun…”
***
RLH thinks the Moon has momentum about the Sun. He thinks, if gravity was suddenly turned off, that the Moon would continue to orbit the Sun.
If there was no gravity, then nothing would orbit anything.
Tha paths than the Moon and the Erath follow wrt the Sun are well known and documented.
Oh look, the anomaly for Sep 2021 is higher than the anomaly for Dec 2020. Does this mean the world is in a warming trend again?
Or did I just apply the 2 main dumbass metrics used in this blog to talk about a trend?
Barry, the standard dumbass response to facts is to:
(A) shriek
(B) deny
(C) start talking about the moon
b,
DMT wrote previously –
“You idiot. There is no such thing as “ozone radiation”.
Go back to school please.”
All matter above absolute zero radiates energy. As NASA puts it –
“The Stefan-Boltzmann law, a fundamental law of physics, explains the relationship between an object’s temperature and the amount of radiation that it emits. This law (expressed mathematically as E = σT4) states that all objects with temperatures above absolute zero (0K or -273C or -459F) emit radiation at a rate proportional to the fourth power of their absolute temperature.”
Others can decide what to believe, and how reliable DMT might be as a source of information. He is probably stupid enough to believe that air cannot be heated with IR radiation unless it contains miracle “greenhouse” gases!
If so, what a delusional fool he is! The very embodiment of a climate crank!
barry…”Does this mean the world is in a warming trend again?”
***
No, Barry, it means you can take the bag off your head that you were forced to wear when it started showing cooling. You will likely have to put the bag back on early next year.
Gordon’s stupidity seems to have no bottom.
Earlier, DMT wrote (in a fit of thinking that obscure nonsense indicates intelligence) –
“”The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles”
A prize for the first person to spot the problem with this statement.”
Unless the prize is to watch DMT repeatedly poke himself in the eye with a hot needle, he is unlikely to get many takers.
Of course there is no prize! Just another example of a delusional climate crackpot making promises he has no intention of fulfilling.
What an idiot he is!
As I predicted.
Idiot non-scientists start complaining.
The problem is obvious to any science student !
C’mon – have another look at the statement and tell me what is wrong.
INS,
Who’s complaining?
Why do you think anyone should take any notice of your request? In what insane fantasy do you imagine anybody should “tell” you anything?
You wrote –
“As I predicted.”
And? Is this “prediction” supposed to be important to someone?
If you have a “problem”, maybe you could specify what the “problem” is. Or just poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle. That at least would get a laugh or two.
Go away, you silly little climate crank.
Calm down.
There is no point in getting agitated simply because you don’t know the answer.
DMT,
What are you babbling about?
What “answer” is it that you are claiming that I don’t know?
Are you another one of those idiots who claim they can read minds?
Questions, questions!
Go away, you silly little delusional climate crank.
He’s obsessing, I suspect, about square miles and miles square.
Either way the number of square meters the climate stations cover is a tiny, tiny fraction of the Earth’s surface.
And no, I didn’t create the original quote (or correct it).
Let us say that each point sample made by a climate station covers 100m by 100m at best. The Earth has approximately 510,100 million m. The ratio that the climate stations we have now or have ever had is a tiny, tiny fraction of that. Almost 0 in fact.
nope.
You think that point samples are not approximately 0% of the Earth’s surface?
RLH,
No let’s not say
“Let us say that each point sample made by a climate station covers 100m by 100m at best. ”
It’s actually much better than that, See Hansen and Lebedeff.
“The temperature changes at mid- and high latitude stations separated by less than 1000 km are shown to be highly correlated;”
You are close, only off by a factor of 10,000.
Well done.
Apart from using ridiculous imperial units.
Maybe the clue is in the numbers?
I think you have the correct answer.
Let’s do it in real numbers
https://www.themeasureofthings.com/results.php?p=1&comp=area&unit=m2&amt=148940000000000&sort=pr
“The Earth has a land area of 148,940,000,000,000.00000000000000000000 square meters. Only an estimated one-eighth of this area or 18,618,000,000,000 square meters is inhabitable by humans, with uninhabitable terrain such as deserts and high mountains covering the rest.”
You are getting warm.
Only in a cyclic fashion.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-1.jpeg
The funny thing about the Solar science is how little we know about how the Sun actually works, we can observe a number of things happening but we have no idea what the causes are.
The run of the mill climate climate shysters are even more clueless about how the sun works and what it does other than that it shines.
The average radio amateur knows a lot more than the so called climate scientists. I too was becoming a radio amateur 50 years ago but dropped out when analog things started turning digital.
https://youtu.be/28TloH_ZnCU?t=2238
eben …”The run of the mill climate climate shysters are even more clueless about how the sun works and what it does other than that it shines”.
***
Declaring the solar intensity as 1300 watts and change at TOA is a lie in itself. It’s an average of the intensities of an extremely broad bandwidth of frequencies. If the intensity of any of those frequencies change, especially in the more intense UV range, the Sun could be hotter without changing the average much.
My unscientific theory is that it has been hotter the past decade or so around Vancouver, Canada and I base that on the effect it has on my skin. There is likely more intense radiation from the UV end of the spectrum, making the Sun feel uncomfortably hot.
Gordon Robertson is correct, less ozone in the stratosphere means more UVB near the surface.
“The emission core of the Mg II doublet (280 nm) exhibits the largest natural solar irradiance variability above 240 nm. It is frequently used as a proxy for spectral solar irradiance variability from the UV to EUV associated with the 11-yr solar cycle (22-yr magnetic cycle) and solar rotation (27d).”
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2021.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone
binny…”You are absolutely right: we must wait until surface data is available (NOAA oceans, HadSST).
Because UAH measures temperatures of around 264 K i.e. -9 C, at an average altitude of about 4 km”.
***
I am promoting you to blithering idiot. You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
The centre frequency of oxygen emission frequency may be located at 4 km (weighting function) but the bandwidth of that channel extends to the surface. In other words, the AMSU data collected extends to the surface.
Look at this weighting function. Channel 5 peaks at around 4 km but the curve extends on the lower end to the surface where it is still collecting a good proportion of O2 emissions near the surface.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/AMSU-weighting-functions_fig9_252235249
Furthermore, NOAA fudges their data to show warming and Had-curt uses NOAA data.
I have pointed this out several times. NOAA declared 2014 the hottest year ever based on a probability of 48%. Only a blatant fudger/cheater would manipulate statistics so egregiously to show warming that does not exist.
Robertson
Regardless what you write, it shows lack of intelligence, experience, knowledge.
Roy Spencer has explained ad nauseam that O2 emissions collected near the surface cause tremendous biases, especially above the oceans.
But such things can’t reach your crackpot brain.
Feel free to name me a ‘blithering idiot’. You are anyway one of those here who insult the most (‘cheating SOB’ and the like).
In comparison to what you are, that ‘blithering idiot’ sounds to me like a honorific distinction.
binny…”Are you in between so incredibly dumb that you even dont see that this graph represents solar data for only FOURTY EIGHT HOURS ?”
***Words from a blithering idiot. On his worst day, Ren is a light year ahead of you in intelligence.
Currently, the fastest temperature decline in the equatorial Pacific is in the Nino 4 region.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
I wonder why.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
This creates a stronger wind that brings up cooler water from below the surface.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202110.gif
That assumes that the warm skin of surface waters is not effected by overall gravitational effects of the Moon, Sun and planets also. You need to add in surface pressures too (which it turn will drive the winds you mention).
Again – I think it is unfair that in the title it is +0.25C and reference is changed with the excuse that it does not change the trend.
And fun fact – more C02 makes your food less nutricious – more carbs, less proteins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_K2Ata6XY
The trend is now changing in the Arctic.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/September2021/202109_Map.png
The coldest grid cell was centered on the Greenland Icecap dropping to -4.2 C (-7.5 °F). Cooler than average regions were also found either side of the Dateline north of 50 °N, far western Russia and east of Northern Japan.
https://i.ibb.co/vXJwtHC/r02-Chukchi-Sea-ts-4km.png
What I mean was long term trend. You are showing only what is now or last month.
The long term trend in the Artic is an ~60 year cycle.
Certainly not.
Try to find out who did evaluate HadISST1 ICE
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
for the Arctic since beginning, and look at the time series.
I did that for the period 1951-now, that doesn’t go far enough in the past:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebdqPl_tmxazXAMchHEU87zVvvPdonef/view
The cyclic behavior you are talking about is only one component of the whole.
Of course: like the AMO, you see the cycle when you detrend the series!
But then you fool yourself, because you then eliminate the melting trend behind the cycle.
Talk to Judith Curry who published a paper saying just that. There is an ~60 year cycle to Artic weather.
If you were able to srart reading correctly, you wouldn’t unnecessary insist.
I repeat for the eternal everything-better-knower:
The cyclic behavior you are talking about is only one component of the whole.
Of course: like the AMO, you see the cycle when you detrend the series!
But then you fool yourself, because you then eliminate the melting trend behind the cycle.
There is a cycle, detrended or not. Your own graphs show that.
I don’t think Judith has enough data to show a 60 year trend in arctic data.
Detrended AMO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/amo.jpeg
The trend that is removed is less than the cycle in height.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo
How many cycles do you need to establish a cyclical trend?
What’s the conversion from AMO index to global temperature?
Here you can observe solar activity in real time. You can see very few active sunspots.
https://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/swx-overview-small.gif
Solar wind speeds are not expected to increase in the coming days.
https://i.ibb.co/QnVZZpg/pobrane.png
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2021
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2021 was awarded “for groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of complex systems” with one half jointly to Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann “for the physical modelling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming” and the other half to Giorgio Parisi “for the discovery of the interplay of disorder and fluctuations in physical systems from atomic to planetary scales.”
TM,
Not the first Nobel Prize awarded for something later proved to be totally wrong, and probably not the last.
Couldn’t possibly get physics wrong? In 1938, Fermi revived a Nobel Prize for discovering two new elements – Ausonium and Hesperium. Unfortunately, these elements don’t exist. Fermi fooled both himself and the Nobel Committee.
You quoted “Syukuro Manabe demonstrated how increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to increased temperatures at the surface of the Earth.” Well, no, he didn’t, any more than Fermi discovered Ausonium and Hesperium.
Nobody has demonstrated that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface, results in the thermometer becoming hotter. Fantasy.
No magical free energy from CO2.
Swenson at 5:42 AM
off your face already, huh?
TM follows the pattern of other cult idiots. He finds something he believes supports his nonsense. When he brings it here, it gets debunked, and TM gets upset. It’s a pattern we see often.
Manabe is NOT a physicist, yet he’s awarded the NP in “Physics”! The “old buddy” system at work.
Manabe makes the same mistake as others. He assumes CO2 warms the planet, then he “proves” CO2 warms the planet based on his false assumption. That ain’t science.
That why we end up with obvious anti-science like Earth tides can add energy to Moon! (That was some more nonsense from TM.)
Sorry Clint R,
But that spaghetti doesn’t stick to the wall.
Manabe didn’t assume CO2 warms the planet.
Troll bob validates my comment with his childish incompetence.
I only get concerned if the cult idiots ever agree with me.
Clint R,
You are just jealous because Manabe and others have passed more physics classes than you.
If you can prove Manabe assumed CO2 warms the planet, I’ll give you 50 bucks, and you can use RLH’s math to turn it into 5 Billions.
bob rushes back to validate my comment even more.
Like someone once said, “You can’t have too much validation”.
Thanks, bob.
Yeah, Clint R,
I validated your comment as the pile of garbage that it is.
You didn’t support your claim.
You flunked out.
bob, your misrepresentations and personal attacks validate me, since you are a proven ignorant troll.
Thanks.
Please feel free to continue, but I don’t always have the time, or interest, to respond.
CLint R,
You made a claim, you failed to back it up.
Put up or shut up!
And you started the personal attacks!
“Troll bob validates my comment with his childish incompetence.”
Thanks for playing, but you lose.
That’s not a personal attack, bob. It’s REALITY.
You are a troll, childish, and incompetent.
If you weren’t such an incompetent troll, you could find the material that won Manabe the NP. Then, you could obtain the computer code for the subroutine that calculates the CO2 effect. Finally, you could make a flow diagram that would indicate it’s the code that is providing the imaginary CO2 warming effect.
Or, you could go to one of his previous “papers”:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/ManabeWetherald1967.pdf
Where you would find in the abstract:
“According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C.”
Assumptons, extimates, and invalid computer models ain’t science.
Maybe it’s time for some of your immature profanity now?
Before Manabe’s paper it was unclear why the atmosphere had the temperature profile (lapse rate) that it does. Manabe’s work explained all that. It is important in atmospheric physics and meteorology.
Nobel well deserved.
If someone thinks they can find the flaw in the work, that no one else has found in 50+ years, please show us what it is!
So now Clint R has a tantrum and throws more spaghetti on the wall, hoping it will stick.
Posts links to papers he doesn’t read and doesn’t understand!
That ain’t science!
Nate, heat transfer through a medium usually exhibits a “lapse rate”. It’s not a mystery.
They just don’t teach basic physics in your keyboard school.
“why it has the temperature profile (lapse rate) that it does”
The specific lapse rate that our atmosphere has, on average, was not understood before Manabe’s model explained it. It introduced ‘radiative convective equilibrium’.
Next time maybe read the work before dismissing it.
“Fermi revived a Nobel Prize for discovering two new elements Ausonium and Hesperium. Unfortunately, these elements dont exist. Fermi fooled both himself and the Nobel Committee.”
Uhhhh no.
Fermi won the Nobel for using neutrons to transmute elements and to artificially produce radioactivity. He also explained Beta decay and discovered one of the four fundamental forces. Well deserved.
This is what Manabe says about current GCM’s:
SM: As the models get ever more complicated – or, as some people say, sophisticated – no one person can appreciate what’s going on inside them. One modeller can be an expert in one component of the model, but doesn’t know the other parts. But now it is impossible to do so. If you make a prediction based on the model and you don’t understand it very well then it is no better than a fortune-teller’s prediction.
( https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-syukuro-manabe )
Nice interview.
You missed the part where he says:
“Models have been very effective in predicting climate change”
You missed the part where climate modes have been held to be too warm also.
Where is that quote?
Unfortunately my responses are being censored/blocked/”moderated”.
And Manabe is probably wrong about their effectiveness and reliability …see:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/
and
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/17/new-confirmation-that-climate-models-overstate-atmospheric-warming-2/
Not to mention that these model simulations do not represent the
1910-1945 period well compared to the HAD CRUT record, which shows a
warming at a rate roughly equal to the 1970-2020 period, even though
the CO2 increase rate was a quarter of the latter rate!
And not to mention that these “reliable” models exhibit a roughly
factor of 2 difference even among themselves!
Anyone can predict the climate will change or that CO2 causes a
warming component…the question is how much.
That question is not settled.
RLH
For global average temperatures you can calculate how many stations you need.
The precision of the mean is measurement accuracy * 1/√sample size.
As sample size increases precision improves. For example, if you conservatively estimate that the measurement accuracy is +/- 1C, 100 samples will give the mean to +/- 0.1C, 10,000 will give you 0.01C.
Alternatively, take random sizes of sample from the data and plot confidence limits against sample size. The confidence limits improve as sample size increases. However the graph is not straight. It flattens when the 95% confidence limits of the mean equal the internal variation due to weather. This occurs when the 95% confidence limits are +/- 0.1C.
This means that for a global average you need enough stations to bring the 95% confidence limits down to +/- 0.1C. Any extra stations serve local needs, but won’t improve the quality of your global average.
In theory you could get by with 100 stations. In practice their distribution isn’t optimum , so they use 1500.
It’s rather like microscopy. You measure performance by magnification( apparent multiple of size) and resolution (the minimum distance at which you can separate two objects).
There’s no point using greater magnification when you reach the resolution limit. You don’t get extra detail, you just make the fuzz bigger.
EM,
Major problem.
No one can define “global average temperature”, in any meaningful sense.
Maybe you mean the average of randomly located temperature measuring instruments situated at various heights above ground, in enclosures of variable construction, and thermal properties, containing instruments generally calibrated to plus or minus 1 C or so at only two points spaced 100 C apart, and read by an assortment of semi-skilled lowly paid or voluntary observers.
By the way, only on land, and in relatively densely populated portions of the globe.
What was the “global average temperature” on 1 January 2010 – at 0900 UTC, say? Who calculated it, and where can their definitions, assumptions and calculations be found?
All fantasy – well meaning, perhaps but unsubstantiated fantasy nevertheless.
“The precision of the mean is measurement accuracy * 1/√sample size”
So for accurate climate models how big a grid do you need?
“As sample size increases precision improves. For example, if you conservatively estimate that the measurement accuracy is +/- 1C, 100 samples will give the mean to +/- 0.1C, 10,000 will give you 0.01C”
Ah that old delusion again.
You cannot make thermometers with +/-0.5c accuracy (at best) any more accurate than they actually are, regardless of how many you add together. Your statistics assume that all errors are distributed in a normal curve and randomly. Real measurements are just not like that.
They also assume that point samples faithfully represent the gaps in-between with simple linear interpolation. They don’t.
Nor do they represent the vertical temperature profiles that occur locally. Differently during day and night.
And don’t get me started on time distortions that will occur. A weather front travelling over a set of measurement points will display smears in the direction of its movement that no linear statistics applied later will correct.
RLH,
“Ah that old delusion again.”
Yeah, that old delusion, it’s called the Central Limit Theorem.
Perhaps you haven’t heard of it.
Google it and see how wrong you are.
So you think the average mean is directly relevant for U shaped distributions? Even though small variances at each end of it have large differences in the outcomes?
“In probability theory, the central limit theorem (CLT) establishes that, in many situations, when independent random variables are summed up, their properly normalized sum tends toward a normal distribution (informally a bell curve) even if the original variables themselves are not normally distributed”
The one thing that temperature has is that it is not random over days or years and place to place, but strongly correlated which CLT does not directly address.
Sure you can conclude that given enough results CLT then applies, but that assumes that the distribution of the mean turns out to be a bell curve in the end which temperature itself does not exhibit on any time scale.
“So you think the average mean is directly relevant for U shaped distributions?”
What do you think is a U shaped distribution, and how is it relevant here for T averaged over a month?
“The one thing that temperature has is that it is not random over days or years and place to place, but strongly correlated which CLT does not directly address.”
Because of weather, T is effectively randomized after a few days.
Weather is not strongly correlated when measured at sufficient distances. Example, in Cleveland and Denver.
Thus for a Global average of monthly temperatures, the CLT most certainly does apply.
“What do you think is a U shaped distribution”
Anything that resembles a sinusoidal waveform. Like temperature does on a daily/yearly basis.
Sure there is ‘random’ weather to be added to that but that is smaller than the daily/yearly thing. Otherwise where do the anomalies all come from?
The diurnal T oscillation is not the source of variation that leads to the statistical distribution of daily or monthly mean temperatures.
That quasi-random variation is caused by weather.
That variation is what leads ultimately to the statistical distribution of Monthly Hemispheric or Global Mean Temperature that are reported in the data sets.
The CLT is playing an essential role in arriving at the Gaussian distributions in the Mean T data sets.
Look at any record of monthly temperature anomalies in an arbitrary town.
I tried it for monthly T in South Bend, Indiana. I downloaded the data into a spreadsheet, and looked at the histogram of T anomaly.
Even at this single location the anomaly distribution closely resembled a Gaussian distribution. Try it yourself.
https://tinyurl.com/25bmvtp3
“That quasi-random variation is caused by weather”
Over periods of days/weeks only.
How about over periods of 15 years or more?
“How about over periods of 15 years or more?”
I detect a change in subject.
We were talking about the applicability of the CLT.
“How about over periods of 15 years or more?”
That is the signal of interest. The error on the measurement comes from much shorter time scale weather noise.
“We were talking about the applicability of the CLT”
We are indeed. CLT specifically says pure random events that are not correlated at all. Temperature data is not like that.
It uses the sample mean which is a poor statistic to use on cyclic data.
e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne_profile.jpg
“The error on the measurement comes from much shorter time scale weather noise”
Correlated data is not noise, or at least not in the way you mean it.
Again.
As explained several times:
1. T variation at a sufficient distance separation is un-correlated.
2. T variation at sufficient time difference (few days) is uncorrelated with its previous value, due to randomness of weather.
,
That is all we need to apply CLT.
It means that T averaged over time-distance scales large enough (much larger than correlation scale) will become Gaussian.
This is why monthly T anomaly for one location looks roughly Gaussian distributed.
This is why monthly T anomaly for the US48 looks very Gaussian distributed.
This is why monthly T anomaly for NH, SH, or the Globe looks extremely Gaussian distributed.
Entropic man says:
October 5, 2021 at 5:23 AM
For global average temperatures you can calculate how many stations you need.
You only ever need 1 well located station at a suitable elevation.
If you need to know the temperature anywhere else you just plug in lat long elevation and time and voila every site on earth has an expected temperature.
Of course if it differs from the expectation the observation must be wrong. Put it down to clouds or wind or ice, human error or hangover.
Amend it to match what it should have been from a composite of nearby places which matched the algorithm.
Hat tip Zeke and Mosher.
So why is it that climate models can be improved by increasing their resolution/grid spacing but measurements go the other way?
This was what started the discussion.
“You cannot make thermometers with +/-0.5c accuracy (at best) any more accurate than they actually are, regardless of how many you add together. Your statistics assume that all errors are distributed in a normal curve and randomly. Real measurements are just not like that.”
This is simply incorrect. The errors are Gaussian and driven by random weather.
How Global temperature varies on 15 y or longer time scales is NOT ERROR.
It is the signal of interest!
“The errors are Gaussian and driven by random weather”
You ASSUME that the errors are gaussian and therefore prove your point.
Weather is strongly correlated, not random in any sense.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-residuals.jpeg
The residuals on UAH are far from random.
“How Global temperature varies on 15 y or longer time scales is NOT ERROR.
It is the signal of interest!”
Hence my constant use of low pass filters of 15 years. In fact the energy in the system has a low point at around then which is why I chose it.
“Weather is strongly correlated”
This is missing important context. Weather is correlated over some length scale. Beyond that scale it is NOT correlated.
That means that weather variation is independent at a distance.
Time spans of a few days have independent weather variation, at each location.
TO obtain a Global average Temperature, these independent regions are averaged.
To obtain a monthly average in one town, the independent time spans are averaged.
Both of these involve the CLT, and produce Gaussian distributions.
As seen in the data.
Oh well.
“Weather is correlated over some length scale”
In both time and space.
There is a strong correlation at 24 hours and 365 days across both hemispheres. There is a weaker correlation at both days and weeks within them.
There appears to be a correlation at 60 years or so also, certainly greater than 15 years.
The globe is a gigantic thermal machine with looping feedbacks which range from minutes/hours to years/decades.
Those feedbacks cause the correlations. There is almost nothing that is pure random at any scale other than minute.
The austral polar winter ist quite heavy this year.
Vostok: -79.4 C (-89.2 C in July 1983 was lowest known to us).
Amundsen-Scott directly at the Pole reported this year the coldest average for September since 1957.
https://tinyurl.com/scspebx5
Globally, the South Pole area was during the winter months 4.5 C below the recent 30 year average.
A bi late aren’t you?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-895285
No. Certainly not.
In the second half of October, the temperature in Central Europe will be as November.
https://i.ibb.co/LkDtHPq/hgt300.webp
Putin will be happy, gas prices will be high this heating season.
Coldest 6 months at the south pole ever.
Does not seem to fit your narrative though.
Why are you quoting ancient history?
Soon everything will bw water.
Testing
This site’s been hacked.
Anybody home?
dear moderator…can you fix this problem or is the site closed for business?
No posts since Oct 5th…I thought it was just me.
test
It was fun to participate in some of the discussion here; I learned a few things and dredged out topics I haven’t thought about for a long time.
Too bad the site has attracted too many trulls that couldn’t maintain civility and filled the blog with meaningless tripe. It was getting too hard to find signal in the noise.
Regards,
Ken
Testing.
Test 2
UAH for Sep 2021 in full detail
Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah.jpeg
Northern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
Southern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-tropics.jpeg
Northern Ex Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-northern-ex.jpeg
Southern Ex Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-southern-ex.jpeg
North Pole
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-north-pole.jpeg
South Pole
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-south-pole.jpeg
Global with projections
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah_lt-1.jpg
Global MT with projections
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah_mt-1.jpg
Global TP with projections
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah_tp-1.jpg
Global LS with projections
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah_ls-1.jpg
rlh…”North Pole”…
I was just up there the other day…
I just plot the data that Roy posts.
RLH, The UAH North Polar data does not extend beyond 82.5 degrees North, thus it does not include the North Pole. The same applies to the South Polar data.
Indeed but I just use what Roy posts. He lists it as ‘North’ (or ‘South’ pole. I follow that.
Of course Swanson no doubt thinks the surface records with its 15degrees of latitude kriging methods does, right Swanny?
I love it when people with a straight face say that climate models can only be improved with a finer grid resolution but that measurements grids can easily be reduced at the same time.
I can ask you with a straight face why two different problems have to have the same solution.
testing….
We’ll see you in Vegas this weekend. Looking forward to your presentation.
Regards
AMO for Sep 2021
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/amo.jpeg
PDO for Sep 2021
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/pdo.jpeg
Roy,
Thanks for all your hard work collecting the data and posting your results.
And now to give you just a *little* more work — a friendly reminder you were going to update the spreadsheet to include the running averages going into 2021.
The running average is down to about 0.175 now, and it looks like it will drop a bit more in the next few months (unless the global temp jumps back up to ~ 0.4)
more testing
We’re bordering on a record low for October (7C at 5:40PM PDT, October 12, 2021) in Vancouver, Canada. Normally at this time of October, temps are above 10C and often as high as 15C.
Mind you, it’s approaching evening.
It’s not even an official La Niña yet, but Seattle can’t wait to plunge to record low temps.
https://komonews.com/weather/sea-tac-sets-record-low-at-37-degrees-continuing-coldest-october-since-1981
clint…from your link…
“Sea-Tac reported a new all-time record low of 37 degrees on Oct. 12, breaking the previous record of 37 degrees set in 1946, while some areas in Western Washington even dipped into the 20’s early Tuesday morning”.
These temps are in Fahrenheit, the standard in many parts of the US. Therefore 37F ~ 3C. I thought we were getting chilly at 7C, and Seattle is about 130 miles south.
In the Sun it still feels warm but once in the shade, one notices a definite nip in the air, especially if there is a wind blowing.
For those not familiar with this area, Sea-Tac means Seattle-Tacoma, two cities side by side. Also, the 20s is 20F, about -7C.
They also noted this is the coldest start to October since 1981….in the early days of UAH.
So, Gordo, tell us what climate impact would YOU expect from all that smoke recently dumped into the high latitude NH atmosphere?
swannie…”So, Gordo, tell us what climate impact would YOU expect from all that smoke recently dumped into the high latitude NH atmosphere?”
You think it’s still there, hovering over us in a dome of smoke?
I think the cooling is a precursor for La Nina. All warming/cooling is natural.
Indeed its affecting the entire westcoast. It is a good month early for La Nina situations over the past couple of decades. 3 months early over typical El Nino situations. Coldest October I can remember here down at the southerly end of the US west coast.
Even getting some winter like storms in what is traditionally the month with the fairest weather of the year.
You guys are both hilarious. The effects are wide spread and also cumulative. Here in Western NC, we experienced lots of smoke starting in August and continuing thru early October. My sinuses suffered even in doors until I rigged a 3M 1900 filter to a box fan to clean the particulates. After time indoors, when I went outside, my nose would start to respond like a cold within about 10 minutes.
Increased number of fires were reported in Siberia, where they don’t attempt to fight them, just let them burn. Added together, the impact would likely be an increase in NH albedo, which would produce a temporary cooling which, coupled with the normal seasonal flow from the poles toward the south, would appear as colder temperatures. Not to forget that last year also saw many large fires in California, with colder than normal winter months, such as the deep freeze with snow in Texas.
Your back yards aren’t the whole world.
Swanson is very distraught over this approaching La Niña. His cult preaches the oceans should be boiling!
Swanson is so confused.
E. Swanson says:
”You guys are both hilarious.
Your back yards aren’t the whole world.”
you are hilarious Swanson. who claimed or even suggested their backyard is the whole world?
do you react when somebody suggests a hurricane or spate of wildfires in a region is the result of a global calamity? rotflmao!
They attacked Ed Berry’s site too. Leftists can’t handle non-conformity.
It’s just a month ago that one of the cleverest Coolistas wrote:
” The linear warming trend since January, 1979 has now dropped slightly, at +0.13 C/decade
Some will get real busy now, You gonna have to reslice redice your numberz ”
*
Oh dear. What will the genius write this month?
I hope Mr Spencer will have one day some idle time to display the global trend with 3 digits after the decimal point on top of his monthly posts :- )
Oh I see it’s there.
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 is +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land)”
Why would you want 3 digits precision?
He must think it would improve his forecasting inability
https://i.postimg.cc/Ls15FT07/Baghdadidon.jpg
I have admitted many times to have been wrong on that Nina stuff.
But you, Eben, are as usual unable to admit your mistakes, let alone your lack of understanding.
Try to read at least Tim Folkerts’ comment.
Your science is only as good as your ability to predict future results, which in your case that is zero.
Your endless dissecting of past temperatures is as useless as last week weather forecast.
Eben
You are such an ignoramus.
Look at a forecast like this:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Sea.html
From the same source as the Nina forecast, but a guy like you would permanently try to discredit and denigrate that source because it shows exactly those excessively warming winters we experience in Germany since years.
*
Moreover, look at page 21 in the pdf
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
and compare the Nina 21/22 prediction with the past:
1974, 1988, 1999, 2007, 2011
instead of endlessly ranting against me with your stoopid
” Your endless dissecting of past temperatures is as useless as last week weather forecast. ”
We will see in May 2022 what remains of your permanent discrediting, denigrating and poorish insulting.
Assuming that the ‘standard’ 5 months delay between ENSO and global temperatures holds true, then we will see a constant downwards trend in global temperatures until at least May next year.
Yes Bindragon, your forecast is perfect and you have a dragon in your garage , we believe you , now spare us your psychobabbles replies
https://youtu.be/frI5y6tNsZg
RLH
I repeat:
Its just a month ago that one of the cleverest Coolistas wrote:
” The linear warming trend since January, 1979 has now dropped slightly, at +0.13 C/decade
Some will get real busy now, You gonna have to reslice redice your numberz ”
*
If Mr Spencer would use 3 digits for the trend instead of 2, the trend wouln’t move from 0.14 down to 0.13 in the next month, and then back up to 0.14 one further month later, just because the trend with 3 digits atdp moved by 0.001 or so.
Then the Coolistas woudn’t write such a nonsense as above.
Do you really have difficulties to understand such a simple matter?
“Why would you want 3 digits precision?”
Short answer: because the trend in Aug dropped by 0.0001, not by 0.01.
The calculated slopes this year based on the reported data are …
J 0.137474158
F 0.137439686
M 0.136817681
A 0.136088872
M 0.135724628
J 0.135113855
J 0.135082784
A 0.134967084
S 0.135067267
It is clear that the only interesting change is occurring in the 3rd digit (or even the 4th digit!). Therefore, reporting the third digit tells us useful information about the *change* in the trend. The trend did not suddenly change by 0.01 for one month, dropping to 0.13 in Aug from 0.14 in Jul and rising back to 0.14 in Sept. The trend actually dropped by about 0.0001 and then rose again by about 0.0001, which just *happened* to bring the trend slightly below 0.1350000 for 1 month.
For the most general of overviews, 2 digits suffice. For people moderately interested in the trends (eg anyone reading this comment), 3 digits is MUCH better. 4 digits is interesting too. Then you can see that the trend changes about 0.0000 to 0.0007 any given month.
J 0.1375
F 0.1374
M 0.1368
A 0.1361
M 0.1357
J 0.1351
J 0.1351
A 0.1350
S 0.1351
There is a whole separate issue about how accurate the data themselves are and how that would affect the trends. But the trend as measured was (approximately) 0.13508 in JUL and 0.13497 in AUG. There is usually little reason to throw away information.
Thanks Tim for the support: I’m on holiday, no desktop computer with all the data I usually have.
Anyone who understands rounded number knows that it means +/-0.01 where 1 is the last place. So in essence 0.13 and 0.14 are the same thing and should be considered as that.
Extending it to 3 digits assumes that the accuracy of the summation extends also but as there is no proof that the calculations allow that and it is all too easy to end up with precision that is not justifiable. I will defer to Roy on that.
Most people also know not to use already rounded number in later calculations or thoughts without considering that inherent uncertainty.
“Anyone who understands rounded number knows that it means +/-0.01 where 1 is the last place. So in essence 0.13 and 0.14 are the same thing and should be considered as that.”
Well, sometimes it means +/-1 in the last place. More commonly it means +/- 0.5 in the last place.
“0.13” might mean “between 0.12 and 0.14”. But that is not “rounding”.
“0.13” might mean “between 0.125 and 0.135”. Those are the numbers that round to 0.13.
“Extending it to 3 digits assumes that the accuracy of the summation extends … “
Only if we assume that we are using “significant figures” to express uncertainly. Sig figs are a quick, easy … and poor way to express uncertainly. They are adequate only for the most basic of analysis. In this case, rather than 3 digits indicating too MUCH accuracy, 2 digits indicates too LITTLE accuracy.
For “real” analysis of data, you should write what you mean. You should not assume that the data is always accurate to +/- 1 in the last digit.
I said there was an uncertainty about the data when rounded. +/- 1 of last digit. If you want to dispute that go right ahead.
“I said there was an uncertainty about the data when rounded. +/- 1 of last digit. If you want to dispute that go right ahead.”
Numbers between .12500000…. and 0.1349999999… round to 0.13. That is +/- 0.5 in the last digit. Not +/- 1 in the last digit. When Roy writes that the trend is 0.13, using an algorithm that rounds to other nearest 0.01, he does NOT mean the original number could have been anywhere between 0.12 and 0.14.
‘In essence’, 0.13 and 0.14 are different numbers and should be considered as such. ‘In essence’, numbers that round to 0.13 and numbers that round to 0.14 are different numbers and should be considered as such.
This is why serious scientists don’t use “significant digits” or arbitrary rounding in serious reports. Sig figs are sufficient for a high school chem lab. Sig figs are sufficient for casual conversations. Sig figs are sufficient for Roy to present a non-technical monthly summary.
But when you and/or I and/or anyone else want to REALLY discuss the data, we need to move beyond this simplistic system. To truly indicate how the slope is changing, the slopes should be listed AT LEAST as
J 0.137
F 0.137
M 0.137
A 0.136
M 0.136
J 0.135
J 0.135
A 0.135
S 0.135
(And then there should be an indication of the uncertainty as well. Perhaps even separate indications of statistical uncertainty and experimental uncertainty.)
“When Roy writes that the trend is 0.13, using an algorithm that rounds to other nearest 0.01, he does NOT mean the original number could have been anywhere between 0.12 and 0.14”
So the last digit is +/- 1.
“Numbers between .12500000. and 0.1349999999 round to 0.13. That is +/- 0.5 in the last digit. Not +/- 1 in the last digit”
Now subtract 0.12500000 from 0.1349999999. I get 0.0099999999 which I will round to 0.01.
That is still +/- 0.5 in the last digit, not +/- 1.
0.13 means 0.13 +/- 0.05
” So in essence 0.13 and 0.14 are the same thing and should be considered as that. ”
This is one of the dumbest staements I ever had to read.
No wonder that an arrogant always-everything-better-knowing person was the source.
According to Cowtan’s calculator the UAH6 trend is 0.135 plus-minus 0.05 deg/decade (2sigma)
So a large error bar because of large variation due to ENSO.
For comparison GISS over the same period is
0.188 plus-minus 0.037 deg/decade (2sigma)
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
“0.13 means 0.13 +/- 0.05”
Which when rounded to 2 significant digits can then turn it into 0.12 or 0.14 (or approximately) from 0.13.
The odds of a floating point number, especially a calculated one, being exactly …50… or …00… are vanishingly small as we are constantly warned about in computing.
P.S. Did you really mean +/- 0.05?
“According to Cowtans calculator the UAH6 trend is 0.135 plus-minus 0.05 deg/decade (2sigma)”
So are the measurements that UAH make that are themselves faulty and, if so, how?
Or is it just the estimated ‘real’ temperature trend that you are so constantly searching after and can only estimate from the data?
Do you really think that you know the current temperatures less well than those of a few years ago as Cowtan’s calculator says that you do?
“So are the measurements that UAH make that are themselves faulty and, if so, how?”
The calculator is assuming the data are accurate, but that it has some inherent variability.
“Or is it just the estimated ‘real’ temperature trend that you are so constantly searching after and can only estimate from the data?”
That is more or less correct.
If you sample a few random data points from a set with a fixed (but unknown) mean and standard deviation, you can calculate a mean and standard deviation of your data. But this will only be an approximation to the true mean and standard deviation. All you can says is something like “I am 95% confident that the true mean is between x1 and x2.”
Similarly, if you sample a few random points from a set with a fixed (but unknown) trend, you will can calculate a slope. But this will only be an approximation to the true slope. All you can say is something like “I am 95% confident that the true trend line is contained within the two blue lines.”
“Do you really think that you know the current temperatures less well than those of a few years ago as Cowtan’s calculator says that you do?”
That is NOT what the calculator is telling us. You fundamentally misunderstand the graph.
The calculator is telling you where the *trend line* falls, assuming that there is
a) some underlying linear trend.
b) some random variation each month.
The ‘true’ trendline is 95% confident (based on this data and based on statistics) to be within those bounds. The ‘true’ trendline might be a little higher or a little lower; the true trendline might be a little higher slope or a little lower slope. If you draw all the expected lines, you get that curved boundary.
This tells you nothing specifically about the uncertainty of any given point.
Do you really think that you know the current temperatures less well than those of a few years ago as Cowtan’s calculator says that you do?
Visualizing the uncertainty of curve fits
Thanks Mark B for that informative link.
“If you sample a few random data points from a set with a fixed (but unknown) mean and standard deviation, you can calculate a mean and standard deviation of your data”
But if your data contains a variable (random) mean and standard deviation then you are all at sea.
“But if your data contains a variable (random) mean and standard deviation then you are all at sea.”
I’m not sure what your point is.
First of all, from a purely mathematical perspective, I could choose a random mean (say between -1 and 1) with a random standard deviation (say between 0.1 and 1) and then choose a random value from that set. If I repeat this, I will still eventually get a specific mean and standard deviation for the set of random sets. And no one will be ‘out to sea’.
For climate in particular, if there were no climate change over some period of time, then the mean and standard deviation for the global temperature would, pretty much by definition, be constant over that time. And no one will be ‘out to sea’.
If there IS climate change, then we can model that change on top of the chaotic short-term changes. And again we can calculate useful things. And no one will be ‘out to sea’.
Of course we don’t know a priori if there is a trend or what sort of a trend. That is why we try various statistical models.
I chose the word ‘random’ inadvisably. What I really meant was a long periodicity. With a pure ‘random’ then the statistics will drop out as you say. With a cycle of long periods of any form they will not.
There is no doubt that it has been warmer in the past than now. How far back you have to go is disputed. The Carboniferous (to name but one) is generally agreed to be warmer across the whole planet than it is right now. We don’t see the large and dense forests that it implies anywhere at present.
We also mostly agree that the ‘little ice age’ was colder than it is at present, though some have challenged if that was world wide.
The real question is if the ‘rise’ perceived at present is larger than this long term periodicity. I think it is at least the same.
I’ll certainly agree that periodic and quasi-periodic trends complicate the analysis.
“The real question is if the rise perceived at present is larger than this long term periodicity. I think it is at least the same.”
This is the crux of the matter. If the current uptrend is indeed unusual, then we as a race would be advised to pay attention and maybe try to ‘fix’ it. If the trend is ‘random’ or ‘periodic
then the danger is less.
I agree that the current uptrend is at least as stonng as natural variations would predict.
PS, be careful with the term “periodic”. There are few truly periodic trends.
Well aperiodic seems to fit even worse implying truly random behavior.
The world is a large gigantic thermal machine with looping resonances and semi-resonances that run from daily to decades at least.
Was the site hacked or was the ‘moderator’ temporarily annoyed enough to shut down the discussion?
Neither. I brought it to Roy’s attention and he sorted it out.
There were reports in the media that some providers of social content decided to remove posts or blocked advertising on those sites which denied Climate Change. As we know from Roy’s books advertised on the main page and his repeated presentations to various groups, Roy is at best a “luke warmer”.
You mean the cult idiots would go as far as to try to block science and free speech?
Shocking….
The left is annoyed it can’t control the climate narrative. It was an ATTACK. They did the same to Berry.
I thought Dr Roy locked it up when he saw all the trolling out of control , but if he didn’t it appears it had the same effect, lets see how long it lasts
Roy appeared to be unaware of the posting halt until I pointed it you out to him.
I was caused by too much spam.
B.S.
“I thought Dr Roy locked it up when he saw all the trolling out of control”
What I thought also.
” but if he didnt it appears it had the same effect, lets see how long it lasts””
Nice thought but it didnt seem to work.
Good on you.
Say what you will about Amazon founder Bezos, but he is a marketing genius. Sending 90 year-old “Captain Kirk” to TOA will get more attention than anything else he could have done.
https://nypost.com/2021/10/13/blue-origin-blasts-star-trek-actor-william-shatner-to-space/
And what is cool about their efforts is I didn’t see one face mask at either launch!
clint…” Sending 90 year-old Captain Kirk to TOA will get more attention than anything else he could have done”.
Captain Kirk was amazed that it was actually black out there. Guess he wasn’t looking toward the Sun. Spock would not be impressed.
You can’t see starz in space
Where did you learn such nonsense, Eben?
The same place that taught you Moon rotates?
Missed the Monday ENSO update but the break in board trolling justifies late release.
Long range ENSO forecast, no ElNino in sight within next two years and beyond.
https://i.postimg.cc/nLvmjDFH/oct21nino34.png
Assuming the ‘standard’ 5 month delay in ENSO to global temperatures occurs, that also means we will see a further drop in global temperatures until about May next year at least.
Looks like I only have to get a half cord of wood this winter. Georgia will be a bit warmer and dry. My friend in Northwest will have to double their order.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/october-2021-enso-update-la-ni%C3%B1a-here
Hello Billy Bob
I found a forecast for your US corner:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/usT2me3Mon.html
Maybe it is of some use for you.
It looks indeed as if the next winter would become less comfortable in the North, especially in Alaska and North East Canada.
Here is Europe, where I live:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Mon.html
UAH Residuals (short term data after subtracting 7 year low pass)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-residuals.jpeg
UAH Month on Month a year previously
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
UAH 7 year low pass
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-long-term.jpeg
Happinedss for the US Coolistas:
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/2d04070f-68ab-4732-b0ed-0dd8615e16b4/3f6086c533dbcfc9d76801c0fb3960f5/7bc2b96b-358c-494a-97ac-6b92831f2577.jpg
Some of us just look at the data and report what it is saying.
Regarding the debate over 3-digits, let’s remember that the accuracy comes down to the accuracy of the measuring instrument. If I use a ruler marked in millimetres to measure a length I can only give the observation in millimetres with an error margin of 1/2 the smallest measuring unit, in this case, 0.5 mm. So, my readings must be stated as x mm +/- 0.5mm.
I imagine, with the AMSU units in satellites, they end up with a reading based on the accuracy of the telemetry. I know it’s far more complicated since there is no direct measurement possible of an O2 radiation frequency at a specific altitude. Still, somewhere in the chain there is likely a restriction imposed by the physical measurement of the actual equipment.
When a sat transmits it’s readings back to a surface station, there is likely a 2-digit limitation imposed. From that you cannot expand to 3-digits using statistics.
“From that you cannot expand to 3-digits using statistics.”
Here 10 random data points, along with the average:
0.558748984
0.448943068
0.522031150
0.539643018
0.545157858
0.541497097
0.419009310
0.484148624
0.529193739
0.466862975
AVERAGE: 0.505523582
Here is the same data, rounded to 2 decimal places, and the new average:
0.56
0.45
0.52
0.54
0.55
0.54
0.42
0.48
0.53
0.47
AVERAGE: 0.506
Even when rounded to TWO digits, the average is correct to THREE digits. I just ‘expanded’ to three digits from two digits using statistics. With about 300 data points (rather than 10 here) I could reliably ‘expand’ to FOUR digits for the average.
tim…”Even when rounded to TWO digits, the average is correct to THREE digits….”
***
You missed what I said, the number of digits is based on the telemetry. I know in electronics there is little point using 3-digits unless you are measuring tiny signals in the millivolt range.
A DVM has a 3 digit readout but it is seldom used to measure to 3-digits.
The AMSU units on sats are trying to convert gigahertz microwave frequencies from O2 to a voltage, or whatever. That voltage is likely calibrated to a temperature range somewhere along the line but whatever data is collected needs to eventually correlate altitude to temperature. That is likely done with an algorithm external to the physical equipment.
What’s the point of measuring temperature to 3-digits? What does 1/1000nds of a degree C mean? A tenth of a degree C barely means anything and 2-digits covers 1/100th of a degree C. What would be the point in using 3-digits in calculations?
Gordon,
You need to buy a better Fluke.
You’re wasting your time, he won’t get it either way.
“I could reliably ‘expand’ to FOUR digits for the average”
So you increase precision but what is the accuracy?
RLH says: “I could reliably ‘expand’ to FOUR digits for the average”
So you increase precision but what is the accuracy?
This is a very common and well defined problem in error analysis and Tim has given a reasonable bound on “n” for the ensemble average to get to four digit precision.
So when you ask this question are you
1) Admitting that you don’t know how to perform even this straightforward error analysis. There’s really no shame in that, but it diminishes any credibility you might have on error propagation which is most of what you post here.
2) Implying that Tim is significantly wrong, which, by my calculations, is not the case.
If the know ‘error’ is bounded to 2 digits, then unless it is purely randomly distributed, which is rarely the case, then any precision beyond 3 digits at the very best is almost useless. In fact in most cases caution would indicate 1 digit is the best you can claim.
My caution about the number of digits of accuracy comes from practical knowledge of sampling errors and their likely causes.
It also comes from running many computer programs where calculations can produce almost infinite precision but with limited repeatability and/or accuracy.
Yes you can recover signals from ‘noise’ but only in very specific cases and often with a lot of prior or ancillary knowledge as well.
RLH says: My caution about the number of digits of accuracy comes from practical knowledge of sampling errors and their likely causes.
Your comment references, and apparently calls into question, a straightforward example of significant digits in averaging. The example has a closed-form textbook solution that has been correctly given.
uhm, ok, that dig this man. The newton’s constant G is known to a fourth digit, which is a very poor accuracy for such a fundamental constant. Why are’t all the scienticians who are constructing precise and expensive apparati to measure it at ever better accuracy, why don’t they just use their existing devices and just measure it a million times (perhaps, automatize it with some computer magic) and get it to the 10th digit? Are they stoopid, or is there something I don’t get about this?
“why dont they just use their existing devices and just measure it a million times”
Cuz they understand basic statistics.
Temperatures improve in accuracy with a million measurements but other things don’t. Got you.
Likewise climate models improve in accuracy with finer grids, but temperature measurements don’t.
“Temperatures improve in accuracy with a million measurements but other things dont. Got you.”
Averages improve when more things are averaged. And it can end up with a low error. Lower than the measurement resolution.
Here’s an example. Measure the average age of kids in a high school. 2000 of them.
The measurement tool is ask them how old they are. They answer 15. That means 15.5 plus-minus 0.5. Measurement resolution 1 year.
But when we average the results, we get e.g. 16.55. Turns out the 0.55 is significant and remarkably accurate.
If we had a higher resolution measurement (we ask their birthday), turns out we get an average very close to 16.55.
“Averages improve when more things are averaged”
Only if you have a consistent measurement.
If the tape stretches every time you use it, then it can be marked to 1/100ths of an inch but it won’t make the results any more accurate. Sure one site can mostly stretch the tape relatively consistently but across multiple sites that is definitely not so.
As has been noted with USCRN stations with accuracy of 1/100 of a degree C, there are still site specific factors that effect what they measure.
Clouds alone are only a few hundred meters wide individually often as not and they effect the ground temperature in their shadow quite a bit.
There is no way to know which all the other measurements around are the closest too, 1 USCRN station or another, let alone stations that are less accurate than them.
And that doesn’t even cover the inherent inaccuracy of point sample 2m measurements at the base of the surface boundary layer that are miles apart wrt the bulk air temperature between or above them day and night, summer and winter, rain and fair, gale and still.
“If the tape stretches every time you use it, then it can be marked to 1/100ths of an inch but it won’t make the results any more accurate.”
More measurements WOULD still help here. If it try to be consistent (or even if I pull a random amount), some measurements will be too high and some too low. The average will still be better a better choice than any single random measurement.
“Sure one site can mostly stretch the tape relatively consistently but across multiple sites that is definitely not so.”
That really doesn’t matter much. Each site individually determines its own temperature trend. Whether the average went up from 20C to 22 C at once site, or from 22 C to 24C, either way the trend is up by 2 C. Any anomaly for that site is the same either way.
Sure, it is better to have thermometers that are accurate, but even a mis-calibrated thermometer will give a quite good trend. (And thermometers are not a whole lot like your ‘stretchy’ tape anyway. A thermometer doesn’t measure ice water as -3 C one day and +2 C the next.)
One time it would matter is when switching out thermometers. Then you could get a step change.
“Whether the average went up from 20C to 22 C at once site, or from 22 C to 24C, either way the trend is up by 2 C. Any anomaly for that site is the same either way”
You deliberately chose results that meet your requirements.
If the ‘trend’ varied between 0.5c and 2c across the sites then what it actually is would still be uncertain.
Sure since the little ice age temperatures have risen. If that outside the range the natural cycles could well predict is still uncertain.
“thermometers are not a whole lot like your stretchy tape anyway”
The sites themselves are though. And none of this meets the under sampling that the point samples we have in the wider temperature field provides. Both horizontally and vertically.
“there are still site specific factors that effect what they measure.
Clouds alone are only a few hundred meters wide individually often as not and they effect the ground temperature in their shadow quite a bit.”
“If the tape stretches every time you use it, then it can be marked to 1/100ths of an inch but it wont make the results any more accurate.”
‘Stretchy’ thermometers and clouds??!!
You are moving goalposts and changing the subject like a madman. You are stretching this argument in all sorts of new directions beyond the original issue:
Measurement statistics of averages.
This is what you so often do, RLH.
It does get rather tiresome.
“Measurement statistics of averages”
The potential errors come in many ways. Are you suggesting that pointing them all out is wrong?
CLT specifically states that items should be chosen randomly from a random population. Temperatures are anything other than that. U shaped (cyclic) distributions are common at daily, weekly, monthly and yearly timescales at the very least. Daily and yearly come from orbital factors, daily, weekly and monthly from weather systems imposed on top of those.
There is no doubt that strongly cyclic and correlated samples distorts the ‘normal’ distribution that CLT relies on. I contend that it comes close enough to a uniform distribution overall to make conclusions much less certain than claimed.
I also believe that insufficient weight is placed on long term natural quasi-cycles compared to AGW.
Guys, its quiz time!
How do you measure the accuracy of a thermometer?
“If the ‘trend’ varied between 0.5c and 2c across the sites … ”
You misunderstood my comment. I was talking about the SAME SITE.
Put out two different thermometers at one locations that are badly calibrated. One reads 20 C, the other reads 22 C. Which is right? I have no idea! Come back later in the day. The first now reads 22C and the second reads 24 C. Which is right? I still don’t know — and I don’t care. But with either thermometer, the temperature rose by 2 C. And for trends, that is all that matters.
” U shaped (cyclic) distributions are common at daily, weekly, monthly and yearly timescales at the very least.”
Nope. WTF are you talking about?
Monthly-averaged temperature data from a randomly selected town, South Bend Indiana, had T anomaly distribution that was ~ Gaussian.
Explain that.
Nate, I think he is talking about things like the temperature over 24 hr at one site.
For example, I can look at the next 24 hr in my town:
The top 5 temps are 63-64.
The bottom 5 are 42-43
That puts over 40% of the readings in less than 20% of the range at the extremes. That would definitely be a “U-shaped” histogram.
Yearly are nearly the same as hourly. And then on top of that you have weather systems at daily, weekly and monthly that add a cyclicity to all that.
“But with either thermometer, the temperature rose by 2 C. And for trends, that is all that matters”
If the RH is different at the 2 sites then 2c at one site may well require more energy that 2c at another.
If there is ice/frost/rain on the ground or 200m vertical difference then that matters too.
If there are 30kt winds compared to calm if will differ also.
There are many factors that contribute to simple temperature changes. Unless they are all identical then temperature can be the same or different with the same energy applied (or lost).
And, after all, is the energy input/output balance that matters.
“If the RH is different at the 2 sites ”
Again. I was talking about a single site with two differently calibrated thermometers. Not two different sites.
“And, after all, is the energy input/output balance that matters.”
Well, that depends. Both energy and temperature are interesting and important. Both “matter” in different ways. If you are determining temperature trends (eg like Dr Roy here), then it is the temperature that matters most.
“I was talking about a single site with two differently calibrated thermometers”
The same applies to the same site with different parameters other than temperature. Differences in other parameters will effect the recorded temperature also.
Tim,
His claim that “U shaped (cyclic) distributions are common at daily, weekly, monthly and yearly timescales at the very least.” is wrong for any but the 24 hour period.
It is a red herring for T averaged over months, whose distributions approach a Gaussian.
“And then on top of that you have weather systems at daily, weekly and monthly that add a cyclicity to all that.”
Uhhh no. Nonsense.
But pls do show evidence of such.
“It is a red herring for T averaged over months, whose distributions approach a Gaussian”
Monthly there is no cycle as such. Just for 6 months out of 12 a strongly diagonal line. The other 6 are diagonal too but in those cases less steep.
If you wish to show this please chop a sine wave (which will do for a simple example) into 12 segments. Then examine the slopes of those segments. They will be as I said.
“Uhhh no. Nonsense”
Please tell me how you would characteristics the passage of weather systems and fronts across a single point. Low will follow high through various front combinations travelling across it at whatever rate. In essence they will be a quasi-sinusoid with widths that will vary from 1km to 100’s km travelling at below 1km/hour to above 10’s km/hour (or there abouts).
As I said before.
None of this addresses the major U shaped distributions which drive all this which I notice you don’t contest. Daily and Yearly.
“None of this addresses the major U shaped distributions which drive all this which I notice you don’t contest. Daily and Yearly.”
Uggghhh…
As explained, but apparently ignored, the diurnal cycle is averaged over, for any climate-relevant variable. Therefore the so-called U shaped distribution is removed, gone, irrelevant to climate variables.
The annual seasonal cycle is removed from anomaly data. Do you still not get what an anomaly is?
Climate variables are space-time averaged temperature anomalies, and are nearly Gaussian distributed, not U-shaped.
You come off as desperate to find something, anything, wrong with climate data. Why?
In this case the complaint is absolutely a red herring.
Weather fronts produce a quasi-sinusoid??
Do you have any weather time-series that exemplifies this? Show us.
A blog is not the place to learn advanced statistics. But a couple quick suggestions/ideas.
Precision and accuracy are two different things. A DVM might be precise to 3 digits, but only accurate to 2 digits. Or precise to 3 digits, but accurate to 4 digits.
Statistics works great when the instrument itself has relatively small variations and the item being measured has relatively large variations.
Statistics can’t fix systematic errors in the equipment. This is less of a concern when looking at changes.
So … even imprecise satellite measurements can detect small *changes* in average temperature by averaging lots of separate data points. And if “G” was changing, the equipment might be able changes less than 4th decimal even if the value was not known so well.
“Precision and accuracy are two different things”
You don’t say! You can improve precision but if the accuracy is crap in the first place you have achieved nothing except longer figures.
If you have uncertainty in the data (i.e. accuracy) then there is little you can do to improve on that. Taking a million samples will still leave the same uncertainty in the data.
If you have purely random data and errors then CLT says that you can improve on that. But CLT does NOT really apply to non random (i.e. strongly correlated) data. Changes in the data assumes that the accuracy is constant or purely random in distribution. If it is not then all bets are off.
One of the things that is often missed is that CLT is MUCH wider in dispersion if you have U shaped initial distribution especially if that is asymmetrical and strongly correlated to the point that if you have cyclic data then the sample mean turns into a very wide spread rather than a nice ‘normal distribution’. Almost to the point where it is a uniform distribution instead.
I also find it interesting that statistics that may well apply to low frequency point samples of a wider continuous field (see Nyquist in space) do not really apply the same to area/volume samples of that same data (Nyquist again but in a different dimension, time). They come from 2 different ends of the same problem. It is very unlikely that the 2 will show or use the same statistics to achieve a ‘correct’ answer.
“You can improve precision but if the accuracy is crap in the first place you have achieved nothing except longer figures.”
Even if accuracy is low, *changes* can be often be quite accurate and/or precise. For example, the barometer on my smart phone might be 200 m off in the elevation, but it can still tell me if I walk up a flight or or two of stair.
If the change is linear then you can indeed achieve quite a good result. If it is not then you won’t.
I do agree that autocorrelated data makes analysis more daunting. Not necessarily impossible. ‘Some bets are still on’ if you know what you are doing.
The problem is that bias all too easily tends to creep in where the results tend to show what you believe to be there rather than an properly impartial perspective.
That is one problem.
The other problem is that dismissal all too easily tends to creep in where the results tend to show what you doubt to be there rather than an properly impartial perspective.
I don’t dismiss things out of hand. I just maintain a cautious approach.
RLH,
You do know that instruments can be calibrated to other than linear calibration equations.
“If the change is linear then you can indeed achieve quite a good result. If it is not then you wont.”
Or are you really that uninformed?
If the change is variable (or unknown) than nothing you have in detail its that precise. Despite fancy statistics that says otherwise.
Can I has some dressing with that word salad?
m d mill…”Anyone can predict the climate will change or that CO2 causes a warming component…the question is how much”.
***
What do you mean by ‘the climate’?
Where is the scientific evidence that CO2 provides a warming component? Tyndall’s experiment from the 19th century, nor the Arrhenius correlation of atmospheric CO2 to warming, nor any inference from any scientist has proved the warming since 1850 is related to anthropogenic CO2.
Do you know what 1850 means? It is considered the year that the 400 year Little Ice Age ended. Since the cooling ended, the planet has warmed. It doesn’t require a degree in rocket science to see that.
The physics behind the CO2 warming component is well know and even extremely intuitively reasonable…the shortwave solar power is not absorbed by CO2 and passes through until it IS absorbed mostly by grey bodies, but outgoing infrared is partially absorbed by CO2 on the way out, reducing the component of cooling.
my full response is being blocked
I am being blocked by google, see my response near the end of blog
“The newtons constant G is known to a fourth digit, which is a very poor accuracy for such a fundamental constant. ”
I think in this instance the systematic errors are more important. We can make the measurement more precise by averaging but it still has uncertain offsets. For one, the large electrostatic force is difficult to fully eliminate.
But thermometers with systematic offsets will not affect the measurement of temperature trends.
Only if that systematic error is a constant offset.
True.
That is why they try to correct for changes in instruments and methods.
For example they changed from ships measuring a bucket of seawater to sucking seawater into the engine. Changed offsets. Account for this.
But again, to assume as you seem to do, that the whole exercise can’t be done because there are such problems is not justified.
Can somebody wake up Bindiclowndon , his forecast is ready
Dress him up his short pants and a beanie with a propeller on it
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-872706
Don’t you live somewhere in Northern CONUS?
If I were you, I would rather take this La Nina forecast serious:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/usT2me3Mon.html
We in Europe seem to have a bit more luck:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Mon.html
Please wake me up anew when TCC shows 20 % yellow and 80 % blue, the current return back to 40/60 has put me into deep sleep again.
“A typical La Nia winter in the U.S. brings rain and snow to the Northwest and unusually dry conditions to most of the southern tier of the U.S., according to the prediction center. The Southeast and Mid-Atlantic also tend to see warmer-than-average temperatures during a La Nia winter”
Your CFSv2 for the US doesn’t seem to show that.
This is not A typical La Nina,
this is a rare type called La Nina Modoki
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif says otherwise.
See http://la.climatologie.free.fr/enso/enso-pdo2-english.htm
“LA NINA MODOKI
Since 2007 a new type of La Nia was discovered from analysis of a Japanese team that have named it La Nia Modoki in Japanese. It is distinguished from the classic La Nia by its specific impact on the global atmospheric circulation.
Traditionally, the classic La Nia is associated with the cooling in the eastern tropical Pacific (Nio 1+2 et 3). However, during La Nia Modoki the anomaly of the sea surface temperature (SST) in the eastern Pacific isn’t affected by cooling but by warming just like western equatorial Pacific, while a cold anomaly affects the central equatorial Pacific (Nio 3.4). These zonal gradients of SST result in an anomaly in circulation of two Walker cells on the tropical Pacific, with a humid region in the Eastern and the Western Pacific. The thermocline doesn’t switch the same way as during the classical La Nia because this one raises at the Eastern Equatorial Pacific to sink at the West while during its cousin the thermocline raises at the center of equatorial Pacific Ocean and sinks at each end of the Pacific”
You need to wait and see what that picture looks like in december
OK. So I think that it is unlikely that it will change that much in overall profiles.
We will see who is correct.
Years ago, when I first learned about “Modoki”, I was taught the Japanese word meant “fake”, or “false”.
Maybe someone that speaks Japanese can confirm?
“Modoki is a classical Japanese word which means ‘similar but different.'”
Manche sollten sich mal ‘ne Brille kaufen.
Show me where CFS showed this was going to happen
https://www.weathercentral.com/weather/us/maps/current-temperatures
RLH, Are you really going to compare a single temperature snapshot with a monthly average? And, the CFS graphs start with November, so we can’t assess the accuracy of the forecasts until December, can we?
Besides, how would you account for all that smoke in the NH atmosphere?
Wait until this month is over then. My prediction is that the month will show a definite coolness compared to the ‘average’. Just as a typical La Nina would do.
RLH, That pattern appears to be rather usual to me, as the weather transitions from Summer to Winter. Also, consider the fact that the distance from Seattle to Boston is 2,485 air miles, so there’s lots of opportunity for divergent conditions. Compare that to the distance from London to Moscow, 1,554 miles. Also, note that there were record warm readings over the Eastern side of the storm fronts lately.
When I moved West to enter graduate school in 1966, we ran into snow in Yellowstone Park on 10 September, as I recall.
Warm in the East and Cold in the West is to be expected for La Nina.
RLH wrote:
From NOAA’s latest records on record temperatures:
Period High Max High Min Low Max Low Min
Last 7 Days 184 548 226 147
Last 30 Days 1447 2334 653 462
[https://www.ncd–c.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records]
(REMOVE – to view site)
Looks like the record highs are winning your contest just now.
U.S. All Time Records Summary
PERIOD HIGH MAX HIGH MIN LOW MAX LOW MIN
Last 7 Days 0 0 1 0
Last 30 Days 0 0 1 0
La Nina is now being forecast as likely by NH Winter by BoM, JMA and NOAA (the latter has had this forecast for the past few months).
Be honest, barry: we are in a La Nina phase.
How else would you explain the values
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/#data
shown by MEI since May/June 2020?
The long lasting dispute on this blog is rather about how strong this Nina phase finally will look like compared with those of the last 40 years, especially 1999 and 2010.
where is this long lasting debate ? how come I don’t see it , point me to it
Just reporting what the other sites are saying, Bindidon.
Didn’t you once say JMA is your preferred source for forecasts? Can’t remember. JMA, BoM and NOAA are currently neutral, with negative values in the relevant SST regions. I hadn’t checked MEI, thanks.
Laninja is a phase of enso when the climate system is accumulating heat, isn’t it? and elninjo is the opposite, the phase when the climate system is releaasing the energy accumulated. Hence, the prevalence of laninjas is a sign of progressive warming of the climate system, and elninjos are the companion of cooling down.
cot, a less confusing, and more correct. way of characterizing the two events is: An El Niño results in increased UAH Global temperatures, and a La Niña results in decreased UAH Global temperatures.
coturnix
Exactly. And if you look at
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
you see by simple eye-balling that since 1979, the Ninas prevail on average.
I’m on holiday, and hence don’t have the MEI time series at hand; otherwise, it would be easy for me to prove the decreasing trend.
Your interpretation is, by the way, less simple-minded, and more correct.
Ooops?! What’s that?
Trends don’t increase, let alone would they decrease.
They are either positive or negative.
“Laninja is a phase of enso when the climate system is accumulating heat, isnt it?”
Not the climate system as a whole, which includes ocean, atmosphere, oceans, lakes, land and sea ice etc. In simple terms, during la Nina heat energy is accumulated in the Pacific ocean from the atmosphere, and this heat is released back out to the atmosphere during el Ninos. There is a lot more going on, but the basic mechanism of heat transfer is ocean atmosphere.
Though ENSO is a dominant source of variation in global temperatures on short time scales, it’s not the only one. So the ups and downs in global temperatures don’t correlate perfectly with ENSO values. They do correlate quite well with the peaks and troughs in ENSO (full blown la Nina/el Nino).
” They do correlate quite well with the peaks and troughs in ENSO (full blown la Nina/el Nino). ”
barry, when I read this sentence, I automatically remember a comparison by JMA, based on their global 5 degree grid data, of the years 1998
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp1998ane.png
and 2016:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp2016ane.png
Anybody can immediately see that the warming of 2016 hardly could have been due to El Nino alone, as the 1998 El Nino was way stronger than the 2016 edition (see MEI for a comparison).
This is visible as well when comparing the monthly peaks of the two:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp199802e.png
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp201603e.png
This is the current state on the world’s oceans
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
I agree, Bindidon. Why I said, “Though ENSO is a dominant source of variation in global temperatures on short time scales, it’s not the only one [not the only source of variaton].”
>>Not the climate system as a whole […] In simple terms, during la Nina heat energy is accumulated in the Pacific ocean
Yeah, but the pacific ocean is like half of all oceans; in fact it is about a third of the entire earth!
“The oceans tend to be stratified, the principal factor being temperature; the bottom waters of the deep parts are intensely cold, with temperatures only slightly above freezing.
The surface zone, where temperature variations are perceptible, is between 330 and 1,000 feet (100 and 300 meters) thick”
The warmer waters may well be wide but they are not that deep.
>>The warmer waters may well be wide but they are not that deep.
that’s irrelevant
And he is probably wrong about their effectiveness and reliability …see:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/
and
judithcurry.com/2021/08/17/new-confirmation-that-climate-models-overstate-atmospheric-warming-2/
Not to mention that these model simulations do not represent the 1910-1945 period well compared to the HAD CRUT record, which shows a warming at a rate roughly equal to the 1970-2020 period, even though the CO2 increase rate was a quarter of the latter rate!
And not to mention that these “reliable” models exhibit a roughly factor of 2 difference even among themselves!
Anyone can predict the climate will change or that CO2 causes a warming component…the question is how much.
That question is not settled.
m d mill
“Anyone can predict the climate will change or that CO2 causes a warming component…the question is how much.
That question is not settled.”
I think, I have shown in my work that there is not any significant Greenhouse Effect on Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33oC enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yeah.
” I think, I have shown in my work that there is not any significant Greenhouse Effect on Earths surface. ”
But only with the help of a dirty trick: by inventing a factor which is multiplied with instead of being added to the albedo.
Present your “work” to a renowned academic audience – certainly not Volokin & Rellez aka Nikolov & Zeller! – who can analyze it and we will see the result.
Bindidon, your cult wrote the book on “dirty tricks” Comparing an imaginary object to Earth ain’t science, it’s a dirty trick.
Vournas simply shows how easy it is to debunk the nonsense, and you run to your “renowned academic audience” because you can’t understand any of it.
“Vournas simply shows how easy it is to debunk the nonsense”
Sure, if he only shows it to scientifically illiterate deniers hungry for any BS that sticks it to the IPCC. It works for them!
Nate hates reality. He believes he can make up things to fit his cult beliefs, and thereby change reality.
That’s why this is so much fun.
By “this” Clint means the trolling by Clint R devoid of any scientific work or support.
I always look forward to the validation from the braindead cult idiots. Their impotent flak proves I’m over the target.
Although I appreciate their indirect support, but I don’t always have the time, or interest, to respond.
Clint R:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-926322
Bindidon
“But only with the help of a dirty trick: by inventing a factor which is multiplied with instead of being added to the albedo.”
I have presented a New equation precisely calculating the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperatures.
The equation is New. It is based on few principles:
1). The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
2). The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
3). The correct estimation of the “energy in” – the not reflected portion of the incident on a planet solar SW EM energy.
It should have been discovered that there is a strong specular reflection from the smooth surface sphere, which is not taken in consideration by the planetary Albedo the satellite measurements.
4). A planet (any planet) cannot be considered as a blackbody surface, because planet is solar irradiated from one side only, and, thus, planet is not capable achieving a uniform surface temperature, no matter how fast it rotates.
5). An irradiated body is considered as a body without an inner source of energy, or as a not previously warmed to some temperature, thus the only source of energy it receives is the EM radiative energy.
When EM radiative energy hits a surface it is not absorbed by the surface (not being transformed into heat). The EM energy interacts with the surface’s atoms and molecules, thus the EM energy is partially reflected (diffusely and specularly) and partially IR emitted (by transformation from SW into LW EM energy).
Only a small fraction of the incident solar EM energy is being transformed into heat. That small amount of heat then, by conduction is getting transported in and is accumulated in the surface’s inner layers.
When something is New it has to fight for its place among the old.
Φ(1 – a) is a coupled physics term multiplied with solar flux S.
Φ is not multiplied with Albedo. Φ is multiplied, along with (1 – a) term with the solar flux S.
Thus there are not any tricks here… But there are some New concepts and they have to fight their way through the old long established insights.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
You have shown that there is about 1-2C of GHE. You’ve proven their point.
What are you talking about?
Obviously you understand none of this.
Stephen is correct Clint. Christos had to invent a fudge factor showing his calculated 33K GHE equals the actual measured amount of earthen GHE a recent period.
Ball4-on-a-sting, where can I get one of those imaginary objects? Walmart and Amazon don’t seem to carry them.
Where can I find one?
You live on one Clint: the real Earth!
Look around outside your computer room Clint & find you enjoy the benefits of Christos’ fudge factor showing the earthen 33K GHE measured multi-annually at his calculated surface median T 288K.
Your imaginary object does NOT exist, Ball4-on-a-string.
You live in a fantasy world created by your cult. You reject reality.
Thank you Clint!
Would you like to write a short comment in my website’s comments section at a bottom of a page please?
Best regards,
Christos
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Look out the real window of your imaginary virtual cinema computer room Clint R, find the earth is real not imaginary!
Christos’ fudge factor does calculate the measured correct real earthen 33K GHE at real 288K surface global T.
“And not to mention that these reliable models exhibit a roughly factor of 2 difference even among themselves!”
Why do you expect all model runs to give identical results?
Each model run is intended to answer the question “what will future temperatures look like under “these conditions”?
“These conditions” varies considerably. For example, different runs assume different amounts of CO2 emissions, others assume different amounts of pollution, volcanism or other variables.
The strategy is to generate a range of possible future outcomes, giving policy makers an indication of what happens if we follow different policies.
Not surprisingly, lower CO2 emission policies give lower temperature rises.
But is has also been observed (by in some cases people who actually support them) that, in general, all the models are running too hot.
Now is a sensible world models that were obviously faulty would be discarded and only those that were close to the actual data observed retained. Not so much in climate apparently.
#NotAllModels
It’s all down to clouds now (or so I believe). I think we can all agree that in general all models are running too hot. Some are performing better than others though.
But only in climate science would you keep models that under (or over) perform. Elsewhere you would cull those and reduce the ranges expected to those nearer observations.
Most AIs are trained that way and I see no reason why climate science should not do likewise.
entropic…”Each model run is intended to answer the question “what will future temperatures look like under “these conditions”?”
***
In the 3rd assessment, the IPCC stated that future climate states cannot be predicted. That truth applies today.
Gordon,
You can still predict some macroscopic properties of climate, even if you can’t predict the future climate states.
I assume you are confused because you don’t understand what a climate state is.
m d mill
“Anyone can predict the climate will change or that CO2 causes a warming component… the question is how much.
That question is not settled.”
Agreed. There is a fairly wide uncertainty band on that, from not too much, to quite a lot.
Some argue wait and see, because of economics, some argue to be prudent, because if it’s a lot, it will be too late to remedy the situation by the time we find out.
“if its a lot”
IF it is a little compared to the natural cycles then we will have wasted a lot of money.
Maybe so. It’s a good idea besides climate change to transition to alt energy sources. We pay a lot of money to odious governments for fossil fuels. Arguably we have gone to war to secure those resources. And fossil fuel is a finite resource. A measured transition is better than a nasty surprise down the road.
Climate change may be the dominant concern but it’s not the only issue making the case.
“It’s a good idea besides climate change to transition to alt energy sources”
Agreed.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet……Tmean…..Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K….340 K
Earth…….287,74 K….288 K
Moon……..223,35 Κ….220 Κ
Mars……..213,21 K….210 K
Te.correct vs Tsat.mean comparison table
Planet……Te……Te.correct….Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…….364 K…….325,83 K…340 K
Earth…….255 K….210 K…….287,74 K…288 K
Moon…….270,4 Κ…224 K…….223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K…174 K…….213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
The glaring flaws in this theory have been pointed out to you numerous times. You simply ignore these flaws, then you are not doing science.
You’re a legend in your own mind. He’s explained that your “pointed-out” flaws are your gross conceptual errors.
Yeah, he made up a fudge factor to eliminate the greenhouse effect.
We are not impressed.
I guess the gravitational constant is a fudge factor too?
There are two types of fudge factor.
The gravitational constant is a constant of proportionality, The first type of fudge factor allows you to turn a proportional relation into a quantitative one.
Thus G turns F=m1m2/d2 into F=Gm1m2/d2. The first tells you relative gravitational force, the latter tells you actual gravitational force.
The second type of fudge factor is put in to make the numbers fit your preconceptions.
For example, the cosmological constant was added to relativity to make it fit a static universe. It later turned out that the universe was expanding and the cosmological constant was nonsense.
Christos Vournas’ Phi is of the latter type, a nonsense fiddle factor added to his calculations to make them come out as he wants.
E-man,
You’re a propagandist. Vournas’ constant fits observation. Also, wouldn’t give up too quickly on Einstein.
Again
“I guess the gravitational constant is a fudge factor too?”
We are not impressed.
Of course Christos’ constant fits observations, stephen, as his phi is used to calculate earthen measured median global surface T of around 288K (depending on time period chosen) so Christos’ work shows the existence of the 33K GHE as instrumentally measured on the real object.
Give Ball4-on-a-string enough string, and he’ll hang himself.
” I guess the gravitational constant is a fudge factor too? ”
For a person who calls bloodthirsty dictators ‘Leftists’, it seems obvious to put the simplest manipulations with great science on an equal footing.
You must have a tough time sleeping at night after you realized bloodthirsty dictators were leftists?
Anderson
People like you always distort what was written.
NO: I did NOT need to realize that.
But YOU wrote that.
That’s the reason why today’s Germans name people like you ‘verhinderte Faschisten’.
Thank you Stephen!
Would you like to write a short comment in my website’s comments section at a bottom of the pages please?
Best regards,
Christos
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
You are just fooling yourself with your bogus equation. All you did was use the effective temperature equation and add fudge factors to make it work out to about 288 from 155.
You make up a stupid factor: “Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47”
Just a total nonsense concept to fool yourself and others.
The effective temperature of Earth with the standard equation gives a value of 255 K which would give the number (4,228,250,625) when expanded by the 4th power.
288 would give you (6,879,707,136)
Playing around you find the factor between the two numbers as 1.627.
So you make up a meaningless term that for no good reason uses 150 days that you take to the 4th root to hide your manipulations. So 150 to the 4th root gives you 3.49964 which you have to reduce to approximately 1.627 so you introduce a completely stupid idea of some “accepting factor” of 0.47 so what happens? 3.49964 x 0.47 equals 1.645 which is mighty close to the 1.627 ratio between the 4th power of 288 and 255.
Christos Vournas
One of the problems with your equation is that the effective temperature for the planets would already be the maximum speed of rotation, it takes the solar input and spreads it equally to all parts of the surface. The problem is the solar input is only 1/4 the radiating surface.
If you followed the logic your equation creates an impossible energy situation. You will radiate more energy than what you can possibly receive from the Sun.
The circle in space the Earth occupies is the total amount of energy that reaches the Earth.
Using your 1361 W/m^2 value then the area of the circle that solar energy passes through for the Earth is the (radius^2)(Pi) or 6,371,000 meters squared times Pi.
The area is the 1.27516×10^14 m^2. Multiply this by the solar flux and you have 1.73549×10^17 Watts available or in energy this many joules of energy/second are available to be received by Earth.
With a 288 K surface (for blackbody and Earth IR emissivity is close to blackbody) it would emit 390 Watts/m^2. The surface area of the Earth is 510.1 trillion m^2 or 5.101×10^14 m^2. If you multiply the emitting surface by 390 Watts/m^2 you get an emission loss of 1.989×10^17 Watts. This exceeds the maximum input energy of the Sun (without any albedo). If you add albedo the energy the Earth receives is only 1.225×10^17 joules/second. Far less than what a 288 K surface emits continuously.
I am hoping you can see why your equation is not that good and why there is a Greenhouse effect present that keeps the Earth at a much warmer temperature.
With the GHG present, the surface emits average of 390 W/m^2 but at the TOA the Earth is only emitting 240 W/m^2 on average. The GHG return considerable energy back to the surface and allow it to maintain a higher temperature. The Earth system is still in balance with the solar input of 1.225×10^17 joules/second.
Using the amount of energy emitted out to space by the atmosphere of 240 W/m^2 you get a total energy loss of 1.224×10^17 joules/second which closely matches the solar input that is not reflected away (non useable energy for the Earth system).
Lori J Grinvalds,
thank you for your interest in my work!
Please visit my website’s pages.
I have explained everything there. It is a New knowledge I would like to become known.
The New equation is based on Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
I would like to have your opinion. But first, please read what I have discovered, you are not well informed yet.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Norman, thank you for your interest in my work.
“One of the problems with your equation is that the effective temperature for the planets would already be the maximum speed of rotation, it takes the solar input and spreads it equally to all parts of the surface. The problem is the solar input is only 1/4 the radiating surface.”
I do not use the effective temperature equation, it is a different equation. And the logic is not the effective temperature’s logic.
“If you followed the logic your equation creates an impossible energy situation. You will radiate more energy than what you can possibly receive from the Sun.”
The New equation does not radiate more energy than that received from the sun.
What I have discovered is the ROTATING PLANET SPHERICAL SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION ABSORBING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
Thus Earth does not emit at uniform surface temperature Tmean = 288K; Planets do not have uniform surface temperature.
The Tmean = 288K is Earth’s average (mean) surface temperature.
It should be added here that planet surfaces cannot be considered as blackbody surfaces.
Also it is an observed (satellite measured) fact, that planets without-atmosphere in solar system usually have mean surface temperatures higher, than their calculated effective temperatures.
Only for the very slow rotating Mercury the calculated effective temperature is higher than its average surface temperature.
I have created a page in my website I named Tsat vs Te with Φ. Please click on it, I have in graph there all solar system planets and moons, except the very much obvious gaseous (Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune).
In the graph the Tsat/Te >1 (except for the very slow rotating Mercury).
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
I did look at your graph. Most of the bodies in your graph do have atmospheres.
The Earth is close to a blackbody radiator in the IR range. Here is a NASA survey of Earth emissivity.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/nasa-spacecraft-maps-earths-global-emissivity
Water and ice and vegetation are above 0.95 so close to blackbody conditions. But it would change the calculation by a few degrees. Looks like a 0.95 would need to get to around 292 to reach the 390 W/m^2 level.
Anyway the average will give you an idea of how much energy is being emitted. You will have higher temperatures emitting more and colder emitting less but the total will still exceed how much energy the surface is receiving.
Spin will not make the temperature exceed the effective temperature as that is the maximum the surface can reach. Spin will lower this number if the spin is slow. The Earth’s spin is rapid enough that the effect you are describing does not take place. The Earth surface emission max is far below the solar max inupt so no energy is lost in the heating part.
Norman, I also have posted the
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-930152
Thank you for caring.
Christos
Norman, a flat blackbody plate, perfectly insulated on the back, would reach 361K with 960 W/m^2. For you braindead types, that’s 87.6C or 189.6F.
The reason Earth doesn’t get anywhere near such temperatures is because it knows how to handle excess energy.
So, once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. All you know is how to type out long rambling nonsense.
Clint R
I had hoped you were going to honor your statement that you would no longer respond to may posts.
Since it did not happen. Your post is correct that a blackbody object receiving 960 W/m^2 would reach 361 K at a steady state condition. This is not the issue with the Earth surface. The surface never is exposed to a continuous input of 960 W/m^2.
So even though you are stating a correct concept, it has no point in the actual world system.
The surface will only receive this amount of power for a couple hours a day. With a lot of material that is not enough time to raise the temperature to the maximum. I think there are a few places on Earth that get close to this value. Very dry and only a thin heating surface.
They have recorded a ground temperature of 84 C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth
Christos Vournas
I do not accept the physics you use to describe EM energy in the post you made to Bindidon.
YOU: “When EM radiative energy hits a surface it is not absorbed by the surface (not being transformed into heat). The EM energy interacts with the surfaces atoms and molecules, thus the EM energy is partially reflected (diffusely and specularly) and partially IR emitted (by transformation from SW into LW EM energy).
Only a small fraction of the incident solar EM energy is being transformed into heat. That small amount of heat then, by conduction is getting transported in and is accumulated in the surfaces inner layers.”
I have never read, in valid physics textbooks, that SW transforms to LW EM energy directly. The SW energy is absorbed heating the surface, some energy is conducted to cooler parts below the surface.
The surface molecules start vibrating more intensely and increase the amount of IR they emit. The SW converts to heat, the heat then is converted to IR. I think you are making up things that are not true to support an idea that is not actually valid as it requires the surface to emit more energy than it can receive on a continuous basis. The whole premise is flawed.
Norman
“There is actually quite a bit of measured data for outgoing longwave radiation.”
Was the same method being applied (the measured data for outgoing longwave radiation) for Earth the Tmean = 288 K estimation?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Norman
“I think you are making up things that are not true to support an idea that is not actually valid as it requires the surface to emit more energy than it can receive on a continuous basis.”
“as it requires the surface to emit more energy than it can receive on a continuous basis”
The point is that in the New equation the surface (as a whole) emits exactly the same amount of energy received on continuous basis.
The New equation is not the Stefan-Boltzmann uniform surface temperature blackbody emission law formula…
And the New equation is valid for all planets and moons without-atmosphere or with a very thin atmosphere (Earth and Titan included).
The Tmean in the equation is the average surface temperature. Planet does not emit uniformly at that Tmean temperature.
I have prepared a page in my website with “All planets’ temperatures” calculated and measured in one Table of data.
Please visit:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446393385
lori..”The effective temperature of Earth with the standard equation gives a value of 255 K…”
***
There is no standard equation to determine the 255K. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is based on a platinum filament wire electrically heated to temperatures between about 700C and 1500C. That’s where you T^4 relationship exists between EM radiation and the temperature of the radiating surface.
S-B does not apply to the Earth’s surface at terrestrial temperatures. To apply it there, a new relationship must be determined between the Earth’s surface temperature and the EM radiated. That means the sigma proportionality constant must be adjusted to meet that criteria.
Christos was well within his right to apply an adjustment factor.
One big issue that I discussed with him at length is that his model produces an outgoing radiative flux from the Earth (117 W/m^2 as I recall) that is way way smaller than the actual well known observed outgoing flux (240 W/m^2). It is way way smaller than the SB law predicts.
Anybody, even Stephen, can go and find this number in many sources, and verify that Christos model gets it wrong.
That means the input abs*orbed solar energy is way way larger than the outgoing energy . His model Earth is way out of balance and should be heating up like mad.
He has no answer for this.
If your theory predicts a key observation so badly, then its wrong.
Its really quite simple.
Whoever continues to believe in this theory is either extremely gullible or facts just don’t matter to them.
Norman,
There is no observed 240w/m^2. It is a figment of your imagination. It is a product of your hopes and dreams.
Oh sorry, Nate.
stephen p anderson
There is actually quite a bit of measured data for outgoing longwave radiation.
Here is a 90 day sample.
https://psl.noaa.gov/map/images/olr/olr.90day.gif
This image comes from this site
https://psl.noaa.gov/map/clim/olr.shtml
With this data you can get some sort of average amount of longwave radiant energy that is emitted by Earth System at TOA. I am not skilled at the techniques but advanced math will allow the data to be weighed and evaluated to get a global average.
Even if you eye-ball the image you can see lots of area both above the 240 value and lots of area below. It would be far from a figment of the imagination or a “made-up” value. It is mathematical analysis of this type of data which allowed specialists to get the average value of 240 W/m^2 emitted by Earth to space.
Stephen,”There is no observed 240w/m^2. ”
Really? Thats your best argument?
When a theory you like fails to match real world data, then the data does not exist. Its fake.
That is Flat Earther talk. The pictures from space are ALL fake..
Are you a Flat Earther?
Bindidon really stepped in it when he used the phrase “dirty tricks”, as his cult is full of them. I already mentioned the dirty trick of comparing Earth to an imaginary object, to arrive at the bogus “33K” nonsense. But the cult’s biggest dirty trick is attempting to claim CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”.
The media, politicians, and the general public are ignorant of radiative physics. The cult claims CO2 “traps” energy and “heats the planet”. What they fail to mention is that all matter absorbs energy. Apple, peaches, pears, and plums all absorb photons. Trees, grass, lakes, and rivers all absorb photons. Absorbing photons from sources within the system does NOT mean the system warms.
Observe the incredible scientific ignorance of the poster who goes by Clint R.
Once again he demonstrates an ignorant arrogance. He is unaware of the stupidity of his posts. For unknown reasons he perceives himself to be an ultimate genius far superior than countless scientist and experimental scientists who established the currently accepted laws of physics (which he cannot understand even when explained to him hundreds of times by multiple posters).
This ignorant boastful poster is unable to understand any heat transfer dynamics and continues to display blatant ignorance with an unjustified arrogance.
No amount of reason or logic can penetrate this hopeless poster.
Duh!
What a dumb, stubborn, ignorant stuff.
Norman and Bindidon provide excellent examples of “braindead cult idiots”.
Clint R
The only “braindead cult” is with you. People are trying to help you but you don’t realize it. By stating the obvious fact that you are arrogant and ignorant is hoping to get your mind to a conscious state as where it is now. I would far rather you be intelligent, logical and thoughtful than ignorant and arrogant.
Are you a Trump follower by chance. You seem to possess the same level of ignorance as his blind followers accept. Whatever he claims is Truth. He does not need to supply evidence. With the election it has been shown several times he is wrong with numerous recounts and zero evidence to support his claims.
A lot of what you do. Make stupid claims with no support and then with the arrogance. Trump claims he knows more than the generals.
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2016/09/trump-vs-generals/131938/
You utter total ignorance like this. You know more than the entire NASA engineers and scientists who correctly understand the Moon rotates on its axis and at the same time use this information (correctly) in missioin plans.
You also think you know more about radiant energy transfer than all scientists and engineers past and present who work in the field. You have the arrogance to tell a PhD in physics (Tim Folkerts) that he does not know what he is talking abou9t.
Arrogant, stupid and wrong. The only desire to see is you change to be intelligent, humble and correct. I still hope it is possible. But unlikely.
Another desperate, rambling session from braindead cult idiot Norman. As usual, he’s got NOTHING, except his insults and false accusations.
At least he worships his cult heroes, like any groupie does.
Clint R
Not rambling at all. It is to you because you are too stupid to follow rational thought process.
To make it simple, you are an arrogant but very ignorant poster. It would be nice if you could break free of such state of mind.
Norman, you’re just repeating the same nonsense over and over. You’re such a braindead cult idiot that you don’t realize that means you’ve got NOTHING — no science, no logic, no reality, and no self-control.
Did I say, “You’ve got NOTHING?”
(Like the other trolls, you will keep this up endlessly. So, this will be my last response to your nonsense.)
Clint R
Totally wrong again! I present science constantly with numerous links to actual science sources. I am logical and rational so that is also a wrong deduction on your part.
I am certainly hoping it is your last response to any of my posts. That would be an achievement of my goal. To post on this blog without your stupid posts jumping in. Gladly and please do not respond to any of my posts. Wow! That would be such a blessing, can it actually happen? Time will tell.
norman…” You know more than the entire NASA engineers and scientists who correctly understand the Moon rotates…”
…
I wrote to NASA, presenting the same evidence Clint has presented here, and they did not refute the argument. Their reply was that they claimed rotation relative to the stars, not the Moon’s axis. It’s obvious NASA is confusing local rotation with a change in orientation due to the translation of the Moon in its orbit.
It is impossible for the Moon to keep the same side pointed at the Earth while rotating through 360 degrees about a local axis. I gave NASA the example of an airliner orbiting the Earth at 35,000 feet, noting that it kept the same face to the Earth but could not rotate about any of its local axes because it would crash if it did.
No reply. I think they got it because they specialize in aircraft and they could not bring themselves to admit it.
You have not even addressed the airliner example.
Gordon Robertson
They are not confusing anything at all. With your airliner example if the airliner did not continuously rotate it would fly off in a straight line.
You could easily see this with two cans from your cupboard. Put one can in the center and move the other can around it (orbit). Now if you want the same face of the “orbiting” can to always face the center can you will notice you have to rotate the can with your hand to achieve this If you just move it around without rotating it you will find it will show all sides to the center can (as has been shown in the wiki page on this matter).
The only distant star you need to use is the Sun. The Moon receives sunlight on one side for 14 days and then on the other. It has to rotate with respect to the Sun or this is not possible.
If you proceed to use the two cans you will see why NASA does not respond to you. I am not sure why you can’t accept the Moon can rotate once per orbit and that if it did so the citizens of Earth would only see one side of the Moon.
Gordon Robertson
You can also achieve the test by walking. If you do not rotate while you walk you move forward in a straight line. If you rotate your body to left or right you change your direction, you only change your direction with some rotation. The size of the circle you walk will be based upon the rate you walk with respect to the rate you are rotating as you walk. If you walk fast and rotate slowly you form a large circle. If you walk slow and rotate rapidly your form a much smaller circle. But you will find you have to rotate to walk in a circle. If you walk around any object in your yard (a tree). Monitor your feet as you walk around the tree, you are rotating them with each step. If you walk around something without rotating your feet (like a shuffle type) keeping your body facing just one direction (say north) as you go around the tree, from the tree position it will see all your sides.
If the Moon did not rotate with respect with the Sun you would only have one daylit side on the Moon, the other side would be indeed the dark side of the Moon.
It does rotate one time per axis. I strongly suggest you try these simple tests so you will end this ridiculous debate. It is quite established that the Moon rotates on its own axis at the rate of around 28 earth days per cycle.
norman…”With your airliner example if the airliner did not continuously rotate it would fly off in a straight line”.
***
Already explained this. Consider the airliner following only a straight line trajectory under the influence of gravity. It is flying at 35,000 feet with constant velocity so that the lift under it’s wings is enough to balance the effect of gravity, maintaining that altitude.
The above applies on a tangential plane, the portion of the Earth curvature that is essentially flat. As the plane follows the curve, onto the next tangential plane, nothing changes. The balance between lift and gravity is maintained.
Because the lift is always in balance with gravity, if the plane follows a curve, the balance remains, keeping the plane at 35,000 feet. No adjustment is required, the balance between lift and gravity maintains its altitude.
With regard to walking around a tree, you are not rotating about your vertical axis. If you were, by the time you were part way around the tree you’d be walking backwards at a point dependent on your rotational angular velocity.
Consider a skater skating around an oval track. At a certain point, the skater leaps in the air and rotates through 360 degrees. That is translation with rotation. If the skater simply skates around the track, it is translation with no rotation.
The Moon and the airliner are performing translation with no rotation.
GR: It has been established, to dispute the flat earthers, that airplanes adjust their gyros inflight to accommodate the change in their horizontal headings over long flights. Are you going to ally yourself with them?
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string quickly debunks the Moon rotating nonsense. But the cult idiots reject that simple analogy because it is too easy to understand, and too accurate. Instead, Norman makes up his own “analogy” using “cans from your cupboard”.
Norman does not understand orbital motion, so he believes steering the can in its orbit means the can is rotating about its axis. He still can’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”.
All Norman would have to do is staple a string to the side of the can. The string represents the gravity vector. Then, apply a tangential vector to the can. The can would orbit without axial rotation. The staple would always face the inside of the orbit. That’s the same basic motion as Moon.
Or, he could learn the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating” by his example of walking around a tree. If he walks around the tree with his same shoulder always facing the tree, he is “orbiting without axial rotation”. Orbiting does NOT produce axial rotation.
A ball-on-a-string tells you nothing except about a ball-on-a-string.
“If he walks around the tree with his same shoulder always facing the tree”
If he does it fast enough, he gets dizzy.
Proving that he is rotating around his own axis.
Gordon Robertson
On your point on walking around a tree I would disagree just based upon actual observation you can do. Look at your feet. You have to rotate them to achieve walking around a tree with the same side of you facing the tree. You can’t do this without rotating your feet and once the feet plant, the rest or your body. I think you are understanding the concept backwards. That is why I am asking you to look at your feet. Unless you define rotation differently. I believe the consensus of foot rotation would be, if you are sitting in a chair with your foot off the floor, a non-rotation would be to point straight ahead, if you move it twisting it left or right most consider this to be a rotating motion.
With the tree look at your feet as you walk around the tree. You must twist your foot either to the right or left to accomplish the path around the tree. If you do not twist your feet at all (which you can see by looking at them) but walk around the tree, your feet, not twisting, will face the same direction all the way around the tree. On the opposite side of the tree you will be walking backward but your feet never twisted (rotated) as you shuffled around the tree. This is an orbit with no axial rotation. The distant object you will see the whole time around and the tree will see all sides of you. In this case, with the Moon and no axial rotation but orbiting Earth, only one side of the Moon would ever receive sunlight but on Earth your would see all sides of the Moon.
Please try this with a tree in your area and monitor your own feet in both cases. Ask if your feet are twisting (rotating) or not.
Norman, you can’t learn because you’re braindead. You have swallowed the cult nonsense and reject reality.
You rejected the ball-on-a-string because it debunks your beliefs. You tried to pervert reality with your “cupboard cans”, only to see that get shot down by stapling a string to the side of the can. So now, all you have left is walking around a tree. Let’s shatter that nonsense also.
Stand in one place and “rotate about your axis”. Then, stand still in a toy wagon as someone pulls you around a tree. One side of you will always face the tree. Now, “rotate about your axis” as you are being pulled around the tree. Someone standing at the tree would see all sides of you.
Orbiting without axial rotation results in only one side facing the inside of the orbit, like Moon.
I predict you will still deny that reality.
Clint R
With your wagon point. The person in the wagon is part of the wagon rotation. The wagon rotates around the tree and you, part of it, rotate along with it (you can rotate on your own if you wish). You can see the wagon is rotating by noting the wheels, they are twisted not straight.
With the cans (I already tried it and suggest you also try it). A string connected to the “orbiting” can and the center can does NOT represent the axis of rotation of the “orbiting” can. In order to find how this behaves tape a long rubber band to the top of the “orbiting” can and tie the other end of this rubber band to a stationary nail above the center can. Now move the “orbiting” can around in a circle and rotate it around so that its same face always faces the center can. You will see the rubber band is winding up, the “orbiting” can is rotating on its axis. Now move it around the center can keeping the same face pointed outward (like to the Sun), the center can will see all sides but the rubber band will not wind up. Try it and see. Then come back and tell me your results.
Thanks for proving me right, Lori. You’re still in full denial of reality.
The wagon is NOT rotating about its axis. It is “orbiting” the tree. Orbiting does NOT cause rotation. The two motions are independent. Take planet Mercury, for example. It can be observed rotating 1.5 times for each orbit, or 3 complete rotations in 2 orbits. They do NOT add 2 more rotations for the 2 orbits.
I predict you will not be able to understand any of this. That’s why you’re braindead.
Clint R
The wagon is rotating continuously as it moves in a circle. The combination of rotation and forward motion at the same time make a circular path.
Contrast it, if the wheels of the wagon do not twist in a direction (which you can also perform with your own feet, not sure why you choose to deny this reality) the wagon goes forward and straight. It will not move in a circle. If it rotates (which you can observe by looking at the wheels) and moves forward it will form a circle. The size of the circle is based upon the rate of rotation vs the forward speed. If the rotation is rapid compared to the forward speed the circle is small. If the rotation is slight as it moves forward the circle is large.
Also will you at least try to use a rubber band on a can and create an actual axis of rotation test? It is not a hard test to do. I wonder what you will make of your results as the axis rubber band winds up as your rotate the can moving it in a circular path keeping the same face pointed inward.
Look I am being logical, trying to generate a thoughtful point and all you are able to muster is degrading remarks. Why?
Rather than insult, do the can test and tell me what you get. I am interested to hear how it comes out for you.
You’re still braindead, Norman.
The wagon is changing direction. That’s NOT rotating. You still don’t get it.
You avoid reality. You reject the ball-on-a-string, but try to pervert it with a can and rubber band. Both would have the same results, if you know what you were doing.
And, you avoid dealing with planet Mercury, which does NOT have any rotation due to orbiting. Nor does Moon.
You’re a braindead cult idiot, and I predict you’ll never change.
“The wagon is changing direction. Thats NOT rotating”
The wagon is rotating but it is not rotating. Great logic there.
Clint R
I would rather you did the real can axis of rotation test with the rubber band rather than speculating on the result. I actually did it and saw what it does. You just make opinions on what you think it will do but you do not actually do the test. Why?
Again, do the test (it is very easy) and then tell me what you find. I do not care about your ignorant speculation on what you think will happen. Do the test and then tell me what actually took place.
The rubber band winds up if you keep the same side of the can pointing to the center as you move it around a circle. Do it or just shut up ok.
Norman, you avoid reality. You reject the ball-on-a-string, but you try to pervert it with a can and rubber band! Both would have the same results, if you know what you were doing.
You can’t face reality. You can’t understand science. And you can’t do experiments. You’re a braindead cult idiot. That’s NOT an insult, it’s reality.
Orbiting does NOT cause rotation.
“Orbiting does NOT cause rotation”
Agreed. So why does orbiting cause one face to point towards Earth then?
Clint R shows his desperation by introducing yet another non-sequitur with his toy wagon.
Do you need a lolly to suck on while you pull your toy wagon around a tree?
“So why does orbiting cause one face to point towards Earth then?”
Orbital motion without axial rotation results in one side of the orbiting object always facing the inside of its orbit. It’s the same as a ball-on-a-string, or Moon.
CLint R posts a strawman.
“Absorbing photons from sources within the system does NOT mean the system warms.”
So what Sherlock?
It’s the increase in the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is what warms the surface.
Your incompetent flak validates my comment, bob.
Thanks.`
Sherlock, your “airplane” has been shot down.
Your immaturity amplifies your incompetence, further validating my comment.
Thanks, bob.
(I won’t be responding again, but keep the validations coming.)
Clint R,
“(I won’t be responding again, but keep the validations coming.)”
You sure of that?
I’ll be sure to respond to any incorrect nonsense that you post.
Cause it’s fun to do that.
bob, the fact that you stalk me is part of the entertainment. I only wish I had more time to really show what an immature idiot you are. That’s when you really lose it and the profanity begins.
See Clint R,
you can’t help yourself.
Looks like you have all the time in the world to show that I am an immature idiot.
Not doing so well, but then that only my biased opinion.
Hope you are having as much fun as I am.
More happiness for the Coolistas:
https://tinyurl.com/4e3uk45k
For August and September, 2021 shows for the Arctic sea ice extent values above those of all years after 2014.
Grrrand Coooling ahead.
entropic…”Each model run is intended to answer the question “what will future temperatures look like under “these conditions”?”
***
In the 3rd assessment, the IPCC stated that future climate states cannot be predicted. That truth applies today.
Gordon,
What’s a climate state?
entropic…”The gravitational constant is a constant of proportionality, The first type of fudge factor allows you to turn a proportional relation into a quantitative one”.
***
Please tell me you’re joking. A constant is a fudge factor???
In the case of Newton, G was based on observation and a deep understanding of science. Later, it was confirmed by experimentation.
No fudge factor there.
“A constant is a fudge factor”
It usually applies because the units we use are arbitrary at best.
What is 1 second, 1 meter, 1 gram?
RLH,
a second is 9,192,631,770 times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
a meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 seconds.
and a kilogram is Plancks constant divided by 6.626,070,15 10−34 m−2s.
Glad to be of some minor assistance.
So what is magical about 9,192,631,770, 299,792,458 and 6.626,070,15 10^−34
Why would those numbers be magical, this is Science.
You said the units were arbitrary, you were wrong.
The numbers you quote are quite arbitrary. They just happen to make things work out. They have no reasonings other than that.
You just contradicted yourself.
You claimed they are arbitrary, then you said they just happen to make things work out.
Which is it?
Solar update – preliminary
After a spike in September the sun went to slumber for the first half of October with sun spot count average 22.
currently spotless, 10.7cm Solar Radio Flux 78
Right now You can align and match the solar cycle 25 rise with any previous cycle big or small simply by shifting its start date.
The start of the new solar cycle is not determined by a scientific method, it is decided on by a committee and it can be wrong.
In other words there is nowhere near enough data so far to make any kind of assessment if the cycle will be small medium of big based on the initial rise curve.
https://i.postimg.cc/d1vtJs4S/comparison-recent-cycles.png
Since we been in an Ice Age for many millions of years, it seems one could fairly good guess about what roughly going to happen with global climate in next 1000 years. Unless within this time, we get hit by a large space rock or we get an unexpected large amount of volcanic activity, US west coast falls into ocean and/or ect.
The sun seems rather unpredictable.
Sort like predicting the weather.
No termination event in sight
https://i.postimg.cc/FHVyPjZk/current.png
” I wrote to NASA, presenting the same evidence Clint has presented here, and they did not refute the argument. Their reply was that they claimed rotation relative to the stars, not the Moons axis. Its obvious NASA is confusing local rotation with a change in orientation due to the translation of the Moon in its orbit. ”
Only a stupid person would write that the Moon rotates ‘relative to the stars’.
Robertson is such a stupid person.
Nothing rotates ‘relative to the stars’.
I have explained that so many times… by posting what Newton wrote in Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV of his Principia Scientifica, third edition in 1726.
What we measure from Earth ‘relative to the stars’, is never the motion of an observed celestial body.
We measure the speed of this body’s motion in a way independent of Earth’s motion itself.
This is really easy to understand.
Measuring from Earth the speed of Sun’s rotation, by looking at a given sun spot, but without taking a fixed point in space as reference, gives 27.5 days.
Measuring that speed with respect to this fixed point however gives 25.5 days instead.
But Robertson never admits his thorough lack of understanding, and hence will repeat his utter nonsense ad nauseam, as he does for everything: viruses, speed of light, etc etc etc.
Bindidon is so braindead that he doesn’t realize he’s called NASA “stupid”.
Bindi is a German leftist with Nazi beliefs and instincts.
Anderson
Anyone who acts like a completely lying asshole will also be called that.
Clint R
Show us where NASA claims that Moon’s rotation is relative to the stars.
If I do that work for you Bindidon, will you agree to not comment here for 90 days?
Stop dodging and post instead.
Not dodging anything. I just know you can’t learn, so trying to clear your confusion is a waste of my time.
You better take the offer quick, as the price may go up at any time.
I asked for:
” Show us where NASA claims that Moons rotation is relative to the stars. ”
No link to any page.
Conclusion as always
Clint R claims to be able to show something, but … we can all see that the claim doesn’t hold up.
Well here is one where they claim the Moon rotates once on its axis in the time it takes to orbit the Earth.
https://moon.nasa.gov/inside-and-out/top-moon-questions/#:~:text=Does%20the%20Moon%20spin%20on,towards%20Earth%20throughout%20the%20month.
Sorry Bindidon, but the price has gone up. You were warned.
I’ll put in the time to address your concern, but you have to avoid commenting for 120 days.
Since I just posted a link that shows NASA doesn’t use the relative to the stars argument, maybe Clint R should take a 120 day break.
binny…”What we measure from Earth relative to the stars, is never the motion of an observed celestial body”.
***
It’s done all the time and even your authority figure, Mayer, used it. He would observe the time taken by the Moon to pass a distant star.
We can observe the rotation of a celestial body, the Earth, Each night as we watch the western horizon move wrt the stars. In fact, that is a method used by astronomers to determine sidereal time. We can use a watch while calculating the change of angle wrt the stars to determine speed.
We can observe with the naked eye, the planets Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, and Mars moving wrt the stars through different times of the year.
And of course, we can observe the near face of the Moon change orientation wrt the stars as the Moon appears to move across the sky night after night. You think it’s rotation about a local axis but its actually plain, old translation, just like someone walking around an oval track, or an airliner orbiting the Equator at 35,000 feet.
Robertson
I repeat for the dumbest ignoramus
” What we measure from Earth relative to the stars, is never the motion of an observed celestial body. ”
What Mayer and all his predecessors and successors observed ‘relative to the stars’ is not the motion itself, but the time needed by celestial bodies for that motion or parts of it, independently of Earth’s motion itself.
You are still way way way from understanding that.
Try to read Kepler, that might help.
And – above all – stop talking about Tobias Mayer as if you would have read (let alone understood) anything of what he wrote.
Never did Mayer calculate Moon’s orbit around Earth.
Why should he have done that? This work had been done by Kepler and Newton decades ago.
Mayer’s work had to do with Moon’s rotation about its polar axis, and with nothing else.
And to compute the period of that rotation and the inclination of Moon’s rotation axis wrt the Ecliptic, he needed of course a fixed point in space.
https://climateconference.heartland.org/
It is the last day of the ICCC14 conference.
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 17
BREAKFAST AND LUNCH KEYNOTES
Breakfast Keynote 8:00am 9:00am PT
This plenary meal session includes a keynote presentation by meteorologist Joe Bastardi of WeatherBell and a keynote speech by Naomi Seibt.
Lunch Keynote 1:15pm 2:00pm PT
In this plenary meal session, Lord Christopher Monckton is giving a keynote presentation on science.
SCIENCE TRACK
Panel 5 9:15am 10:45am PT
Steve Milloy, H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., and Marc Morano are featured in this breakout session on how science is being abused in service of the Great Reset of capitalism.
Panel 6 11:00am 12:30pm PT
Neil Frank, Ph.D., Stanley Goldenberg, and James Taylor are featured in this breakout session focusing on the affect climate change is having on hurricane strength and frequency, as well as other extreme events such as tornadoes, wildfires, floods, and droughts.
POLICY TRACK
Panel 5 9:15am 10:45am PT
Oliver Hemmers, Ph.D., Wolfgang Mller, and Derrick Hollie are featured in this breakout session about clean energy projects in the US, the Great Energy Transformation in Germany, and what environmental justice really is.
Panel 6 11:00am 12:30pm PT
Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D., Holger Thuss, Ph.D., and Rob Bradley are featured in this breakout session that will cover changing fuel economy standards, Germanys successful leftist energy agenda, and the future of free-market energy policy in the US and abroad.
Previous days (from Friday) have included
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15
OPENING DINNER KEYNOTE
Dinner Keynote 6:15pm 8:00pm PT
This plenary opening dinner session will feature a Climate Change Award, a scientific presentation, an explanation of Heartlands Climate at a Glance project for American teachers, and a presentation on the nexus between The Great Reset and global climate change policy is featured in this session.
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16
BREAKFAST, LUNCH AND DINNER KEYNOTES
Breakfast Keynote 8:00am 9:30am PT
A scientific keynote by Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., and a panel discussion on energy policy in Europe with Wolfgang Mller and Holger Thuss, Ph.D., of the European Institute for Climate and Energy will be featured in this plenary session.
Lunch Keynote 1:45pm 2:45pm PT
This plenary meal session will include a keynote science presentation by William Happer, Ph.D., titled Noble Lies, and a showing of the trailer for Climate Hustle 2 by Craig Rucker of CFACT.
Dinner Keynote 7:00pm 8:30pm PT
This plenary meal session includes a Climate Change Award, a keynote presentation by Patrick Moore, Ph.D., co-founder of Greenpeace, and mid-conference observations by Heartland Institute President James Taylor and Joseph Morris, the chairman of Heartlands Board of Directors.
SCIENCE TRACK
Panel 1 9:45am 11:15am
Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Ph.D., and Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., will offer presentations on the latest global temperature trends, and explain whats driving them.
Panel 2 11:30am 1:00pm PT
Ken Haapala, David Legates, Ph.D., Howard Hayden, Ph.D., and Tom Sheahen will discuss the scientific method, and how the United Nations reports repeatedly violate it.
Panel 3 3:00pm 4:30pm PT
Tom Moser, Greg Goodnight, Bob Bauman, and Jim Peacock of The Right Climate Stuff (founded by former NASA engineers) will give presentations on the disastrous blackouts in Texas last winter and how to avoid such catastrophes in the future.
Panel 4 4:45pm 6:15pm PT
Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Gregory Wrightstone, and Willie Soon, Ph.D., explain which natural forces have the most impact on the climate, and why. It is not CO2 that drives temperature.
POLICY TRACK
Panel 1 9:45am 11:15am
Kevin Dayatratna, Ph.D., E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., and Anne Jordan discuss the supposed justification for a rapid transition to expensive and unreliable green energy, and the opposition to those policies in America and abroad.
Panel 2 11:30am 1:00pm PT
Presentations by Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D., Kenneth Green, Ph.D., and Myron Ebell on how bad science leads to worse policy.
Panel 3 3:00pm 4:30pm PT
Justin Danhof and Scott Shepard of the National Center for Public Policy Research and Stephen Soukup of the Political Forum Institute, discuss the growing trend of corporations putting aside fiduciary duties and concentrating on ESG goals. This change in focus has profound negative impact on shareholders, customers, and society as a whole.
Panel 4 4:45pm 6:15pm PT
Amy Oliver Cooke of the John Locke Institute, Bette Grande of The Heartland Institute, and Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com present on how the Biden energy and environment agenda from canceling the Keystone XL pipeline deal with Canada, to restricting the once-burgeoning fracking industry in the United States is affecting Americas energy economy.
As usual, then.
Those who benefit in the short term from our high CO2 emissions lifestyle are using their lobbyists to tell us the old lie, that we can continue business as usual without consequences.
No one says that there will be no consequences to burning more CO2. A large number of people say that natural cycles will contribute as much, if not more, than burning CO2 does to climate.
Yes, there will be consequences. We will run out of fossil fuel one day, or at least, have limited availability.
By the way, we don’t burn CO2. It is a combustion product as is water.
What a grand design by the Designer. We burn fossil fuels whose byproducts are water and CO2. These byproducts increase plant growth which produces more fossil fuel.
The fact that we all run on solar energy stored for a long time in chemistry is well known.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/radiative-climate-forcing
Note the total forcing of 1.6W/m^2 and the CO2 forcing of 1.66W/m^2. All the other forcings sum to -0.06W/m^2.
The message from this data is that almost all the forcing is due to increasing CO2.
If half of the total forcing is natural and half due to CO2, you need to show that the natural forcings add up at least as much as CO2.
Data, please.
Ent, making up “data” ain’t science.
And, you’re still trying to add/subtract (estimated) fluxes and claiming the difference is “energy”.
More “dirty tricks”.
There is no CO2 “forcing” of any significance. Again more pathological pseudoscience.
See “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate” Soon et al.
Soon’s a known paid shill.
So his science is correct then?
Nope
So urban show the same ‘heating’ as rural does?
People like to live in warm places.
Or that the Urban heating effect is removed from the surface data records.
Except for UAH, which doesn’t measure the surface anyway.
But no amount of greenhouse gases will cause us to leave our Ice Age nor prevent the next glaciation period from happening.
And if Venus was at Earth orbital distance, the planet would be more miserly cold as compared to Earth {though it could take more than 1000 years to become so cold}
RLH, Looks like another love fest of the usual denialist crowd. They’ve been running this show for years, pushing the same politically motivated pro fossil fuel nonsense.
Roy was on the schedule for 16 October, but the web site this morning doesn’t show him as speaker, showing Sterling Burnett instead??
Saying that they are all denialists is a step too far. Some of them are quite scientific and thoughtful in their work.
Have you looked at any of the presentations or is it all just prejudice without cause?
I’ve seen past papers and lectures.
They give the impression of being scientific and are good enough to convince the target audience, who tend to be weakly educated in science and keen to have their beliefs confirmed.
By proper scientific standards they tend to be thin gruel. Opinions masquerade as facts. Date is weak or non-existant, analysis is weak or trivial and statistics such as confidence limits are neglected.
Grandiose conclusions are drawn with little basis in reality. Many of the presentations fail the basic coherence, consistence, consilience test.
A few, such as Richard Linzden, have more credibility and have made serious attempts to find alternative explanations for the observed warming. His Iris hypothesis was a possible alternative to CO2 forcing which turned out to be wrong when tested against reality.
Some of the stufff in the schedule makes no sense at all. What is The Great Reset?
Great Reset
This wasn’t on my radar until looking at the Heartland agenda.
Actually it’s a recurring theme in that I don’t notice much of what the political left is talking about until the political right is outraged by it.
Everything I needed to know about The Heartland Institute I learned from Mitchell Anderson On Mar 30, 2009 @ 12:20 PDT
“Ive seen past papers and lectures”
So that’s a no then.
entropic…”By proper scientific standards they tend to be thin gruel. Opinions masquerade as facts. Date is weak or non-existant, analysis is weak or trivial and statistics such as confidence limits are neglected”.
***
You are, of course, talking about alarmists and the anthropogenic theory.
What is your opinion on “How much has the Sun influenced Northern
Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate” for instance?
You can do an independent crosscheck.
My link shows an increase in solar irradiation of 0.3W/m^2.
The solar cycle shows an 11 year oscillation. The peaks are more intense than the troughs by 1W/m^2 in the solar output of 1366W/m^2.
Allowing for albedo and surface area that becomes a variation of1*0.7/4 = 0.18W/m^2.
We see no 11 year global or regional temperature cycle, so 0.18W/m^2 is too small a change to detectably affect the temperature.
Is an extra 0.3W/m^2 enough to significantly warm the Northern Hemisphere? If 0.18W/m^2 has no detectable effect, then 0.3W/m^2 is unlikely to have much effect either.
As for the paper itself, have you read it? It fits the pattern I described earlier.
It is a Gish Gallop of references and data, much of it irrelevant. It is virtually unreadable, comes to no conclusion and fails to answer the question posed in the title.
“Conclusion.
In the title of this paper, we asked, How
much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere
temperature trends? However, it should now be apparent that,
despite the confidence with which many studies claim to have
answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily
answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions
that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to
force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC
reports) on these scientific debates are premature and
ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the
analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further
analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is
ongoing.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131
Exactly. The paper’s purpose was not to answer the question, but to sow doubt.
“In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.”
“In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.”
The science is less well decided than you wish it to be.
“Precision and accuracy are two different things.”
willard…”In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.”
***
Where did you dig up that rubbish? If your reference is to the denial of anthropogenic theory, where is the scientific evidence that any of it is undisputed fact? And where is it written that consensus is scientific or even part of science?
“Precision and accuracy are two different things”
No shit Sherlock.
> where is it written that consensus is scientific or even part of science?
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-web-of-belief-Quine-Ullian/57f1d9744b841944e9d7dd67001d88e706037319
“What is your opinion on ‘How much has the Sun influenced Northern
Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate’
Well, there is political commentary in there, which seems out of place in a discussion paper on total solar irradiance studies. Some of the authors of the study are saying that their own “dissenting” papers have not been given consideration by the IPCC. But I checked a few of these papers, ones that I had heard of, and some were in fact included in IPCC reports.
Boils down to the authors arguing that certain papers and the data they rely on are sidelined by the IPCC because they would muddy the narrative that TSI has a minimal or negative influence on recent global temperatures (warming) on multidecadal time scales. If these views were included, that would make the solar/global temperature link less certain.
Are you saying that Soon et al findings that rural stations are not showing the same rate of rise as urban ones are wrong?
“[S]everal groups have argued that by applying statistically-based “homogenization” techniques to the dataset, the homogenization algorithms will accurately detect and correct for the main biases (Peterson et al. 1999; Menne & Williams 2009; Hausfather et al. 2013; Li & Yang 2019; Li et al. 2020b).”
The citation dates suffice to see that contrarians lost that one.
No response to rural v urban though.
“the homogenization algorithms will accurately detect and correct for the main biases”
“Are you saying that Soon et al findings that rural stations are not showing the same rate of rise as urban ones are wrong?”
Nope. I checked my comment and couldn’t find anything at all on this matter, or any part of my remarks that might lead to this question.
You have a habit of leading the witness.
“the homogenization algorithms will accurately detect and correct for the main biases”
And smear urban over rural as it does it.
RLH says: What is your opinion on How much has the Sun influenced Northern
Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate for instance?
The biggest issue with any sun-centered explanation for recent global warming is how one explains observed stratospheric cooling in such a hypothesis. This makes it hard to take seriously a paper that doesn’t even acknowledge the issue.
That’s not the paper’s only significant flaw, but it’s enough to give priority to endeavors more likely to be productive.
You mean cooling like this?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah_ls-1.jpg
That is mostly driven by what?
Still no answer for LT warming not as significant in rural areas though.
RLH says: Still no answer for LT warming not as significant in rural areas though.
Are you endorsing Soon’s approach to generating a Northern Hemisphere rural temperature series?
This is a “yes” or “no” question. You may, in addition, add whatever qualifications you deem necessary, but if you deem the approach not valid, then your question is pointless.
Well all I can say is that his rural only stations for the Northern Hemisphere is quite close to my own assessment (unpublished as yet).
So that’s a yes then.
https://imgur.com/kYQXT0l
RLH,
The goal of science published in journals is to advance science and determine the facts about how nature works.
Heartland is political advocacy organization. Their goals are to produce political results, government policies that favor and support the fossil fuel industry. As such they produce material that falls into the general category of propaganda.
Their products are not obligated to be fact-based, accurate or comprehensive in the same way that published science is.
Thus you should not get your science facts on climate change from such an an organization.
It would be like getting your science on health effects of smoking from tobacco companies.
Are you saying that Soon et al are wrong to point out that rural stations do not display the same trend as urban stations all over the world but especially over the Northern Hemisphere?
” The start of the new solar cycle is not determined by a scientific method, it is decided on by a committee and it can be wrong. ”
This is no more than sheer nonsense.
Some people are manifestly able to discredit others, to post disgusting pictures, but conversely are unable to look for valuable informatiuon sources.
*
To be convinced of this you just need to have a look at the page
https://www.astro.oma.be/en/december-2019-confirmed-as-starting-point-of-the-new-solar-activity-cycle/
managed by the Royal Observatory of Belgium, SILSO’s head instance:
December 2019 confirmed as starting point of the new solar activity cycle
” The reference date and amplitudes of the minima and maxima of the 11-year solar cycle are established on the base of the sunspot number maintained and distributed by the SILSO World Data center since 1981 at the Royal Observatory of Belgium.
Over past years, the rather weak cycle that had peaked in 2014 has been progressively declining, heralding the approach of the minimum that marks the transition to the next cycle and is characterized by long fully quiet and spotless periods.
Month-after-month, SILSO has carefully monitored the general trend in the activity.
In January 2020, the 13-month smoothed sunspot number rose for the first time since the maximum of cycle 24 (April 2014). Now, by September, this reversal of the trend was firmly confirmed, officially placing the minimum between cycles 24 and 25 in December 2019.
The Sun has thus now started its ascending phase towards the next maximum. This date also sets the duration of the past solar cycle at exactly 11 years, as the last minimum occurred in December 2008, thus almost exactly the average length of all past sunspot cycles, which ranges from 9 to 14 years. ”
*
And the Belgian page continues to contradict incompetent sources with:
” This confirmed minimum will now be used to constrain scientific models and predictions of the future solar activity developed by solar researchers.
December 2019 falls within the rather broad date interval (July 2019 to September 2020) announced by the International Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel, supported by NASA and NOAA, and to which SILSO is participating. Now that we have pinpointed the true minimum, the Panel will be able to refine the prediction of the next big milestone of the new cycle: its maximum, so far expected between 2023 and 2026. On this occasion, NASA just issued a dedicated press release on September 15. ”
*
Further information:
” Another indication of the transition between the two cycles can be drawn from counts of individual sunspot groups belonging to the old and new solar cycles.
https://www.astro.oma.be/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SC24-25_ngr_b.png
While most sunspot groups belonged to the last solar cycle until September 2019, the dominance switched to groups of the new cycle in November 2019. ”
*
Finally we read:
” This late-breaking upward trend is now expected to accelerate over the coming months. ”
*
Many people have claimed that SC25 would be from the beginning even weaker than SC24, what is clearly contradicted by solar flux data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QDIH1i34iyU4cQgkhwoUDYTYAA2Qx-7v/view
*
But this does not change anything to the fact that SC25 is not expected to be stronger than SC24 over the long term.
As written by NASA/NOAA:
” Solar Cycle 25 is forecast to be a fairly weak cycle, the same strength as cycle 24. Solar maximum is expected in July 2025, with a peak of 115 sunspots. “
*Taps, taps.*
Is this thing on?
Unfortunately, you noticed it by accident.
Too bad.
Without Flynnson and you, the blog is two blowflies poorer.
I love you too, Binny.
“RLH says:” 277.
279
311
318
No.
Too bad. I knew it was too good to last.
Me too:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-917733
It would keep cooling – except for
the energy arriving from the Sun,
the nuclear radiation at the Earth’s core,
and the heat-retaining properties of the Earth’s blanket of atmosphere
gordon…”and the heat-retaining properties of the Earths blanket of atmosphere…”
Yes…but the heat is not retained by trace gases like CO2 or WV, it is retained by nitrogen and oxygen, that make up 99% of the atmosphere.
R.W.Wood explained that one. N2/O2 receives heat from the surface via conduction. The heated gases rise but cannot radiate away the heat because both are poor radiators at terrestrial temperatures.
That effect is what is known incorrectly as the greenhouse effect.
Gordo repeats his display of incorrect physics. He posits that energy moves from the surface to higher altitudes thru convection without greenhouse gas IR emissions, but ignores what happens if this process were to continue without loss to deep space via that IR thermal radiation. The result of this scenario would be a continual increase in atmospheric temperature without end. Above the tropopause, in the dry stratosphere, CO2 radiates outward and cools the air mass. The increasing CO2 radiation is the reason for the well documented cooling of the stratosphere. Concurrent downward IR thermal emissions are the cause of warming in the lower atmosphere.
barry says:
October 15, 2021 at 12:01 AM
La Nina is now being forecast as likely by NH Winter by BoM, JMA and NOAA
=========================================
Pretty funny, barry comes to tell us there is LaNina forecast after we are already in it , well thanks for the newz , who is is the fuckwit now ???
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-726374
Only one ENSO monitoring group of four surveyed above says we are already in a la Nina.
I report accurately in real time. The forecasts have changed since I posted in June, and I updated the advice this month. Fuckwits push their agenda continuously.
People have been saying that the La Nina was coming for a lot longer than June this year. They have now been proven correct. Are you suggesting still that there will be no La Nina at the end of this year/next year?
You should team up with Bindidonkey and form a company
forecasting yesterday weather.
“People have been saying that the La Nina was coming for a lot longer than June this year.”
Some people did. The forecasts from various groups were as I reported them in June.
“Are you suggesting still that there will be no La Nina at the end of this year/next year?”
Pfffft. Good luck quoting me on that, you goose.
So you are saying that there will be a La Nina, but you don’t want to admit that others predicted it before you.
I don’t forecast ENSO events. I’m not an expert.
“you don’t want to admit that others predicted it before you.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-925162
“I dont forecast ENSO events. Im not an expert”
For sure.
Neither are you.
What is the purpose of this chest-butting, RLH?
You are the one claiming to be right. I have been suggesting that a La Nina was going to happen on here for a log time now.
Never mind, I’m sure you are correct. Eventually.
“You are the one claiming to be right.”
About what? I’ve never once made a forecast. All I’ve ever done is point out what various monitoring groups are saying. It started with you saying, “the majority of ENSO forecasts are saying the current la Nina will continue….” and me trying to get you to look at forecasting groups beyond your corner of the globe (N. America), when at the time the majority of forecasts were NOT saying that. It took you 3 months to acknowledge you hadn’t looked at any ENSO forecasting outside the US.
I have no attachment to the outcome of these forecasts. I don’t care what the ENSO state is in Winter. I think you do, as I’ve said.
As I am not in NA so your post is irrelevant.
Do you expect that worldwide temperatures will decline for the next few months or not? Based on what the ENSO has done so far?
The LaNina forecast has been there all along, dumb ass Dingle Berry just doesn’t know how to read it , he is however quick to call others who do fuckwits.
Look at him back paddling now
“Do you expect that worldwide temperatures will decline for the next few months or not?”
Global temperatures tend to dip with la Nina events. If the forecast la Nina eventuates it is virtually certain global temps will dip. There is usually a lag of a few months.
Why are you asking?
Just checking.
His forecast was correct , it is the weather that turned out wrong,
and we are all stoopid
maguff…”Everything I needed to know about The Heartland Institute…”
***
You alarmists are good at shooting the messenger. All Heartland offers is scientific opinions by scientists like Roy Spencer. Rather than read and evaluate what Roy has to say as an expert, you go after the people who allow him to publish his work.
Why don’t you go after the mainstream media who are suppressing Roy’s work?
I remember the argument put forward by skeptic Pat Michaels. He was the only scientist going after the propaganda from James Hansen of NASA GISS, who was generously funded by the US government through the likes of Al Gore, which enabled Hansen to spread pseudo-science unopposed.
Michaels was struggling financially to keep up with Hansen’s propaganda till Western Fuels offered to fund him. Michaels accepted, and naturally the alarmists went after him for being funded by fossil fuel companies.
Alarmists were not interested in what Michaels was saying scientifically, only that he was funded by money from a fossil fuel company.
Heartland is not the issue here, the real issue is that they are giving a voice to skeptics because the mainstream media are to0 dishonest to present it themselves.
McGuffin et al should know that ad hominem is nothing but a great way to avoid the truth.
Ken at 9:15 PM
If you are referring to my comment here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-930710, then I suggest you check your definition of ad hominem.
Ken
” … ad hominem is nothing but a great way to avoid the truth. ”
Correct, Ken!
What about telling that to the ad hominem specialists like Robertson, Clint R, Swenson, Anderson etc?
Bindidon, I don’t do “ad homs”. I do “reality”.
You’re a braindead cult idiot by your own choice. You refuse reality, and you can’t learn. You don’t know anything about science, you just swallow whatever your cult spews.
I just report the truth.
“I just report the truth”
Liar.
norman..” Look at your feet. You have to rotate them to achieve walking around a tree with the same side of you facing the tree”.
***
Pictures this. You are walking around a tree on a circle with a radius of 10 feet. As you walk, you encounter a small device, like a lazy susan, which rotates on an axle. You step on the device and someone rotates you 180 degrees. Which way are you walking when you get off the device? In the opposite direction, right?
Same thing if you were walking, you stopped, turned through 180 degrees and carried on. That’s rotation.
Note what is required for rotation. If you are walking CCW, your left foot is to the inside and your right foot to the outside. In order to rotate about your vertical axis, your right foot and left foot must change place at some point.
If you could come to a stop, rotate through 360 degrees, and carry on, you’d be able to complete your orbit of the tree CCW. However, we want to rotate just once while completing the orbit, like the Moon is claimed to do. That would mean very slowly rotating while walking forward, sideways, and backwards.
It is not possible to rotate once while keeping your left shoulder pointed at the tree.
On the other hand, if you simply walk around the tree on the circle, your left foot is always on the inside and your right foot on the outside. Suppose you draw two more circles with a radius of 9.5 feet and 10.5 feet. As you walk, your left foot follows the 9.5R circle and your right foot the 10.5R circle. So, each foot follows concentric circles.
That means at no time can the right foot or the left foot rotate around the vertical axis to perform rotation, as described earlier. All your feet can do is simple translation without rotation.
Please look at picture showing moon’s trajectory around the sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg
Once you look at the diagram you will understand the arguments based on circular orbit around the earth like it was a ball on a string, don’t hold up.
Moon isn’t orbiting around the earth; its orbiting around the sun. All the earth does is perturb the orbit so that it has a sinusoidal pattern that results in the moon sometimes being ahead of earth and sometimes behind. When it is ahead of the earth the face of the moon is facing away from its direction of travel around the sun. When its behind the earth the face of the moon is facing into the direction of travel around the sun.
Moon rotates around its axis once every ~28 days.
If you made the earth vanish, the moon would continue orbiting the sun and it would continue to rotate around its axis.
ken…”Moon isnt orbiting around the earth; its orbiting around the sun”.
***
Not possible, the Moon has no linear momentum in relation to the Sun, just the Earth. In other words, if you could turn off gravity, the Moon would shoot off in a straight line tangent to it’s orbital position.
On the other hand, if you could shut of solar gravity, the Earth and every planet would shoot off in a straight line tangential to its position in its orbit. The Moon would go with the Earth, still orbiting, since it would have the same linear momentum relative to the Earth.
To sum up, the Earth has a linear momentum relative to the Sun, the Moon does not. At least, not a linear momentum that would allow it to orbit the Sun if the Earth was suddenly removed.
If you have a special situation where the Moon was moving parallel to Earth’s orbit, and gravity was suddenly turned off, the Moon might try to go into orbit around the Sun. Given the difference in mass between the Earth and the Moon, and the difference in the Moon’s linear velocity compared to the Earth in its orbit about the Sun, I doubt if the Moon would remain in orbit. It would likely be sucked into the Sun.
The orbital speed of the Earth is 107,000 kph and the orbital speed of the Moon is 3,683 kph. That 107,000 kph is required to offset the solar gravitational force and keep the Earth in orbit. The 3,683 kph of the Moon would not be sufficient to maintain a solar orbit.
“In other words, if you could turn off gravity, the Moon would shoot off in a straight line tangent to its orbital position.
On the other hand, if you could shut of solar gravity, the Earth and every planet would shoot off in a straight line tangential to its position in its orbit”
You just argued that both are the same.
Gordon is correct, RLH.
You don’t understand any of this.
Gordon is wrong as often as you are, and that is quite a lot.
“To sum up, the Earth has a linear momentum relative to the Sun, the Moon does not. At least, not a linear momentum that would allow it to orbit the Sun if the Earth was suddenly removed.”
Suddenly removing Earth could be difficult, how about doing something a bit easier, like adding mass to the Moon.
So Moon is about 1/80th of Earth’s mass.
How about bringing mass to the Moon so it doubles it’s mass,
Making Moon about 1/40th the mass of Earth.
That would alter the Earth and Moon’s barycenter.
And that would also alter Earth/Moon’s barycenter with the Sun
by a tiny amount.
Now, adding that much mass to Moon is not easy, and would be easier if the mass was “allowed” to be added with some velocity, such as “docking the dwarf planet Ceres with the Moon” and some could say this docking is actually a violent impact. Or equally hard/complicated is a million years of billions of people obsessively/religiously bringing a few tonnes of mass to the Moon. And it might seem more plausible, that instead leaving stuff on the Moon, people hauled mass off the Moon, thereby halving it’s mass over million year time period.
But the suddenly removing Earth could be harder, but if suddenly removing Earth could be called the same as putting Earth into solar escape velocity. Or making spaceship Earth become a starship Earth. So adding about 12 km/sec to Earth orbital velocity and could do this over a long time period, such as adding .5 km/sec per year.
It seems in such situation one could bring the Moon with Earth.
But in terms of energy cost of moving Earth and the Moon.
One add 12 km/sec to 30 km/sec of mass Earth and Moon going around Sun to the get the 42 km/sec to escape the Sun.
Ken, I admire your creativity. If you spent as much time and talent on something constructive and productive, you might be a success. As it is, you’re just another failed idiot trying to cling to your cult.
Moon is orbiting Earth, NOT Sun. It keeps one side always facing the inside of its orbit. It’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-string.
Both the Moon and the Earth orbit the Sun. In fact the Sun’s influence on the Moon during its orbit is greater than that of the Earth.
All wrong, RLH.
Moon orbits Earth and Earth orbits Sun. Moon does NOT “orbit” Sun. The physics is completely different.
And, Sun does NOT have the greater influence on Moon. The calculation for gravitational attraction is greater, but Earth has the greater influence. That’s why Sun does not pull Moon away.
You don’t understand any of this.
The Moon and the Earth orbit their combined barycenter, which in turn orbits the Sun.
You may claim otherwise but you do a lot of other stupid things.
As I said, the Sun’s influence on the Moon is greater than that of Erath. Do the maths and you will see.
Gordon Robertson
Maybe a definition of rotation would help. Do you consider the twisting motion of your foot to be a rotation, is that motion a rotation about your foot’s axis? If not what do you call it.
On your point about the feet crossing That would occur if you do not move forward at the same time.
The feet must do the same motion if you stand in place and rotate or you walk around an object. In each case the feet must twist on their axis. Is the twisting considered rotation in you vocabulary?
Norman, you’re still making the same mistakes. You can’t learn.
“Changing direction” is NOT “axial rotation”. You are still trying to claim an orbit is the same as a rotation. Planet Mercury destroys that nonsense, as its orbits are NOT included in its rotations. You reject that reality.
You reject reality, and you can’t learn. You’re a braindead cult idiot.
Clint R
Do you have to be so stupid all the time? Can you display a little thinking just once in a while?
I am not claiming an orbit is the same as rotation. Not sure where you connected that idiot point from any of my comments. Saying such stupid things will not win you an argument or convince anyone of your validity. It just makes you seem stupid and arrogant (bad combo that you are afflicted with, wish we could help you but not possible).
If you ever come up with an intelligent comment, I will be happy and listen. At this time they are just stupid comments with idiot points.
Yes you are part of the anti-science braindead cult. It fits your stupid posts quite well. Grow a brain, learn to think. Right now you are just a babbling idiot.
Norman, as usual, you have NOTHING.
You claimed walking around a tree is “rotating on an axis”. Now, you claim that you never claimed that.
Go argue with yourself.
Clint R
All you can do is post another stupid comment? Why must you be so dumb?
I asked Gordon Robertson (not you, you are an idiot and cannot comprehend questions) to define some terms. I asked him if you twist your foot do you consider this a rotation. He has not responded to this yet so instead I get your braindead stupid posts.
Again with the tree, look at your feet as you walk around the tree. Are you twisting them as you pick them up and move them forward? Is this twisting action a rotation? You are too dumb to attempt comprehension so I will wait until Gordon responds. Until then get lost and have a nice night. I guess you are not smart enough to tape a rubber band on top of a can and connect the other end to a fixed object above and perform a simple test. That is how stupid you are. You can’t accomplish a very easy test. Dumb and dumber here on Roy Spencer’s blog.
Dang “Noman”, your keyboard class must have been extra hard tonight. You seem even more stressed out than usual.
First you say you’re not asking me about the tree. Then, you ask me about the tree!
Keyboarding can be very tough on the braindead.
Clint R
Your stupidity seems to have no limits. Why? Is it really that valuable to you to be this stupid? Is it fun for you or something. I cannot really understand the motive to be so blatantly stupid as you are and proud of it. Weird to me.
“Noman”, there’s an obvious link between your constant insults and the fact that you have NOTHING.
Notice, given multiple opportunities to answer the question about feet turning, they duck, dodge, distract.
What are they afraid of?
rlh…you mentioned something earlier in the thread about an airliner using a gyro. In my example, the airliner is following the Equator, however, there is no line drawn on the Earth around the Equator for an airliner to follow. Instead, a compass and a gyro are used to determine direction.
My example has nothing to do with that, it is about the relationship between gravity and the lift provided by the airliners wings and control surfaces. When they are in equilibrium, the airliner will follow the curvature of the Earth naturally without pilot intervention.
Think about it. If anyone adjusted controls to point the nose up or down, to follow the curvature of the Earth, the airliner would gain or lose altitude. Not necessary, the equilibrium conditions are enough to maintain 35,000 feet.
I am not trying to pass flying off as being that simple. Obviously, there are atmospheric conditions like high and low pressure regions which will affect the equilibrium condition. The pilot, or autopilot will have to adjust for such anomalies to maintain 35,000 feet.
ps. the trajectory for the Moon about the Sun in the wiki drawing is wrong. The Moon does not move in a linear orbit around the Sun like the Earth.
The Moon is orbiting the Earth in a plane that is tilted 5 degrees to the Earth orbital plane. That means the Moon is moving parallel to Earth’s orbit at times, both in the direction of Earth’s motion and against it, as well as perpendicular to the orbital path in both directions.
The only way you could represent that trajectory would be using an epicycloid of some kind.
Remember, wiki article are written by anyone and are often rubbish.
A gyro on an aircraft following the equator has to be adjusted 360 degrees horizontally on its travel around Earth. Unless you are a Flat Earther you will agree that it has to be so.
The Earth does not move in a linear orbit around the Sun either, the Earth/Moon barycenter does.
RLH, you don’t need a gyro to circumnavigate Earth.
You don’t understand any of this. You’re just grasping at straws.
And, as Stephen told you, CO2 is NOT burned. You don’t understand any of this.
You’re the leading troll here, but that’s all you can do.
“RLH, you don’t need a gyro to circumnavigate Earth”
Flat Earthers proved that gyros showed the Earth turned once a day. Are you going to dispute that?
You’re the leading troll here, but that’s all you can do.
Tell me the last time you posted anything of interest?
It’s easy to tell my comments are interesting because of the almost instant response from braindead cult idiots.
Being part of a tiny, tiny, cult such as you are doesn’t make your posts interesting. At all.
See.
That your posts are not interesting. I agree.
AIRs data for Sep 2021
AIRs v7
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/airs7.jpeg
AIRs v6
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/airs6.jpeg
AIRs ERSST
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/ersst-2.jpeg
The Northeast Pacific Horse Shoe SSTA Pattern developing, in addition to LaNina, further altering the weather patterns
https://i.postimg.cc/9QDx3tdr/18oct21-pacssta.png
Look, anyone can choose any definition of “orbiting” and “rotating” they want. Any one can talk about walking in circles or air planes or balls on strings or ‘the moon on the left’ using their own definitions.
But ‘creating definitions’ is not the same as ‘doing science’.
The only really interesting question is “can your definitions of ‘orbiting’ and ‘rotating’ describe the actual motion of actual moons or planets in actual elliptical orbits?” That is ‘doing science’. If your definitions/descriptions/equations don’t accurately match the actual universe, then you have to scrap your theory and start over.
Does the actual moon move like “a person walking in an ellipse around a tree always facing forward along the ellipse?” Nope! So we throw out that description.
Does the actual moon move like “a person walking in an ellipse around a tree always always keeping one shoulder straight toward the tree”? Nope! So we throw out that description.
The actual moon is also not moving like a ball on a stretchy string, not like an airplane flying around the earth, not like a train car on a track. All of these fail to accurately predict the true motion of the moon. None get the correct amount of libration. All must be discarded for not agreeing with the universe. They are perhaps useful as an introduction to orbits, but none get the details right. (Mostly because none accurately model the force of gravity.)
It’s worse than that, Tim.
Our Moon Dragons can’t even get their geometrical definition of rotation straight.
Folkerts, how many times has it been explained to you that the ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of Moon’s actual motion? The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. One side of the ball always faces the inside of the orbit.
How many times has this been explained to you?
You know why you can’t get it? You’re a braindead cult idiot.
The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of the ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.
How many times have you failed to be able to predict the correct motion? You are free to call this ‘your model’, but you still can’t predict the correct motion. If you can’t predict the universe, your model is not valuable.
Here is a diagram of the orbit of a moon that has ‘tidally locked’ with the planet (ie “not rotating” according to half the people here). Like our moon, just with a more exaggerated ellipse. What is the orientation of the moon at “D” according to you and your model? Why?
https://ibb.co/jfzjjNB moon orbit image
Folkerts, you just got caught trying to misrepresent the ball-on-a-string. So, what do you do? You come back trying to misrepresent it again!
You can’t learn. That’s why you’re a braindead cult idiot.
And then you throw out a misleading question, with a link that you incompetently forgot to include. Incompetence is linked to braindead, just ask Norman.
What is the orientation?
Or are you admitting your ball-on-a-string has no value for actually predicting anything about the actual universe?
The prediction you can make from the ball-on-a-string is that one side of the ball will always face the inside of its orbit. The ball is orbiting without axial rotation, just like Moon.
Until you learn that, you’re just a braindead cult idiot.
I’ll help you understand the flaws in your “orientation” question, after you show you accept reality.
The ball is orbiting without axial rotation, just like our Moon as is observed from the ball and from our Moon keeping ~one face to Earth.
“The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ ”
OK. Fine. You can use that as a model.
So take the NEXT step. What would be your model of *elliptical* orbital motion without axial rotation”? You know — like a real moon. Your ball on a string can’t model that, because strings are fixed length. So you need a NEW model. A ball on a stretchy string? A ball that can slide in and out along a rod? Is there still one side that exactly faces inward like with a string? If not, what direction does the ball face when ‘not rotating’?
And that is where you always come up short. You get stuck once you try to model anything other than a circle at constant speed.
You’re STILL trying to pervert reality, Folkerts. Trying to pervert reality is a failed mission from the outset. It just makes you another braindead cult idiot.
You quoted me exactly (thank you). And you TIMidly accepted that the model is ONLY about “orbital motion without axial rotation”. But you then took off trying to denigrate the model because it didn’t fit elliptical orbits.
The issue here is NOT about orbits. It’s about axial rotation. And, the model still applies. The orbiting object always faces the inside of the orbit, if there is no axial rotation.
How will you try to pervert reality next? So far, your efforts are just one failure after another.
I predict any future effort to pervert reality will fail as well.
Tim,
Don’t be stupid. You must know that you can draw an ellipse using a piece of string of fixed length. No stretchy string involved.
And of course, a ball constrained to a point on that piece of string would follow an elliptical path, not rotating about any internal axis – just like the Moon.
What is your next attempt to deny reality? I’m sure you can come up with any number of nonsensical red herrings?
In the meantime, the Moon continues to orbit the Earth, with one face permanently in view from the Earth. Likewise, from the Moon, no Earthrise, no Earthset – not rotating about an internal axis with respect to the Earth.
No GHE, either.
The Moon, like the Erath, orbits their combined barycenter. Only one of them faces it. Why?
Except there are a lot of places on the Moon where the Earth actually does rise and set.
Once each month.
So sorry
“The Moon, like the Erath [sic], orbits their combined barycenter. Only one of them faces it. Why?”
Earth rotates about its axis. Moon does not.
“You must know that you can draw an ellipse using a piece of string of fixed length.”
Yes. One of the basic properties of an ellipse.
“And of course, a ball constrained to a point on that piece of string would follow an elliptical path, not rotating about any internal axis”
That is unclear.
First, do you mean a point on the SURFACE of the ball is constrained to a point on the string? That can’t be right, since then the center of the ball is not exactly following an ellipse. You must know that the center is what follows the ellipse.
Perhaps you mean the CENTER of the ball is constrained to follow the ellipse formed by the loop of string. But then exactly what orientation do you consider to be “not rotating”? “That piece of string” intersects two points on the surface. Is one point on the surface of the ball always facing …
1) along the string going to the focus with the planet?
2) along the other string going to the other focus?
3) along the angle bisector of the two strings?
4) facing forward along the ellipse?
5) facing the center of the ellipse?
These are all different motions. You need to pick one (or maybe something different all together). You need to explain WHY you choose that one, and also then show it agrees with the actual motion of moons in orbits.
RLH,
Good grief!
Another witless attempt at a “gotcha”. Can’t you figure it out for yourself?
Demonstrate that you have made a reasonable effort to find out, admit you are forced to rely on me as the ultimate source of knowledge, and I will enlighten you.
In the mean time, I will just assume you are silly, stupid, or both.
Go away. Try for better “gotchas” next time.
Tim,
Don’t be stupid. Only one fixed length string needed.
If you don’t choose to believe me because it doesn’t suit your fantasy, fair enough.
As to the constraint, you provided the answer yourself, so your “gotcha” fails.
Accept reality. I don’t “need” to do anything at your behest. Nor does Nature.
bobdroege wrote –
“Except there are a lot of places on the Moon where the Earth actually does rise and set.
Once each month.
So sorry”
What an idiot! Gives no examples, and is probably confused by the Moon’s orbital parameters resulting thus –
“In summary, while it generally remains in the same location, the Earth does not remain perfectly stationary in the lunar sky from every point on the Moon, but moves in a rather complicated way depending on your location on the lunar sphere!” – NASA.
Nothing to do with rotation about an internal axis, of course.
bobdroege is an ill-informed ignorant climate cultist. Given time, effort, and intense training, he might be able to aspire to achieving complete and utter idiocy, but I doubt he has the perseverance.
“Only one fixed length string needed.”
Yes, A fixed strong tied to BOTH foci.
But that doesn’t come close to answering the questions. These are not ‘gotchas’. They are basic questions about the motion. They have one correct answer that is determined by the motions of actual planets and moons. Do you know the correct answers or not?
Does the CENTER follow the point on the string? Or one point on the surface? Why?
What precisely you you mean “not rotating” mean for the ball? Which way would the arrow point at each labeled spot along this ellipse?
https://ibb.co/jfzjjNB Why?
Folkerts, are you still trying to pervert reality?
I offered to explain your silly elliptical orbit, if you could accept reality. It doesn’t do any good to teach someone that rejects reality.
So do you accept that the ball-on-a-string is a suitable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”? I’ll even allow you to hedge with the clarification it’s for circular orbits only.
Can you accept that reality?
“So do you accept that the ball-on-a-string is a suitable model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’?”
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume I accept this as the definition of ‘without axial rotation’ for a circular orbit. Let’s see where it takes us.
“I offered to explain your silly elliptical orbit, if you could accept reality.”
They are not “my” orbits, nor are they “silly”. They are the actual orbits of moons! But please do explain how a ‘non-rotating’ moon faces in an elliptical orbit. Here is the diagram again. https://ibb.co/jfzjjNB
Which way would the ‘arrow’ be pointing at each position around the ellipse based on your models and your understanding? Explain why.
–RLH says:
October 18, 2021 at 5:06 PM
The Moon, like the Erath, orbits their combined barycenter. Only one of them faces it. Why?–
Earth is not tidally locked with the Moon.
Folkerts, you’re so TIMid about accepting reality. Why? Why do you fear reality?
But, let’s move on to your silly model.
Yes, it is silly because it is WAY more elliptical than Moon’s. It’s silly because you don’t have any way of identifying the leading side of the orbiting object. Your arrows are unlabeled and meaningless.
You need to put a small white dot on the front of the object. That dot would then follow the orbital path. The same side would always face the inside of the orbit.
That’s reality.
“The same side would always face the inside of the orbit”
Why? There is no force that makes it do so. The same side would face a fixed star instead.
“Earth is not tidally locked with the Moon”
But Clint R claims that tidal locking is a fiction and that it does not occur.
“That dot would then follow the orbital path.”
Ok, sure. The Moon has a front? It always points ‘forward’?
Its as if the Moon has wheels and drives on a railroad track thru space?
That’s actually not a bad analogy for a non-rotating orbiting body, Nate.
Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut….
Swenson,
What do you want?
Pictures?
Do I need to show videos of the Moon’s libration?
Where parts of the Moon come into and out of view of the Earth.
“Yes, it is silly because it is WAY more elliptical than Moon’s.””
Not all orbits are exactly like earth’s moon. If you can’t deal with ALL eccentricities, your model is a failure before even starting!
“It’s silly because you don’t have any way of identifying the leading side of the orbiting object. “
For those lacking in critical thinking skills, the arrow indicates “up” from one specific spot on the moon. The “leading edge” would be 90 degrees clockwise from the arrow (ie ‘down’ or “6 o’clock” on the diagram when the moon is at “A”). That is where your “tiny white dot” would be.
” That dot would then follow the orbital path. “
… there we have it. Clint’s model fails. This is NOT how the ‘dot’ would move. This is not how the moon moves. This is “denying reality”!
The dot (and the arrow and the whole moon) would change by 30 degrees counterclockwise between each letter. Using “clock notation” the arrow starts at “3 o’clock’ and the dot starts at “6 o’clock”. Each letter around the orbit advances the “clock” by 1 hour. *THAT* is reality!
Folkerts, you’re so confused. You’ve got 4 arrows pointing in 4 different directions, yet you claim the arrows point to “up”.
Put a white dot on your “moon”, or some other indicator of its forward-facing side. Then, show what you believe it would be doing at each of your labeled points. Then, I’ll show you why you’re wrong.
This is so far over your head. You can’t even get keyboarding correct. You’re still having trouble with italics. Norman can’t get his own name right, most of the time. I guess they’ve dumbed-down keyboard class, like they’ve dumbed-down most public education.
Swebnson,
“And of course, a ball constrained to a point on that piece of string would follow an elliptical path, not rotating about any internal axis just like the Moon.”
Um, no, that’s not how an ellipse works.
Tied to a point on that piece of string would follow a circular path.
So, did you even go to school?
Or were you homeschooled by some nutjobs?
I feel like I am trying to explain to a kindergartener, who needs each step explained in the simplest possible terms.
At Point “A” the moon is moving “down” on the diagram (counterclockwise around the yellow “planet”, toward point labeled “B”). There is a single arrow attached to the moon which points up from the surface and happens to be pointing straight toward the earth at this moment (ie pointing up from the “3 o’clock” position on the moon). This is sufficient to describe the orientation, but for Clint we could also paint a dot on the moon at this moment in the direction the moon is traveling. This dot would be at the “bottom” of the moon (ie at the “6 o’clock” position). Both the “arrow” and the “dot” remain fixed on the moon. Think of them as moon bases or craters.
Hopefully Clint is now caught up with the rest of the class. (Or maybe I really do need to draw him pictures!) We can now use either the arrow or the dot to indicate the orientation as the moon orbits the planet.
POSITION..DOT…..ARROW
A…..6 o’clock…3 o’clock
B…..5 o’clock…2 o’clock
C…..4 o’clock…1 o’clock
D…..3 o’clock…12 o’clock
E…..2 o’clock…11 o’clock
F…..1 o’clock…10 o’clock
G….12 o’clock…9 o’clock
H….11 o’clock…8 o’clock
I….10 o’clock…7 o’clock
J…..9 o’clock…6 o’clock
K…..8 o’clock…5 o’clock
L…..7 o’clock…4 o’clock
A…..6 o’clock…3 o’clock
And to clarify for Clint, the moon and the dot and the arrow all turn 30 degrees (with respect to the page or with respect to the ‘fixed stars’) between successive points, with the dot always 90 degrees behind the arrow. This was clear to everyone else before, but maybe Clint can understand now too.
The “dot” does NOT continue to face directly forward along the orbit. For example, at “B” the dot would be facing almost straight away from the planet. At “D” the dot would face “horizontally forward” — again, not in the direction tangent to the ellipse.
> kindergartener
Explaining ellipses to a gardener should be easier:
https://thatsmaths.com/2017/08/31/drawing-multi-focal-ellipses-the-gardeners-method
Yes Folkerts, a picture is worth a 1000 words, but you seem to prefer the 1000 words.
No matter, I can see your mistake now. You’ve got the moon rotating one direction for half the orbit, then rotating the other direction for the rest of the orbit. That’s even screwier than your cult’s nonsense!
Which proves once again, you don’t understand any of this.
And we get to the crux of the whole matter!
For the last 400 years, scientists have experimentally measured and theoretically predicted the motion of the moon to a high degree of accuracy. Measuring & predicting libration within a fraction of a degree. Measuring & predicting distance within meters. Measuring & predicting the period within. No one has found any significant differences between classical mechanics and measurement. They landed spacecraft precisely on the moon. They used exactly the same theories of classical mechanics to accurately predict orbits of all the moons and planets and comets and asteroids. Nothing but success.
Clint wants us to believe they were all incompetent — that they can’t make measurements and they can’t apply the laws of classical mechanics to a relatively simple situation. And we are to believe this based merely on his ‘intuition’ about how the moon moves.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Clint doesn’t even have ‘ordinary evidence’.
Folkerts has apparently given up on faking a knowledge of orbital motion and is now just babbling on his keyboard.
He won’t hurt himself this way.
–RLH says:
October 19, 2021 at 4:05 AM
Earth is not tidally locked with the Moon
But Clint R claims that tidal locking is a fiction and that it does not occur.–
That’s interesting.
But I would say that the Moon is tidally locked with Earth.
And saying that, as a fact, rather than as fiction.
For fiction, I would say that aliens are living on the Moon- or that Venus was once like Earth.
Venus being a twin of Earth has the plot twist. And the Moon is an obvious place for space aliens to be.
Though I also like the story of space aliens living under the ocean- hmm, probably, because it returns to the classical fiction of “20,000 Leagues under the Sea”.
Clint ‘That dot would then follow the orbital path.’
N “Ok, sure. The Moon has a front? It always points forward?
Its as if the Moon has wheels and drives on a railroad track thru space?”
Clint sez ‘good model’
Can he offer evidence that the Moon moves like this?
So lets say the orbit was more elliptical and stretched out. It has long nearly straight paths and at apogee makes a sharp U turn and reverses direction.
Clints model suggests it barely turns at all on those long nearly straight paths, then at apogee suddenly turns rapidly to face along the path back to Earth .
He thinks a massive planet can dramatically change its rotation rate, just for fun? With no corresponding massive torque applied.
Where is the giant wrench in space thT would be required?
Needless to say, that is magical thinking.
Nate, if you were able to comprehend, the ball-on-a-string would answer your concerns. Gravity steers an orbiting body, no extra torque is required.
You can’t understand because you can’t learn. You’re a braindead cult idiot.
Just try to be content in your ignorance — “Ignorance is bliss”, as they say.
Are u Stuck? No answers coming to you?
Just say the magic words:
‘Ball-on-a-string’
Sorry, for this one u need a magic giant wrench.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
Earth effective temperature
Main article: Earth’s energy budget
The Earth has an albedo of about 0.306.[9] The emissivity is dependent on the type of surface and many climate models set the value of the Earth’s emissivity to 1. However, a more realistic value is 0.96.[10] The Earth is a fairly fast rotator so the area ratio can be estimated as 1/4.
The other variables are constant. This calculation gives us an effective temperature of the Earth of 252 K (−21 C). The average temperature of the Earth is 288 K (15 C). One reason for the difference between the two values is due to the greenhouse effect, which increases the average temperature of the Earth’s surface.
288K-255K = 33oC
When I first learned the current science claims there is a +33oC Greenhouse Warming Effect on Earth’s surface I became very much surprised… It is impossible, I thought – some major mistake has been made in this Wikipedia Article…
I started searching and reading everything I could find on the matter – but NO – it was the same number +33oC everywhere I looked.
Unbelievable, I still don’t accept it, thin Earth’s atmosphere is very much transparent both ways – in and out. Because Earth’s atmosphere is very thin…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, the earthen atm. is ~transparent to some bands of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (visible for example) and ~opaque to many other bands. Venus is 100% IR band opaque at surface for outgoing LW due to surface pressure in the main IR bands of interest; earthen 1bar atm. is only ~80% IR band opaque in that same range.
Since you still don’t believe an atm. matters: it is fairly simple to repeat the basic experiments for yourself with proper preparation and some dedicated work. Prof. Tyndall also didn’t “accept it” (Christos’ term) and was astonished at the results when he performed the basic experiments on dry clear air and dry visibly clear CO2 gas.
These experiments are readily internet available to further your research.
288 – 255 = 33K.
Not matter if value is K or C.
Yeah, Ken, Christos was somewhat sloppy using temperature scale units:
14.85 – (-18.50) ~ 33C, rounded
And so am I on typos:
14.85 – (-18.15) ~ 33C, rounded
Ken,
There is no 255K. So sorry.
Ball4, yes I know, thank you.
Prof. Tyndall found dry air is transparent to IR bands. Also he found CO2 gas is opaque to IR bands.
But Tyndall experiments don’t result to +33oC Greenhouse Warming Effect on Earth surface…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Prof. Tyndall found dry air is transparent to IR bands.”
Prof. Tyndall found dry air & CO2 is transparent in visible bands (he could see through it) but was astonished to find each gas somewhat opaque in the IR bands as his IR source did not send all its emitted IR straight through his enclosed tube as shown in his needle gauge deflections when the gas was added in the path of the sourced light rays & along with his thermometers.
Prof. Tyndall went on to explain the earthen GHE similarly arises because of the 1bar surface pressure and each gas constituent unique grey opacity at that pressure eventually measured thoroughly enough to result in a reading of about 0.80 atm. emissivity on global avg. looking up. Thus, atm. opacity matters in the ~288K global near surface T contrary to Christos’ calculations.
B,
What are you gibbering about?
Try comprehending what John Tyndall actually wrote. Your bizarre “interpretation” serves only to show your abysmal lack of understanding.
Maybe your confusion arises from Tyndall pointing out that without an atmosphere, no crops in Britain could survive the cold of an airless night. He similarly pointed out that a thermometer exposed to the rays of the Sun will show increased temperatures at altitude – due to less atmosphere between the thermometer and the Sun!
On a final note, Tyndall compared the IR opacity of gases like CO2 and H2O to dry air, purged of CO2. At a certain pressure, he established that CO2 intercepted nearly 2000 times as much IR as oxygen and nitrogen. However, because oxygen and nitrogen together are about 2500 times as numerous as CO2 molecules, they intercept slightly more IR in total than CO2 does. GHE? I think you are confused.
Go away you silly person. Read, comprehend, and think. If you want to argue the toss, at least quote my words, and back up your objection with actual quotes from Tyndall.
Or you can just rant. Your choice.
Ball4, yes, “Thus, atm. opacity matters in the ~288K global near surface T”. But its warming effect is ~0,3 ~0,5 oC.
It is almost 2 powers of magnitude less… than the current science’s the official estimation of +33oC claim.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, your work actually confirms the 33K earthen GHE as you calculate (with a fudge factor for atm opacity) the global near surface Tmean.earth at 287.74K. If the measured “(GHE) is almost 2 powers of magnitude less” as you erroneously claim then you would calculate for the global surface Tmean.earth to be around 255K using a fudge factor representing an IR band clear atm.
However as is well known, once you do the research, the instrumentally measured earthen atm. opacity causes an instrumentally measured GHE of ~33K depending on exact period observed. These values each can also be calculated using the 1LOT including the present-day atm. infrared opacity.
Ball4,
Yes, we’ve seen your evidence of instrumentally measured GHE of 33K…..NOT. Do you represent the Lollipop Guild?
Stephen, it’s not MY evidence you can find & see the instrumental evidence charted at the top of the page. Dr. Spencer also has supplied educational links to guide you to its proper use.
Christie Vournas
The University of Athens should have all the equipment needed to replicate Tyndall’s experiments, and student who would be delighted to help.
EM,
Why waste time replicating Tyndalls’s experiments?
Don’t you believe Tyndall’s results? I do.
Some ignorant and delusional climate cultists misinterpret the basic physical facts so ably demonstrated by Tyndall.
Why are you so illogical as to ask someone to waste time time replicating experiments which do not support your fantasy?
Probably because nobody has yet demonstrated that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer results in heating, and that seems to be the basis of the mythical GHE!
EM,
You ignorant twit. Vournas isn’t saying CO2 doesn’t absorb IR. He says the EArth has a thin atmosphere whose GHE is insignificant.
Stephen Paul Anderson
And Vournas is just quite wrong and will not accept measured data.
The thin atmosphere is more than thick enough to absorb all the IR from the surface in some bands. Not sure what physics you are using. The IR emitted to space, in some bands, can only come from the GHG present. Some IR comes through the atmospheric window directly to space from the surface but that is all that does.
Here is data that clearly show Vournas is wrong You do not have to believe facts and evidence. That is your choice. When you call people “ignorant twit” you should have some real data to back it up.
Here is the facts. Believe it or Not.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_616e27326918d.png
These values come from a sensor pointed up to the sky that have a filter so only IR goes through to the sensing material. It shows well over 300 W/m^2 downwelling IR from the atmosphere.
If you disagree with the evidence, then present some of your own.
All Vournas did was take the standard effective temperature equation and add fudge factors. He can use his fudge factor he calls “Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor” to make the solar system objects fit his equation. He works backwards. Gets a satellite measured value for a body and then changes the stupid factor to get the desired temperature.
If you praise his work, explain in your words, what is a Solar Irradiation accepting factor. What influences it, how is it determined, why does it exist within the world of EMR physics. No one has ever heard or used such a concept yet they developed valid optics theories without it and now it is most important.
You can’t see Vournas is fooling you and himself?
Norman, I see you are still providing links to things you don’t understand.
Look at that graph and repeat to yourself, “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
I predict you won’t get it.
Clint R
I predict you are an idiot.
Man you really are stupid. The more you post the more depressing the human race seems. If it was just a handful of stupid arrogants like you, no big deal. You would make stupid posts on blogs. I am afraid the numbers of your type are high and that leads to a world with zero potential to solve problems.
I guess Einstein was right about more than science. He observed your type back in his day. Nothing has changed.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ab/4f/f3/ab4ff3e8781219ffc7995a0150fcab52.jpg
Your stupidity does seem unlimited. I have not seen any end to it yet. You will go on posting stupid points, insulting people without cause, displaying arrogance etc.
Norma, I can imagine it’s frustrating being a braindead cult idiot and seeing your beliefs so easily shattered.
Maybe if you started embracing reality?
Clint R
Yes your stupidity is frustrating. Your inability to think and reason are frustrating on a science blog. I think such thought process is okay on political blogs.
Science is an evidence based process. I gave you a test to perform yet you can’t figure out how to tape a rubber band on top of a can.
With such inability to figure things out you come on and insult and denigrate.
If you could think and reason even a little my frustration would go away, it would be much nicer.
You aren’t shattering any beliefs of mine, you are just really stupid. That is the frustration. You say stupid things for no logical reason.
I am embracing reality. You are a stupid person devoid of logic an reason. What more must be said?
Norma, your “test” failed.
You don’t understand science, so you don’t know how to do experiments. All you can do is abuse your keyboard with endless, empty rants.
You must be so frustrated.
“All you can do is abuse your keyboard with endless, empty rants”
Sounds much more like you than him.
RLH found my comment interesting.
“RLH found my comment interesting”
Nope.
Christos Vournas
I have already pointed out your equation would result in a physically impossible condition. The Earth is emitting more energy than it receives. Your equation comes up with a T-Mean surface temperature for an Earth without atmosphere of 288 K. So what is your calculation for how much total power the surface of the Whole Earth loses? (Watts…joules/second).
As pointed out above, you can use data like this:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/climate-data-records/outgoing-longwave-radiation-daily
To find the total energy emitted to space by the Earth. It would require some good math to get an area and flux and convert that to Watts and add all the amounts up for a Grand Total.
So with your ideas how much energy does your math determine will be emitted by the Earth in your hypothesis? 288 K mean meaning some higher temps some lower, some radiate more some less but what do you calculate as the total?
Norman, your problem here is you don’t understand any of the science.
You believe Earth only receives about 160 W/m^2 from Sun. You believe that because that’s what your cult preaches. But, that’s WRONG.
And, we know you can’t learn.
Clint R
It is not what a “cult” preaches. It is what can actually be calculated. It is actually quite right for the term Earth as a whole. Parts of the Earth receive more than this, some less. The average would be this amount.
Can you follow math?
You use the current solar constant of 1366 W/m^2 (changes over time by a few W/m^2).
The receiving area for Earth of the solar energy is the disk created by the Earth size.
Earth has a radius of 6,371,000 meters. The area of the circle that solar energy passes through would be 127,516,117,977,447 square meters. Multiply this area by the solar flux you get 174,187,017,157,192,695 Watts (forgive the excess digits, just using the calculator output).
The Earth surface area is 510.1 trillion meters.
Divide the total solar energy by the number of meters for the Earth’s surface area and you get 341.47 Watts/m^2. This is what will arrive at the TOA (different numbers exist based upon the solar constant used…most calculations come in around 340 W/m^2)
So 30% of this energy will be reflected and not used by the surface giving 239 W/m^2 for the surface to absorb but a lot of solar energy is in the IR form and is absorbed by the atmosphere (about 77 W/m^2) so the amount of energy reaching the surface would be around 162 W/m^2 (give or take depending on what constants you use).
It is not wrong at all.
Clint R
To demonstrate how radical anti-science and data you really are I will show real world data that exposes your ignorance of all things science. Not sure how you define science but most believe it is an evidence based system of thinking.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_616e2d3a4cfe0.png
I have shown you this one before. If you smooth out the energy so to make it continuous it comes out to 311 W/m^2 (summer time with 14 hours of daylight in a cloudless desert) which would give a temperature of 30 F.
This is a summer value.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_616e36414b2a2.png
This winter value for the same location would give an value of 125 W/m^2 if spread over the whole 24 hour cycle.
Basically you can’t calculate and are frustrated by people who can so in order to protect thy fragile ego you must resort to calling them braindead cult members. You can’t do much else. The calculations I provided you go far above your mental ability so an insult is in order.
Norman, thanks for validating my comment.
You don’t understand any of the science. You believe Earth only receives about 160 W/m^2 from Sun. You believe that because that’s what your cult preaches. But, that’s WRONG.
And, we know you can’t learn.
You can’t average flux. 800 W/m^2 for 6 hours is NOT the same as 200 W/m^2 for 24 hours.
You don’t understand any of this.
N,
Averaging temperatures is for fools and idiots.
Just like the statistician who believed he could wade across a river because its average depth was less than a meter! He drowned, of course.
The USAF managed to kill managed to kill many pilots (inadvertently) by designing cockpits for “average” pilots, for decades. Eventually, even the USAF realised how stupid averages were.
Climate cultists are not even up to USAF standards, obviously.
Clint R
Here is where you do not understand math or units at all.
Yes 800 W/m^2 delivers to the surface the exact same amount of energy 800 joules/second times 21,600 seconds equals 17,280,000 joules of energy to the square meter.
200 joules/second times 86,400 seconds equals 17,280,000 joules of energy to a square meter.
With the more intense flux you will get a higher temperature during the daylight hours but it will get much colder when the energy input is gone. In one case you get a constant temperature for the surface and the other you have a peak and trough. Do the math and figure out the average temperature of both situations. You might find they also equal.
The Moon surface, indeed, reaches temperatures much warmer than Earth but it also reaches much colder temperatures.
Swenson
Are you in a competition with Clint R for the award of “Dumbest Poster”?
There are things averages are not good at and others they are. Your sweeping generalization based upon some samples is very stupid and unthinking.
I usually do not respond to your posts as I think you are a few levels dumber than Clint R and less rational. You also repeat things over and over even after people explain it to you. Boring and dumb combo.
You can’t average flux. 800 W/m^2 for 6 hours is NOT the same as 200 W/m^2 for 24 hours.
You’re STILL trying to treat flux as energy. But they are NOT the same. 800 W/m^2, for time “t”, will raise the temperature of a surface much higher than 200 W/m^2, for time “4t”.
You don’t understand any of this, Norman.
> You cant average flux.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/solar-flux
Clint R
You really cannot understand it can you. It seems hopeless to explain things to you over and over yet you fail to understand anything to do with real science.
I already explained it to you but your closed mind can’t process what is said. You read only limited things and jump on them.
I already told you that the 800 W/m^2 flux would result in a higher surface temperature but it will also lead to a much colder surface temperature than the constant flux. Averaged out the temperature would be the same.
Both gain 17,280,000 joules of energy and both will lose this amount. Energy in and energy out. You are ignorant of a flux, it can be added and averaged.
The Earth only receives an average of 240 W/m^2 (the surface is less because the atmosphere absorbs energy from the solar input but that energy is not reflected away and is part of the system).
You do not have more than a set amount of energy reaching the surface. If you stopped the rotation of the Earth the sunlit side would get quite hot but the other side would be quite cold.
Ignorance of your level is not curable.
Sorry Norman, but you don’t understand any of this.
The temperatures will NOT “average out”. You’re ignorant of how a rotisserie works. 2000 W/m^2 heating from one side is NOT the same as 500 W/m^2 heating from 4 sides.
960 W/m^2 heating Earth from one side is NOT the same as 240 W/m^2 heating all over its surface.
You don’t understand any of this.
Clint R
You are bringing that one up again? Tim Folkerts explained this to you in great detail. You can reach higher peak temperatures which allows a chemical change in the meat but the average temperatures are not higher. If you were not cooking but just had a square the one side would get really hot but the three other sides would be quite cold, in the uniform distribution the temperature would all be the same amount.
But if the heated side is not rotated the average temperature is much lower than in the uniform heated surface (kind of like the Moon and Earth. The Moon gets much hotter than the Earth but also gets much colder and the average temp is considerably less than the Earth’s average)
With a 4 sided object (tetrahedron) If the sides are insulated from each other. In the case of the 500 watt per side each side would get to 306.44 K for an average temperature of the same amount.
With one side only receiving 2000 W it would reach a temperature of 433.37 K the other sides would reach 0 K or close to. The average temperature of this object would be 108 K, much colder than the uniform heated object.
Norman, rambling ain’t science.
N,
Your calculated “averages” are just meaningless. For example, due to the inclination of the Earth, the Polar regions receive precisely no direct sunlight for up to six months of the year. Additionally, because the Earth is an oblate spheroid with a variably wrinkled surface overlaid by an atmosphere of constantly changing optical properties, the assumption that the surface intercepts sunlight equivalent to a flat circle is just the sort of fantasy that dingbat climate cultists like Trenberth and Co. believe.
Surface temperatures due to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun are roughly bounded by plus 90 C, and minus 90 C – average 0 C!
Completely meaningless, but arithmetically correct. Just like the dummies who calculate the average temperature of the surface to be, say, 255 K, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that the surface has cooled from more than 1000 C to its present temperature. Including every temperature in between.
Idiots such as yourself just cannot accept reality, but keep up the meaningless arithmetic if it keeps you content.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Go here and set the begin and end to 2020(the most recent year for which we have full data.
Note that most of the rapid warming is taking place in the Arctic, Antarctic and Northern Asia.
If Soon et al are claiming that urban areas are warming fastest, they are mistaken.
“If Soon et al are claiming that urban areas are warming fastest, they are mistaken”
Their data says otherwise. Do you have any proof?
“Do you have any proof? ”
Scientists don’t do proof, they do evidence.
I just gave you evidence. You did look at the map?
If urban areas were warming faster than rural areas the brown areas on the map would be sitting over the urbanized countries such as the Eastern US and Western Europe.
entropic…”I just gave you evidence. You did look at the map?”
***
Get real, the map is produced by GISS, the co-mother of all fudgers.
here’s a real map…40 years worth…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2020/december2020/2020_GL_42yr_Trend.PNG
If you look at the map you can see how higher anomalies in the Arctic and a few other places have skewed the trend over 40 years.
There is no reason whatsoever why CO2 should cause more warming in the Arctic. That warming is obviously related to oceans currents.
Gordo obviously hasn’t heard about the “Snow-Ice Albedo Feedback” in which some warming results in less snow and sea-ice, which decreases reflection of sunlight at the surface, thus causing a further increase in warming, etc.
Not much Albedo at the poles in winter.
RLH, Actually, there’s quite a bit of “albedo” at high latitudes in winter. It’s just that there’s almost no sunlight.
So not much feedback then?
Evidence as proof then. Idiot.
You have just showed data from GISS that is wholly contaminated with urban stations. Now do it with rural only as Soon et al have done (only for the Northern Hemisphere which is what they claim). See the paper quoted above if you want the full details.
> You have just showed data from GISS that is wholly contaminated with urban stations.
“Note that most of the rapid warming is taking place in the Arctic, Antarctic and Northern Asia.”
By kriging from actual data further south/north?
How many cities are there in Antarctica, dummy?
Antarctic
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-south-pole.jpeg
Arctic
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-north-pole.jpeg
Such rapid warming – NOT.
Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah.jpeg
RHL, The UAH data is not surface data. Besides, the RSS TLT global trend is 0.214 K/dec and the North Polar trend is a much greater 0.47 K/dec.
Not to forget that RSS doesn’t produce data over the Antarctic, primarily because of the high elevations over the East Antarctic ice sheet. They also exclude other areas of high mountains as well.
And above all, the pictures are completely misleading and misrepresenting the situation, because they show similar data at very different scales.
The same amount of height pixels means 0.9 C for the Globe, but… 3 C for the Arctic.
Typical, simple denialist manipulation. WUWT niveau at best.
The plots are self scaling that is true. But that goes for all other plots that people make. The scale to the right makes this clear.
However you you treat it, the poles have no more rise than the rest of the world does which was the point.
Left sorry.
Still more denial:
” … the poles have no more rise than the rest of the world does which was the point. ”
Wrong.
The Arctic shows a trend of 0.25 C / decade, nearly twice as much as the global trend.
That IS the point.
And at the surface, the ratio Arctic vs. Globe is way higher.
If you want to deny that, feel free to do.
But those you will convince are ‘by accident’ all denialists like you.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-north-pole.jpeg
Only if you use an OLS straight line to get your ‘trends’.
If you use anything else (after all there must have been something that is not a continuous downwards slope before the start) then all is not so simple.
Try to show a bit of honesty, RLH, and manage to finally superpose, and hence using the same scale, your UAH data with your filters for the Globe and the Arctic.
Why do you spend so much time in hiding evidence?
My graphs just auto-scale like all the others. Why are you so dumb?
“Not to forget that RSS doesnt produce data over the Antarctic”
I do know the differences in the areas covered and the satellites used in the past by RSS.
All of that helps contribute to the differences.
Do you think that excluding the Antarctic will make the temperatures warmer or colder overall?
If you plot RSS and UAH together then main differences are between 2000 and 2006 which is when they use different satellites as Roy has noted before
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/offset:-0.2/to:2000/plot/uah6/plot/rss/from:2006/offset:-0.45
After adjusting for that, then the trends and patterns are almost identical as you can see.
RLH, The UAH South Polar series is much colder than the rest of the SH, thus excluding 70S to the South Pole would be expected to show a greater warming trend. You, of course, are assuming that UAH is presenting the correct analysis, which I have long disagreed with. To take your analysis of the two global series a bit further, consider this plot:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2007/offset:-.30/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2007
The UAH global data exhibits a sharper drop in 2004, which would appear to be outside the usual range of month to month data. Is that a red flag pointing to an error?
As I have already said, Roy has pointed out that the period between 2000 and 2006 used different satellites for RSS and UAH.
I expect there to be differences in that period.
Why do you assume that RSS is correct?
RLH, It’s not an assumption but the result of my efforts to understand things going back more than a 15 years. UAH uses a much more complicated set of calculations backed only by an undocumented theoretical analysis. UAH uses three time series from each type of instrument and we know that there was data missing in the early years of the MSU channel 3, aka, the UAH TP series. The UAH analysis includes data over the Antarctic, even though they originally warned against using it.
So, why do you assume that UAH product is more accurate than RSS?
“So, why do you assume that UAH product is more accurate than RSS?”
Because I do. This is Roy’s blog after all. Why don’t you post your adoration on the RSS blog then?
Have you checked RSS against AIRs (over the portions they cover)?
UAN LT Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah_lt-1.jpg
UAH MT Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah_mt-1.jpg
UAH TP Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah_tp-1.jpg
UAH LS Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah_ls-1.jpg
UAH Month On Month a year previous
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
AIRs v7
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/airs7.jpeg
AIRs v6
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/airs6.jpeg
AIRs ERSST
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/ersst-2.jpeg
E. Swanson says: The UAH analysis includes data over the Antarctic, even though they originally warned against using it.
There’s still a caution in the UAH readme.msu file regarding the Antarctic:
. . .
ALSO BE CAUTIOUS USING LT AND MT OVER HIGH TERRAIN ( >1500 M)
The areas of poor anomaly values are : Tibetian Plateau,
Antarctica, Greenland and the narrow spine of the Andes.
Depending on how much of these areas are neglected, the coverage
should be about 97-98% of the globe.
. . .
readme.msu 2009-04-17 15:40
I think they have changed their methodology since then.
https://imgur.com/kYQXT0l
From the site
https://climateimpactcompany.com/daily-feature-the-northeast-pacific-horse-shoe-ssta-pattern-emerging-should-enhance-la-nina-climate-into-early-2022-2-2/
” For the first times since 2012, the cool ‘horse shoe’ SSTA pattern stretching from the Gulf of Alaska to just-off the West Coast of North America and southwestward to the south of Hawaii toward the Dateline in the Pacific tropics has emerged.
Presence of the cool ‘horse shoe’ SSTA pattern coupled with La Nina normally increases the risk and amplitude of La Nina climate signals which includes
– heavy precipitation during NOV/DEC/JAN in the Northwest U.S.,
– dryness leading to drought in the Mid-south States
– a general warmer-than-normal national pattern.
Projections beyond one season ahead are much less certain although notable is the 2012 U.S. climate (when the last ‘horse shoe’ pattern was in-place while a long-term La Nina was slowly fading) which at that time was the warmest on record and featured historic Great plains drought. “
Oh look , Bindidonkey now reposting my LaNina updates , what a clever move, whats next predicting grand solar minimum ?
No I didn’t repost anything.
I simply posted what you intentionally have hidden.
Try harder Bindinito try harder
As James says every year at the end of ‘Dinner for One’:
” I will do my very best! “
You are a copy/paste dumbass who doesn’t know anything about how climate works, that’s why you are always six month behind figuring out what is going on, then you try to copy/paste the whole internet in this page to look like you do
All you are able to do is to post things written by people like Gosselin or similar, who are appointed by Heartland and GWPF.
You never and never did process any data by your own.
I did, and that is what people like you endlessly try to denigrate.
You are a permanent failure, Eben.
Weiter so!
tim…”They are the actual orbits of moons! But please do explain how a non-rotating moon faces in an elliptical orbit. Here is the diagram again. https://ibb.co/jfzjjNB”
***
Already explained that Tim. On your diagram, at point A, the near face points right at the Earth. That arrow pointing from the Moon is also perpendicular to the tangent line at that point. It is the same for each point on the orbit’.
Look at point D, the middle arrow is the equivalent of the arrow at point A and is perpendicular to the tangent line at D. I told you how to find that radial line and the tangent line but you have not included the 2nd focal point. But note it is now pointed slightly away from the Earth. That enables us to see around the edge of the near side for longitudinal libration.
If your diagram was to proper scale, that arrow would be pointing within the circumference of the Earth but not right at the centre, as it would in a circular orbit.
Your elliptical orbit is far too eccentric for the Moon’s orbit, which is very close to being a circular orbit.
Gordon,
1) The diagram is not intended to be an accurate representation of earth’s moon. It is intended to show a generic elliptical orbit. By increasing the eccentricity, we can more easily see the effects of interest. Think of it as some *other* moon if you like.
2) “Look at point D, the middle arrow is the equivalent of the arrow at point A and is perpendicular to the tangent line at D”
No. The base of the arrow represents a fixed to a point on the moon. By the time the moon moves to D, the arrow would be pointing “toward the top of the page” ie the “12 o’clock position”.
“D” is 1/4 of the period and therefore 1/4 of a complete rotation of the moon relative to the stars. The moon will have turned 90 degrees. The celestial sphere will have turned 90 degrees. (NOT ~ 110 degrees like the arrow you chose.)
Folkert’s pathetic model would NEVER happen in reality. He’s got his moon rotating BOTH ways in one orbit.
He doesn’t understand any of this.
Rotating at a constant rate of 30 degrees every 1/12th of the period = 360 degrees/T = 1 degree every 1/360th of a period. Can’t get much more constant than omega = 2 pi / T.
That is reality. Clint insists on defying reality and imagining that the moon moves differently than it is observed to move.
*************************************
Suppose I have a heavy ball mounted on a vertical frictionless axle. If I give it a spin so it turns around in 10 s, it is spinning at 36 degrees/s = 6 RPM and will (without friction) continue to spin at 36 deg/s indefinitely. It will have some specific angular momentum L = I(omega). If I put my phone with its rotation sensor on the top of the ball, it would read 36 deg/s.
* It spins steadily @ 36 deg/s if I stand still
* It spins steadily @ 36 deg/s if I walk north
* It spins steadily @ 36 deg/s if I walk east.
* It spins steadily @ 36 deg/s if I walk random directions.
* It spins steadily @ 36 deg/s if I walk in a circle once every hr
* It spins steadily @ 36 deg/s if I walk in a circle once every min
Always 6 RPM. Always the same reading from the rotation sensor.
But in Clint’s universe, if I walk in an ellipse once every 10 s, then the ball is rotating forward and back.
Folkerts, I’m enjoying your desperation.
But, your 6 RPM rotating spindle isn’t fast enough to wash clothes. Is that what you’re trying to invent? Washing machines have already been invented.
(I can’t wait to see your next attempt to pervert reality.)
Clint R demonstrates he doesn’t understand gyros. As usual.
Is Folkerts building a gyro or a washing machine?
I’m not building anything. You really need to work on your reading skills and critical thinking skills if that is what you took away from my last comment.
In actuality Folkerts, you are attempting to “build”. You’re trying to make false accusations and misrepresentations.
“Clint insists on defying reality and imagining that the moon moves differently than it is observed to move.”
FALSE. Moon moves exactly as it’s observed. There is no imaginary axial rotation.
“But in Clint’s universe, if I walk in an ellipse once every 10 s, then the ball is rotating forward and back.”
FALSE. Orbiting has no effect on axial roation.
Quit trying to use your cult tricks, just because you have NOTHING of substance.
“FALSE. Moon moves exactly as its observed. There is no imaginary axial rotation.”
And exactly how IS the moon observed to move? Have you actually measured the libraton of the moon? Have you ever examined one point on the moon to see what direction it faces throughout the orbit? Without data, you are simply speculating about an answer.
You predict (or you would predict if you knew how to do the calculations) one specific pattern for libration. I (and every other scientist) predicts a different pattern. Simply writing “WRONG” isn’t evidence. What is required to pit the two theories up against each other and see which one works. (HINT: People who can actually do the calculations have done the calculations and know which model works better.)
Tim, you are still very confused, hence all the rambling.
You observe Moon by observing Moon. No math is required. The same side always faces the inside of its orbit. You need to get out of your basement more.
And you STILL don’t understand libration. Libration is NOT an actual movement. It is the change in viewing angles of Moon, from Earth, due to its tilted, elliptical orbit.
You know nothing about this issue, and can’t learn.
“You observe Moon by observing Moon. No math is required. The same side always faces the inside of its orbit. You need to get out of your basement more.”
You need some intellectual curiosity. Does the moon always keep EXACTLY the same side toward the earth? No of course not! To measure the degree to which the moon varies (librates) DOES require careful observation.
Then — following the scientific method, we propose hypotheses to explain the libration.
Hypothesis 1: The moon moves like a horse on a racetrack or like a train car on train tracks, keeping one point always pointing forward along the direction of motion. This would be the “arrow pointing slightly back” on my diagram at location “D” (about the “11 o’clock” position).
Hypothesis 2: the moon moves like a ball mounted on a frictionless axle, turning relative to the ‘fixed stars’ at a constant rate. This would be the “arrow pointing straight” on my diagram (about the “12 o’clock” position).
Only one of these can be right. Since you admit you don’t know anything about the magnitude of the actual libration, you have no basis to decide on one over the other.
Tim Folkerts says:
”You need some intellectual curiosity. Does the moon always keep EXACTLY the same side toward the earth? No of course not! To measure the degree to which the moon varies (librates) DOES require careful observation.”
Why would the moon always keep the exact side toward earth? The earth does not control the moon’s forward momentum and that results in an elliptical orbit. The earth only controls the rotation of the moon. So from a physics point of view the moon rotates around the earth.
One can only say it rotates on its own axis if one is to completely ignore the physics of the situation and go from perception based point of view that comes from blocking out actual view of the entire physical system.
Kind of like not seeing the forest for the trees.
“The earth does not control the moons forward momentum and that results in an elliptical orbit. The earth only controls the rotation of the moon. So from a physics point of view the moon rotates around the earth.”
Is that really what you meant to say, Bill?
Because I think the exact reverse of what you said is true.
Earth’s gravity controls the Moon’s trajectory, the shape of its orbit, its speed, and indeed its momentum.
Earths gravity exerts very little control over the rotation rate of the massive spinning Moon, because of conservation of angular momentum.
Tidal effects from Earth take millions of years to have an effect on its rotation.
Any model, like Clint’s, that suggests the Moon’s rotation rate changes to keep it aligned to its elliptical orbital path is physically impossible.
tim…”2) Look at point D, the middle arrow is the equivalent of the arrow at point A and is perpendicular to the tangent line at D
No. The base of the arrow represents a fixed to a point on the moon. By the time the moon moves to D, the arrow would be pointing toward the top of the page ie the 12 oclock position.”
***
I explained this in detail, Tim, using irrefutable math based on calculus. At any point on its orbit, the tangent line at that point represents it’s instantaneous change in direction. It also represents the instantaneous direction in which the Moon is moving at that point.
The middle arrow at point D is perpendicular to the tangent at that point and represents the radius of a circle with an arc that coincides with the shape of the ellipse at that point. It also represents the direction in which the near face is pointing.
The base of the arrow which you claim is only a fix to a point on the Moon is, in fact, the tangent line to the orbital path at point D. I told you how to find the direction of the arrow. Draw lines from each focal point to point D and bisect the angle. That is your middle arrow.
You don’t seem to follow what I am saying about libration. It’s because the near face points away from the Earth’s centre on parts of an ellipse that we can see around the edge longitudinally. The middle arrow shows exactly why libration occurs.
“the tangent line at that point represents its instantaneous change in direction”
The tangent represents a DIRECTION, not a change in direction of any sort. That change in direction comes from the angular velocity of the body. i.e. its rotation about a central, internal, axis.
“The middle arrow at point D … represents the direction in which the near face is pointing.”
It may be “irrefutable maths” but it is wrong. That is not not how the moon actually moves. So your math maybe perfect, but something in your initial assumptions are flawed. If the theory disagrees with the universe, it is the THEORY that must be changed.
“The middle arrow shows exactly why libration occurs.”
No, the middle arrow only shows APPROXIMATELY why libration occurs. Go ahead and calculated the exact libration predicted by your model. Then compare that to the actual observed libration. Come back when you can show us that your theory accurately predicts the correct amount of libration.
It turns out that the arrow pointing ‘straight up’ at “D” is the correct orientation. Point “D” is exactly 1/4 of the orbital period, and the moon has rotated on its 1/4 of 360 degrees = 90 degrees. That is now the moon is observed to turn. That is in agreement with theory (conservation of angular momentum).
Folkerts, you are confused by your own diagram!
You’ve got your moon rotating in different directions! It’s OSCILLATING! There is NO physics to support such nonsense.
You don’t understand any of this.
Clint, Go ahead and calculate the exact libration predicted by your model. Then compare it to actual observations.
The ball-on-a-string would not have libration, Folkerts.
You can’t understand any of this.
“The ball-on-a-string would not have libration, Folkerts.” … and the moon does have libration. Therefore your model fails to describe the observed motions of the moon.
Care to try a more advanced model that actually predicts the motion of the moon?
Sorry, Tim, pups has already admitted they don’t do math.
Thanks for yet another example of how braindead you are, Folkerts.
The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Care to try to embrace reality?
Troll Swanson doesn’t even attempt any science anymore. He couldn’t solve the easy barbell problem, revealing he doesn’t have a clue about gravity effects. So now he just clings to Folkert’s leg.
How cute.
Math is the language of science. The “no spin” yo-yo pups has already admitted they don’t do math. No wonder they post nonsense.
What are babbling about now, Swanson?
It doesn’t take any math to observe that Moon keeps the same side facing the inside of its orbit. And, like the ball-on-a-string, that means Moon has no axial rotation.
Do you ever get tired of grasping at straws?
“The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’
Great! Its not a model for our Moon. All agree.
‘Moon keeps the same side facing the inside of its orbit. And, like the ball-on-a-string, that means Moon has no axial rotation.’
Oops!
Concerning this discussion about rural vs. urban station locations, I made years ago for CONUS a comparison of GHCN V3 stations between
– all CONUS stations;
– CONUS stations marked as ‘rural’ with low nightlight factor;
– CONUS stations marked as ‘suburban’ or ‘urban’ with low, medium or high nightlight factor.
I made the comparison for the Globe as well but don’t have current access to the data.
*
And that’s how the CONUS stuff looks like
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XvrhqhSkJl23pqqr70g6_fuSmHFlfLMX/view
Everybody can see that
– the (sub)urban stations show indeed a higher trend, mostly due to the fact that they – somewhat surprisingly – recorded less warming till 1990 (but more since then)
but also that
– the global V3 average for CONUS stations keeps, over the entire period (1900-2018), nearer to the rural subset than to the (sub)urban subset.
Draw your own conclusions.
*
And of course: everybody able to download, uncompress and process the GHCN V3 station data
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
(unadjusted variant, in anomaly form wrt the mean of 1981-2010) is welcome in the trial to prove me wrong.
**
One of the few corners where the difference between global average and rural stations (this time using the GHCN daily data) was really significant: the Canadian Prairies (parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba).
https://imgur.com/kYQXT0l
You can repeat your links ad nauseam; that won’t change even a bit of what is shown above.
As it appears that both you and Soon are in agreement on rural sites, far be it from me to point that out.
Manifestly, either you did not understand what really matters in my comment
” the global V3 average for CONUS stations keeps, over the entire period (1900-2018), nearer to the rural subset than to the (sub)urban subset ”
or you prefer to silently ignore that.
As I said, you and Soon et al agree on that.
I find interesting the graphs that include data before 1850 indicate about 0.5C warming since 1840.
Ken says: I find interesting the graphs that include data before 1850 indicate about 0.5C warming since 1840.
A keen observation.
Another point of interest is that data prior to 1865 disappears when China data is excluded (figure f) and is otherwise identical in figures b-h.
China is a bigger area of the globe than the USA is.
See also
https://imgur.com/a/MuAlR1k
In case you want to read the full paper
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131
See also
https://imgur.com/O9NsvCw
from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825215300349
I usually don’t have time for a full explanation, but this is important enough to take the time.
Upthread, Norman is still confused about solar flux arriving Earth. He’s confused because he believes in his cult, which uses the “dirty trick” of dividing flux. In fact, they reduce the supposed flux arriving Earth’s disk from the solar constant, about 1366 W/m^2, down to a mere 163 W/m^2! They do this to make it appear “something else” is warming Earth, as 163 W/m^2 can not. 163 W/m^2 would have an equilibrium temperature of 231.55K (-41.6C, -42.9F).
Here’s how the dirty trick works:
The 1366 W/m^2 is adjusted for a supposed average albedo to about 960 W/m^2. Then, they divide that value by 4, trying to average it over the entire planet’s surface, getting 240 W/m^2. Then, they reduce it farther, claiming average surface reflection, to about 163 W/m^2.
The entire process of averaging flux and albedo is fraught with errors and violations of science.
The cult treats flux as energy. Flux is NOT the same as energy. Energy can be averaged, as it is a conserved quantity. Flux can NOT be averaged, as it is NOT conserved. Ice emits about 300 W/m^2, but it doesn’t matter how many m^2 of ice you have, you only get a flux of 300 W/m^2.
I might suggest taking a course in Quantum Physics.
Actually Ken, this would be covered in just basic physics.
It’s not that hard to understand. Most people have enough common sense to know you can’t boil water with ice cubes.
They also know that water ice is warmer than solid CO2 and surrounding yourself with one or the other will make quite a difference.
RLH
Clint R has been told that many times already. He is too stupid to understand the actual physics. He might make an unrelated point to pretend he has a mind. If you interact with him much more you will come to realize he is just a very stupid and arrogant person.
He can’t figure out how to tape a rubber band to the top of a can.
I have linked him to Roy’s experiment where he demonstrates this clearly but his standard response to anyone who posts a logical and valid link (he does it to most posters) is that they do not understand the link. He thinks he is brilliant for coming up with this response. He does it to cover his own stupid thought process. He can’t understand the links at all so he pretends that he does and goes on to tell the poster they do not understand the link.
I do not know if you will find dumber people in this world than the few contrarians on this blog. Two come to mind, Clint R (real stupid and arrogant) and Swenson (stupid and arrogant).
It is always worth pointing out his errors so that he comes back with stupid answers. Then at least he shows he is stupid to everybody else.
I always appreciate the incompetent flak from braindead cult idiots. It provides extra validation for my comments.
Norman has been in extreme meltdown for several days now, as he sees his false beliefs shattered.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R is an idiot. In a tiny, tiny, cult. That is plain for all to see.
RLH
I agree with you on Clint R. Ver stupid. His last post was just more of his stupid personality. He can’t stop being stupid. He falsely believe I am in some sort of meltdown. I guess it comforts him. My desire would be for the contrarian skeptics to actually know some science then they can form intelligent questions concerning Climate Change. The couple of stupid posters like Clint R or Swenson just make skeptics look like fools.
I am a partial skeptic of the claims made by Alarmist types. I am open to question much in the world of Climate Change but wasting time and effort with stupid people destroys good discussions that could take place on this blog.
Norman, your problem is you believe in your cult nonsense even to the point of perverting reality. When I point out the flaws in your opinions, you go into meltdown, typing endless attacks, false accusations, and insults.
You offer a great example of how cults can destroy a person’s mind.
Clint R
Not that complex. Just pointing out your reality to you, you are a stupid person that does not know any real physics. You come here with stupid points (of course insulting everyone you meet) and pretend that you know things.
Your endless stupidity just gets old after a period of time that is all.
Have you learned the process of taping a rubber band to the top of a can. Last time I asked you were not able to do this. Wonder if you figured it out yet.
Norman, your problem is you believe in your cult nonsense even to the point of perverting reality. When I point out the flaws in your opinions, you go into meltdown, typing endless attacks, false accusations, and insults.
You offer a great example of how cults can destroy a person’s mind.
Your can and rubber band sound suspiciously like the ball-on-a-string. Do you not know how to correctly do the demo? Spin it around you and if it holds together one side of the can will always face the inside of the orbit.
Clint R
Your stupid posts are making me laugh! You are too stupid to understand how to tape a rubber band on a can so you have to fake your way through your post to disguise this fact about you.
I already told you how to do it and what to do. I am not going to keep repeating myself for an idiot. If you can’t understand what I said earlier that is okay. It is okay to admit you are stupid. The stupid part of you is okay. People are stupid, you are one of them. No big deal. Your problem is not your weak thinking ability, it is your arrogance. You need to pretend you are intelligent. Just accept what you are and you will do fine.
Though a course in Quantum Mechanics, not Quantum Physics might elucidate the basic error Clint R is making.
A course in Quantum Physics being a pre-req for a course in Quantum Mechanics.
But hey, if you never took and passed a course in either, you can always throw spaghetti against the wall.
Nah, a course in qm won’t help here. No less than a course in chlorpromazine is required.
> The entire process of averaging flux and albedo is fraught with errors and violations of science.
Your guru has a model of a half-earth, Pup:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
clint…”Upthread, Norman is still confused about solar flux arriving Earth. Hes confused because he believes in his cult, which uses the dirty trick of dividing flux. In fact, they reduce the supposed flux arriving Earths disk from the solar constant, about 1366 W/m^2, down to a mere 163 W/m^2!”
***
It’s all a load of nonsense anyway. They don’t allow for the fact that the planet is rotating, that heat in the atmosphere dissipates naturally as it air packets expand, or that the atmosphere retains heat naturally after absorbing heat by conduction from the surface.
The atmosphere and oceans retain heat naturally and every rotation the Sun gives them another shot of energy to maintain the temperature. Heat in vs. heat out is not the issue, it’s far more complex.
Norman
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-933166
“Christos Vournas
I have already pointed out your equation would result in a physically impossible condition. The Earth is emitting more energy than it receives. Your equation comes up with a T-Mean surface temperature for an Earth without atmosphere of 288 K. So what is your calculation for how much total power the surface of the Whole Earth loses? (Watts…joules/second).
As pointed out above, you can use data like this:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/climate-data-records/outgoing-longwave-radiation-daily
To find the total energy emitted to space by the Earth. It would require some good math to get an area and flux and convert that to Watts and add all the amounts up for a Grand Total.
So with your ideas how much energy does your math determine will be emitted by the Earth in your hypothesis? 288 K mean meaning some higher temps some lower, some radiate more some less but what do you calculate as the total?”
288 K mean meaning some higher temps some lower, some radiate more some less
Exactly! Thank you for asking!
****
Here is the opening statement of my website’s home page.
The new estimate closely matches the estimate from satellite observations
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
gives wonderful results Tmean.earth = 287,74 K, Tmean.moon = 223,35 K, Tmean.mars = 213,21 K and
Tmean.mercury = 325,83 K
Using the new equation, the new estimate closely matches the estimate surface temperatures from satellite observations:
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
Planet…Te.incompl….Tmean…Tsat.mean
……….equation….equation…measured
Mercury….439,6 K….325,83 K….340 K
It is time to abandon the old
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ incomplete equation.
*****
Here it is the planet surface IR emittance Universal Law
It calculates the Grand Total it is the Norman’s term, but I like it very much.
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
and it is the Grand Total, “all the amounts up for a Grand Total”!
And this equation is valid for all planets and moons without-atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere (Earth and Titan included) in a solar system.
****
The solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) does not emit as a uniform temperature sphere in accordance to the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
4πr²σΤmean⁴ (W)
No, the solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) emits as a rotating planet in accordance to both, the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law and the Newly discovered Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
–
Let’s continue…
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
******
The question:
“So with your ideas how much energy does your math determine will be emitted by the Earth in your hypothesis?”
Let’s see:
The not reflected from the initial disk area πr² SW EM energy (the transformed into IR EM emission energy) is:
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
or,
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) (W) in Total
let’s substituting the terms:
“We use the current solar constant of 1366 W/m^2 (changes over time by a few W/m^2).
The receiving area for Earth of the solar energy is the disk created by the Earth size.
Earth has a radius of 6,371,000 meters. The area of the circle that solar energy passes through would be 127,516,117,977,447 square meters. Multiply this area by the solar flux you get 174,187,017,157,192,695 Watts (forgive the excess digits, just using the calculator output)”.
Thus we shall have:
Φ(1-a)*174,187,017,157,192,695 Watts in Total
Φearth = 0.47
a = 0.306
0.47*(1-0.306)*174,187,017,157,192,695 Watts =
= 0.47*0.694*174,187,017,157,192,695 Watts =
= 0.3262*174,187,017,157,192,695 Watts =
= 56,816,321,256,332,890 Watts
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Global surface Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K is ok Christos, showing an earthen GHE of ~33K.
Global surface Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K though is too low, the actual value is about 215K for a martian GHE of ~5K.
Your curve fitting while ignoring atm. opacity comes close though others have done a better job of fitting (e.g. N&Z). Christos’ curve fitting misses Venus because his eqn. ignores Venus’ atm. main IR band total opacity at its high-pressure surface.
Ball4, “Your curve fitting while ignoring atm. opacity comes close…”
“Your curve fitting…” Ball4, what curve fitting? Please explain…
Where do you see a curve? What curve? And what is fitting ?
Can you show us the curve and the curve fitting you mentioned above?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, curve (or surface) fitting to a set of given points (such as planetary and moon global median temperatures) is one of the common and frequently carried out tasks in many disciplines of science and engineering, e.g., computer vision, machine vision, coordinate metrology, reverse engineering, and computer-aided geometric design.
Your new estimate closely matches the estimate from hand-picked satellite observations since The Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation gives wonderful results because you have taken the known planetary data points and fit an eqn. to them using several parameters once you threw out Venus. N&Z’s fit was higher order and much better fitting work as it included Venus.
Your fitting parameters can be eliminated by employing the surface pressure and grey opacity of each atm. constituent (in hydrostatic equilibrium) for all the solar system planets as shown by more capable authors. For optically thin atm.s such as the earthen atm. using one optical layer achieves a reasonable result whereas an iterative approach with many optical layers is required at Venus’ surface atm. pressure.
Ball4
“Your new estimate closely matches the estimate from hand-picked satellite observations since The Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation gives wonderful results because you have taken the known planetary data points and fit an eqn. to them using several parameters once you threw out Venus.”
“…because you have taken the known planetary data points and fit an eqn. to them using several parameters…”
Ball4, Ok
Let’s see what you mean:
Here is the classical planet effective temperature eqn.
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
And here is the New eqn.
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
it can be rewritten as:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ*(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴]∕ ⁴ [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
or
Tmean.planet = Te * Φ∕ ⁴(β*N*cp)^1/16 (K)
*******
Let’s follow your logic now. You think I took the satellite measured Tsat the planets’ mean surface temperatures and then I “constructed” a New eqn.
Tsat = Te * Φ∕ ⁴(β*N*cp)^1/16 (K) = Tmean.planet
Ok, but how? How it is possible to fit the parameters for all planets and moons without-atmosphere in solar system? Unless there are some observed relations?
We know for planets and moons the: Tsat, Te, N, cp.
How one can fit for all planets and moons
the Tsat with Te , having for every planet and moon a different N and a different cp ?
Now that the New equation is present (and working) it seems to you easy…
But please, what would be your steps to fit Tsat with Te for 14 different celestial bodies?
Here is the classical planet effective temperature eqn.
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
Now, Ball4, start fitting…
Maybe you will find a different equation, maybe a better fitting one?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“How it is possible to fit the parameters for all planets and moons without-atmosphere in solar system?”
It’s fairly straightforward. If you want to learn the general process in more detail Christos, read N&Z description or find a source on general curve fitting.
“But please, what would be your steps to fit Tsat with Te for 14 different celestial bodies?”
Haven’t seen your list of 14. I’d follow the steps explained in N&Z 2017 to get even a better planetary and moon surface temperature fit than the fit you developed.
Here, for example Christos, Martian aerosols raise the planetary albedo and lower the global surface Tsat.mean.mars, there are also Martian clouds appearing from time to time. You can’t use your curve fitted Tmean.planet to calculate the difference (or even est. an order of magnitude) in martian GHE for these cases:
1) Clear atm.
2) Dusty atm.
3) Dusty atm. with observed clouds
since you simply ignore atm. opacity conditions. Including atm. opacity in the basic eqn. as done in textbooks & more advanced papers, allows such a calculation & can provide the answers where your formula cannot as you don’t apriori know the difference in parameters phi, beta, cp.
You could, however, use the textbook fundamental eqn. for answers then simply adjust phi to compensate & announce your new wonderful results.
christos…”Ball4…”
***
Just to be clear, you are responding to a troll who claims there is no such thing as heat. He will argue that black is white if you listen to him.
Christos Vournas
Your calculation makes no logical sense. You start with the correct statement, the energy emitted must equal the energy abs. The energy that is abs would not be 174,187,017,157,192,695 Watts but a fraction. Energy that is reflected is not used in the Earth System so the actual value is 121,930,912,010,034,886 Watts.
The energy emitted from the TOA must equal this amount or the Earth-System will warm or cool.
This does not say anything about the surface. I do not know what your 288 K mean really means if you can’t use it to calculate the total amount of energy emitted from the surface. A surface only emitting 56,816,321,256,332,890 Watts with a 0.96 emissivity would be quite cold overall. It could not have a mean temperature of 288 K. Not remotely possible. You might have areas that reach this temperature but the mean would not reach that level.
I think you need to erase your page and start over. It is not correct at all. Sorry for the bad news. You may have put a lot of work into the project but time and effort do not make it true.
Christos Vournas
Here is why your equation is no good.
Using the actual Stefan-Boltzmann law P=(emissivity)(Area)(Stefan-Boltzmann constant)T^4
You can find the temperature of an Earth size object that emits this much energy.
T^4= (56,816,321,256,332,890 Watts)/(0.96)(510.1 x 10^12 m^2)(5.67 x 10^-8 W/m^2 K) = 212.69 K
It is not possible to get a mean surface temperature of 288 from your calculated surface emission. When you say 288 mean it would mean that the emission would fluctuate close to 390 Watts/m^2. Some areas would have more than this emission some less but the averaged emission would have to be around this value.
N,
Don’t be stupid.
Using admittedly sparse actual measurements of radiative flux through the surface (taken by real scientists such as geophysicists), the actual surface temperature of the Earth is calculated to be around 40 K, without external energy input.
Add the external energy from the Sun, and surprise! surprise! – around 290 K!
Does 288 K ring any bells?
If you don’t agree, why not quote me exactly, then provide the odd fact or two to back up your disagreement?
Rhetorical question, of course, seeing as how cultist ranting and diversionary nonsense is your forte.
You might as well continue being stupid!
norman…”Using the actual Stefan-Boltzmann law P=(emissivity)(Area)(Stefan-Boltzmann constant)T^4
You can find the temperature of an Earth size object that emits this much energy”.
***
No, you can’t. S-B applies only to an electrically-heated platinum filament in a temperature range from about 700C to 1400C. That’s where the constant of proportionality was calculated. It does not apply to a body with terrestrial temperatures without modifying the constant.
Gordon Robertson
No you are completely wrong! That may have been what was originally used to derive the equation but it is now considered a law. Do you know why? It has been tested and verified under all types of conditions with all kinds of materials and found to be a correct relationship for energy emission at given temperature. There is no modifying the constant. It is established by experimental fact.
You can deny this reality for whatever weird reason you choose. It is correct and valid and works in all known cases.
You should learn real physics before you post. If you want to be an actual skeptic of climate change than at least be one that knows what is and is not science. You have said many stupid things before about viruses, relativity, Inverse Square Law. You do not understand any of these things and comment like some expert. You only surface read some crackpot that challenges these ideas and you blindly believe their nonsense with a super limited knowledge of the subject.
Again you are just displaying ignorance. Why?
Gordon,
In addition to what Norman said, the Stephan-Boltzmann is derived directly from the Planck distribution.
You could google derivation of the Stephan-Boltzmann law.
Or you could go make a sandwich.
“S-B applies only to an electrically-heated platinum filament in a temperature range from about 700C to 1400C. ”
Right. And Newton’s Law of Gravity only applies to falling apples.
Norman
“It is not possible to get a mean surface temperature of 288 from your calculated surface emission. When you say 288 mean it would mean that the emission would fluctuate close to 390 Watts/m^2. Some areas would have more than this emission some less but the averaged emission would have to be around this value.”
The issue we discuss is very important.
What I suggest is to compare Moon mean surface temperature with the Moon effective temperature. Then please comment what you think about the differences.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
The “Effective Temperature” removes any effect of spin. It is the temperature a body would reach if input energy were uniformly spread over the entire surface. It negates the effect of spin. Slow spinning can result in surface temperatures below the effective temperature but not above. The Solar energy on the sunlit side of the Moon at first increases the lunar surface, but only up to the point the lunar surface emits away all the energy it receives, no more temperature increase (at first, when cool it emits far less than it receives so the energy can be used to increase temperature).
Once the lunar surface is at steady state temperature with the input solar all the solar energy that could be used to heat the surface is now just radiated away. If the Moon span faster than lots more energy would be used to increase the surface temperature. But the rate of spin will not exceed the temperature of the effective temperature which is what you want to demonstrate.
Norman & Christos, the reason planet spin rate matters for planetary temperatures is related to the S-B equation being non-linear.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
Norman
“The Effective Temperature removes any effect of spin. It is the temperature a body would reach if input energy were uniformly spread over the entire surface. It negates the effect of spin. Slow spinning can result in surface temperatures below the effective temperature but not above.”
Effective temperature is a mathematical abstraction. Every planet has a calculated effective temperature no matter how fast planet rotates.
Why should we consider the planet effective temperature to be the highest mean surface temperature a real planet mean surface temperature can theoretically achieve?
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:
Jemit = sigma*T^4 W/m^2 where T is a uniform surface emission
temperature.
The amount of energy emitted from a surface with A m^2 area is:
energy out = A (m^2) * sigma*T^4 W/m^2 = A * sigma*T^4 W
or
energy out = A * Jemit
The Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody surface is already has the uniform temperature T, because it is uniformly warmed to that T temperature.
Planet surface cannot be considered as a blackbody uniformly warmed surface. The incident solar flux cannot be averaged over the planet surface. Flux is not heat…
The fact that planet receives a solar flux, does not mean its energy first warms planet surface and only then the warmed surface emits the same incident amount of solar energy as IR EM emission.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
YOU: “The fact that planet receives a solar flux, does not mean its energy first warms planet surface and only then the warmed surface emits the same incident amount of solar energy as IR EM emission.”
Yes that is basically what happens. The Solar Flux is ABS by surface and converted to heat which increases the molecular vibrations of the the surface. Some of the energy can be conducted to lower layers of the surface but the greater vibrations of the molecules in the surface layer will emit more IR and will reach a point that they are emitting the same amount of energy in the IR bands and they are receiving in the Visible spectrum from the Sun.
Not sure why you do not accept this as correct. Do you have good material to demonstrate this is not what takes place?
“Not sure why you do not accept this as correct. Do you have good material to demonstrate this is not what takes place?”
I have observed it for many years happening…
When I understood its exact meaning I sat and started the research.
Sorry, it is 2 am in Athens, Greece now. Tomorrow we shall continue.
Christos
Norman, it is almost the same.
What I think is the solar irradiation interacts with matter on the very instant it hits the surface.
The following happen:
1). Partial reflection (specular and diffuse).
2). Partial transformation to other frequencies (IR) and IR emission, as a kind of “instant reflection like process”.
3). A very small fraction conducted in the inner layers in form of heat.
Not the entire non-reflected portion should be considered as heat, since it never been conducted in the inner layers.
YOU: “Some of the energy can be conducted to lower layers of the surface but the greater vibrations of the molecules in the surface layer will emit more IR and will reach a point that they are emitting the same amount of energy in the IR bands and they are receiving in the Visible spectrum from the Sun.”
It is almost the same, as me. That is why we should not average flux over entire planet surface by dividing by 4. Because almost all the incident EM energy gets out the very moment of the incidence on the every spot, no matter how fast planet rotates.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This one’s for Willard, https://tinyurl.com/5rtdbtc
<3
Vournas
You can try to manipulate people with your multiplying \xCE\xA6 factor as long as you want.
This factor has to be added to the albedo, basta ya.
And then… the ball becomes round again.
Oops?! I meant Phi.
Bindidon
“You can try to manipulate people with your multiplying \xCE\xA6 factor as long as you want.
This factor has to be added to the albedo, basta ya.
And then… the ball becomes round again.”
“Oops?! I meant Phi.”
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) (W) is the non-reflected portion of the incident on the planet surface solar SW EM energy.
Φ(1-a)is a coupled term. How am I supposed to add the Φ to albedo?
What do you suggest upon that?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
NOAA NCEP CPC
Consolidated SST Forecasts
Updated: October 12, 2021
SST Consolidation NINO 3.4
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/SSTs/
See you next year in MAM…
Well according to some people, global temperatures follow ENSO with a 5 month delay.
Don’t go so fast on him , he is five month behind , not five month ahead
What does what I wrote have to do with temperatures? Where did I mention them?
Non sequitur.
And as usual, Eben can’t manage to escape off his dumb polemic.
“SST Forecasts”
Doesn’t mean Sea Surface Temperature Forecasts then?
From what, do you think, are ENSO signals calculated?
Oh Noes…
Look at ‘El Nio Monitoring’ in
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html
and eventually replace NINO.3 by NINO.3+4
But as you of course are aware of, this is not the only source for ENSO signal calculation.
Pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti are a further one.
That is weel xplained on the MEI page.
“What does what I wrote have to do with temperatures”
Doesnt mean Sea Surface Temperature Forecasts then?
“Look at ‘El Ni{n}o Monitoring'”
Accurate as usual. Not.
After 5 month of trying to mock my and others LaNina forecast , when the LaNina actually arrives Bindidork wants to start educating people on ENSO forecasting , Really ???
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-709017
Eben
I ask you again: where is the superdeveloping La Nina?
You were posting all the time about the current La Nina as if it would be a very strong one.
Where is it?
Why don’t you compare the current status with e.g. 2010?
“Yesterday NOAA announced that La Nia conditions have been slowly brewing over the past month and have an 87 percent chance of continuing over December, January, and February”
Better than even then for a La Nina this/next year.
Nice try Bindidork now trying to spin his super forecast failure
But I was the first one to predict the secondary LaNina will be bigger that the first one , and we are not finished yet by far
Now go back to reposting last year temperatures
Ask me again
When Bindiclown realized his epic La Nina forecasting fail he tried to spin it into some kind of dispute how strong it was going to be , something that nobody even argued about ,
Only problem , he declared La Nina to be over and tried to compare it to the previous ones long before it ended , it turns out he lost even his own straw-man argument , that takes some doing,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-936851
If you want to know the temperature of something, use an appropriate temperature measuring instrument.
If you want to know what temperature coulda/woulda/shoulda been, use your imagination.
I prefer reality. Climate cranks hew to fantasy. I assume reality will prevail.
“If you want to know the temperature of something, use an appropriate temperature measuring instrument”
So how big an area/volume do you recon your simple point sampling measurement system will cover? Will one thermometer do for the whole globe or do we need slightly more than that?
Carl Otto Weiss shows video presentation that includes temperature data from 7 major cities in Europe. The trends are the same with warmer temperatures at the start of 1800s dipping to low at 1850 rising to 1940 falling to mid 1970s and then rising to 1998 and then leveling off.
The temperature record is compared to Antarctic ice cores which show the same trends.
So do the reconstruction data from tree rings and sediments.
https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/
From which we can conclude that if you have a thermometer anywhere earth that is not influenced by urban heat island it will likely give a reasonably accurate picture of global trends.
Ken
UHI is in discussion since years.
Did you ever read this paper?
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
By ‘read’ I mean ‘to have read the paper in its entirety’.
If you are a professional, and are able to scientifically contradict the paper, or can provide for a scientific contradiction of the paper by professionals, please let me know.
I’m interested.
So why does this paper and Soon’s et al differ so much? Can you point out why?
Mind you
“This work was done as part of the Berkeley Earth project”
so it hardly surprising that they agree with them is it?
Thanks for the link to the paper.
I fail to see your point.
The question was how many thermometers do you need to get global temperature trend.
My answer was one except that it shouldn’t be located in UHI. UHI will skew the result, which your paper clearly indicates.
” so it hardly surprising that they agree with them is it? ”
What a dumb question!
The authors are the Berkeley Earth themselves, you genius!
Ken
Sorry, I misunderstood your (absolutely pointless) point.
Apologies.
RLH,
I assume you are attempting another gotcha, but you actually ask a cogent question.
The answer is, of course, that you cannot establish the degree of hotness (temperature) for the “surface” of the Earth.
Any person who claims to be able to do so is off with the fairies. Probably a self-styled “climate scientist”!
Do you agree?
If not, why not?
A global comparison of rural vs. urban GHCN V3 stations made some years ago
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ya7uzs8SmIwN_Z_u7udshZoIXaKs7qiX/view
Nota bene
If you ‘forget’ to perform area weighting, your result will be biased, due to the fact that then bulks of urban stations heavily dominate the monthly averages.
*
The same job using over 40,000 GHCN daily stations instead of the 7,280 GHCN V3 set would be more interesting; unfortunately, GHCN daily doesn’t contain metadata allowing the distinction between rural and urban.
Good move, stick with reporting past weather ,
it’s a lot easier than making predictions for the future, for that you would actually need to know something about the climate
Tell that to Willie Soon, not to me.
It’s a lot easier
– to cowardly attack, conveniently hidden behind a nickname, other commenters
than
– to show balls by attacking instead, under your real name of course, Soon or the Connolly brothers or their Chinese coworker,
isn’t it, Eben?
So you recon that Soon et al are wrong do you. Well I suppose everybody can have an opinion. Some are worth more than others.
Binclown is now spinning like a top throwing crap in every direction hoping some of it will hit something
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Distribution-of-rural-stations-in-the-Global-Historical-Climatology-Network-GHCN-version_fig3_351582224
Others do not appear to have the same problem as you do.
“Distribution of rural stations in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN version 3) dataset used for constructing our rural Northern Hemisphere temperature series. (a) The total number of valid stations (either rural or urban) with data for each year. Valid stations had at least 15 years of data during the 1961-1990 period of maximum station coverage, where a year consists of 12 complete months of data. (b) The total number of valid stations that are considered “rural” in terms of both night-brightness and population density according to the GHCN metadata. (c) The locations of the four regions and the rural stations in those regions used for constructing our rural Northern Hemisphere temperature series. (d) The percentages of the available rural data in those four regions for each year. (e) The percentages of the available rural data in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. (f) The percentages of the available rural data in the Southern Hemisphere.”
Which problem do you mean?
Any problem in clearly naming the ‘problem’ you insinuate I would have, RLH?
The problem is that you think Soon et al are wrong. Even if you have your own data that shows otherwise.
Claim 1
” Others do not appear to have the same problem as you do. ”
I ask ‘Which problem?’
Instead of obtaining a valuable answer to the simple question, I read
Claim 2
” The problem is that you think Soon et al are wrong. ”
1. I did not think Soon et al are wrong. If I would think so, I would have written it.
2. And you still are unable to exactly depict my alleged ‘problem’.
No wonder.
And yet you post
Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications
Wickham et al
which supports the concept that Soon is incorrect.
Which is it? Soon or Wickham?
RLH
It’s a while since I studied UHI effects.
Two hypotheses being discussed here.
1) The difference in differential temperature and rate of rise for urban and rural areas is due to CO2 AGW.
2) The difference in differential temperature and rate of rise for urban and rural areas is due to changes in solar insolation.
Could you remind what patterns of change are predicted by the two hypotheses, particularly how they differ?
Which pattern does the data show?
EM,
There is another hypothesis, of course.
That being that thermometers react to radiation, and that increased radiation due to increased anthropogenic production of same, will show up as – increased temperatures!
Obviously, this hypothesis is rejected by climate cranks, who believe that a sevenfold increase in poulation, accompanied by a tenfold per capita increase in energy use, over the last century or so, has produced no additional heat over this time.
Maybe it’s magical Trenberthian heat, which has sloped off to hide in the ocean, where it can’t be measured!
3) The difference in measured temperatures are to do with Urban stations being effected by Urban areas producing their own heat also.
About 20c (approx) leaking eventually from all the houses, factories, shops etc. into the environment as well as the man made surface in Urban environments retaining heat better overnight and transporting water away more efficiently.
Hence UHI.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556191
Gordon Robertson November 20, 2020 at 7:10 PM
Here’s feedback I just sent to NASA re Bob’s link.
Hi…would you please correct the error on your misconceptions page about the Moon rotating on its axis. It is simply not possible for the Moon to keep the same face toward the Earth while rotating on its axis. You are likely confusing a change in pointing direction of the near face during the orbit as local rotation but it is actually due to curvilinear translation.
[…]
Well, a quick check of the NASA misconceptions page reveals that as-of-today it still reads:
https://moon.nasa.gov/inside-and-out/top-moon-questions/
TM, where have you been? This issue has been discussed more than 2 years here, and you’re just now realizing NASA has it wrong?
Maybe you’re just slow, like the braindead cult idiots.
Your rambling ain’t science, Pup.
Clint R at 11:25 AM
I always appreciate the incompetent flak from braindead cult idiots. It provides extra validation for my comments.
Pup has been in extreme meltdown for several days now, as he sees his false beliefs shattered.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Tyson believes a ball on a string, or a wooden horse on a merry-go-round, is rotating on its own internal axis. Tyson’s false beliefs are shattered by the reality that the ball is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball, and the wooden horse is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. Regardless of whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not, Tyson will always be wrong about the ball on a string, and the wooden horse.
Whatever Kiddo believes, that’s where he’s wrong.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
gbaikie, I overlooked your comment from above. Here’s an explanation of “tidal locking”:
“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.
Quit trying to use your cult tricks, just because you have NOTHING of substance.
Clint R,
Let’s go to a gym.
Lie down on the bench press, I’ll put three 45 pound plates on one side and none on the other.
How are you going to keep the bar from rotating?
The observation that things fall at the same rate regardless of mass is only true for objects that are very small compared to the mass of the Earth.
That’s according to Newton’s Universal Law of gravitation.
But then, some have trouble with the math.
And of course gravity does exert a torque on the Moon, because the Moon is not a spherical body of uniform mass.
b,
You are an idiot.
What happens to your imaginary bar with weights? It stops – with the heaviest end closest to the Earth’s centre of gravity.
Don’t you bother thinking your stupid fantasies through?
Exactly the same as the Moon, however. The Moon has stopped rotating – with its heaviest side closest to the Earth’s centre of gravity!
Keep up the good work of demonstrating your intellectual prowess, bob.
Swnghooulie,
“What happens to your imaginary bar with weights? It stops with the heaviest end closest to the Earths centre of gravity.”
That’s right, because gravity put a torque on the bar, causing it to rotate until the heavy end was on the bottom.
And the Moon is still rotating, which it has been doing since the Earth was a hot ball of molten rock.
Tell me what inbred religious cult homeschooled you?
b,
Don’t be stupid.
The heavy end of the Moon is indeed on the bottom. It has stopped rotating, just like your barbell – or a free spinning out-of-balance vertical wheel, or a pendulum, or . . .
Try thinking, bob. It might be a fascinating new experience for you.
Carry on trying to improve your attempts at being gratuitously insulting. Here’s a tip – aim them at idiots who choose to be insulted, offended or similar. The weak minded, mentally fragile, or intellectually challenged might be a suitable target audience – people like yourself, perhaps?
Off you go, now – practice, practice, practice.
[laughing at dimwit]
“It has stopped rotating”
No it hasn’t. It now rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.
(Mind you it took a VERY long time for that to happen during which time it presented all of its faces to Earth)
Yes we know, RLH. That’s what your cult believes. So, that’s what you believe.
But, beliefs ain’t science.
RLH,
Maybe you could think about this.
A suspended freely spinning unbalanced wheel will eventually stop spinning (due to the force of gravity), with the wheel stationary with respect to the Earth, and its heaviest part closest to the Earth.
Hopefully you agree so far.
Now, if you were to place the wheel on the Equator, aligned East-West, it would remain stationary with respect to the Earth’s surface, while rotating around the Earth’s COG. at about 1600 kph. The speed is due to the incredible interplay between light, matter, and gravity known as “friction” (for simplicity).
Both simple and complicated, depending on your point of view and knowledge, I suppose.
However, is the wheel spinning about an internal axis? I think not. Welding the axle solidly to the hub would make no difference, once gravity has slowed the wheel to a stop.
If you define the immobile wheel as “spinning”, you free to do so. Just as climate crackpots define “slower cooling” to be “a rise in temperature”.
Right Swenson,
It started rotating then it stopped rotating when it hit the ground.
Then you go on
“A suspended freely spinning unbalanced wheel will eventually stop spinning (due to the force of gravity), with the wheel stationary with respect to the Earth, and its heaviest part closest to the Earth.”
So gravity can put a torque on something?
Good to know you get something correct, every once in a while, like how a blind sow finds an acorn.
But then you blow it with this
“The speed is due to the incredible interplay between light, matter, and gravity known as friction (for simplicity).”
Gravity is friction?
Now who is laughing?
b,
Still displaying your desire to rise to the level of complete idiot?
You wrote –
“Right Swenson,
It started rotating then it stopped rotating when it hit the ground.”
Really? Who wrote that? Not me, that’s for sure. You just love presenting your fantasies as fact, don’t you?
Then you demonstrate your inability to comprehend a simple statement by writing x
“Gravity is friction?
Now who is laughing?”
Once again, learn to read – and comprehend. That way, you are less likely to be seen a# a dimwit by others who have basic reading and comprehension skills. Unlikely, but possible, I suppose.
So go on, bob. Keep denying reality.
[still laughing at delusional dimwit]
“A suspended freely spinning unbalanced wheel will eventually stop”
After how many Millenia?
Swenson,
You should read your posts sometime.
Like before you post them.
This is your daily word salad, right, so you own it!
“Now, if you were to place the wheel on the Equator, aligned East-West, it would remain stationary with respect to the Earths surface, while rotating around the Earths COG. at about 1600 kph. The speed is due to the incredible interplay between light, matter, and gravity known as friction (for simplicity).”
So the rotational speed of the Earth is due to the incredible interplay between light, matter, and gravity known as friction?
You think that is a display of your incredible intelligence?
Hoot!
–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 rate of acceleration is same for hammer and feather. If at the same distance.
At critical aspect of gravity is distance- because rate acceleration changes with distance.
What is questionable about the statement is “long bar”.
Or one could say a “long bar” is related or relatable to a gravity gradient.
I picture a long bar which is horizonal [or at same distance] and so
I agree with the statement.
And 100 meter long narrow bar in Earth orbit “should” have one of the ends, pointed at earth
“A 100 meter long narrow bar in Earth orbit ‘should’ have one of the ends, pointed at earth”
Eventually. It’ll take quite a while for that to be true for the whole orbit.
I would say if it starts, vertical, it stays vertical. But it’s quite if starts horizonal, it could take while to become vertical.
In LEO, it would have more drag, if vertical- so a force working against being vertical. The drag effect is cross section to orbital velocity and it’s mass.
Or thin steel rod vs tall fat Balloon. The balloon would depend elevation of orbit and whether it’s solar Min Or Max.
Two lead balls on long strong string, would be interesting.
TM just repeats one of my comments, like an impotent parrot.
bobdroege reveals once again his ignorance of physics, even going so far as to make up his own version of gravitational attraction.
You can’t understand because you can’t learn. You’re a braindead cult idiot.
Just try to be content in your ignorance – “Ignorance is bliss”, as they say.
Clint R,
I was using Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation.
Perhaps you learned of it during your physics studies?
I think not.
Newton had something to say about this in his Proposition 68:
And?
Swenson at 1:23 AM
And?
Seriously?
Newton theorized, 300 years ago, about mass concentrations (Mascons) and their effect on the gravity field.
Try to keep up!
TM,
And?
Just making stuff up, like –
“Newton theorized, 300 years ago, about mass concentrations (Mascons) and their effect on the gravity field.”
– is not only stupid, but irrelevant as well. The gravity field? Mascons?
You can’t quote Newton saying any such thing – you just made that fantasy up, didn’t you?
Not even a good attempt at weaselling out of your nonsense. Try harder in future!
Swenson at 6:20 AM
You cant quote Newton saying any such thing
I just did: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-937906
Try to keep up!
“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.”
Hence why I said: “Thats interesting.”
It quite possible the Moon or other moons, don’t spin on axis [because they didn’t spin when formed or acquire any spin afterwards}.
The Moon may or may not spun on an axis since it’s formation. And I don’t opinion on what distance it formed from Earth {if it indeed did form by a giant impact with Earth- which tend favor as theory at the moment}.
Radiative energy flux variations from 2000 2020
From a trusted source
JAXA-Arc1)
Average remaining extent gain (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in March 2021 of 14.75 million km2, 0.87 million km2 above the March 2017 record low maximum of 13.88 million km2, which would be 18th lowest in the satellite record
_______________________________________________________________
In 2020, October 2020 was heading to be the lowest monthly average in the satellite record.
This Octobers monthly average is likely to be 1.5 million km2 above that of October 2020.
On this day sea ice extent is nearly 1.9 million km2 more than a year ago.
2021 is not an average year.
I wonder if this is what the Chief calls randomness?
Not likely to last given the slow refreeze the last 3 years but I will enjoy it while it lasts.
angech | October 20, 2021 at 5:22 am | Reply
What it really shows is how poor a handle we have on the actual extent of natural variability.
Presumably it froze up while CERES was confirming a large radiative imbalance that should have been warming us.
bobdroege says:
Lets go to a gym.
Lie down on the bench press, Ill put three 45 pound plates on one side and none on the other.
How are you going to keep the bar from rotating?
Put it on the floor.
The observation that things fall at the same rate regardless of mass is only true for objects that are very small compared to the mass of the Earth.
No
The rate of fall as you put it is actually both objects falling towards each other.
Ie the combined mass has a centre of gravity towards which they both move.
Thats according to Newtons Universal Law of gravitation.
It is true for all laws of gravitation
But then, some have trouble with the math.
So true.
And of course gravity does exert a torque on the Moon, because the Moon is not a spherical body of uniform mass.
As just explained the shape of the object should have no torque effect in the sense that one side of it will fall towards the earth faster. It just does not happen
Each
angech gets it, he just didn’t make it clear who said what.
bob says: “And of course gravity does exert a torque on the Moon, because the Moon is not a spherical body of uniform mass.”
angech says: “As just explained the shape of the object should have no torque effect in the sense that one side of it will fall towards the earth faster. It just does not happen.”
It doesn’t matter the shape of Moon. Gravity will NOT cause axial rotation. “Old” NASA got it right, “new” NASA gets it wrong.
Clint R,
I think you are in a hopeless state of ignorance.
“It doesnt matter the shape of Moon. Gravity will NOT cause axial rotation. ”
Both sentences are wrong.
The Moon was already rotating, Earth’s gravity is actually slowing that rotation down by putting a torque on the Moon.
Old Clint R got it wrong and new Clint R isn’t doing any better.
bob d…”The Moon was already rotating…”
No proof of that, Bob. A rotating Moon could not keep the same face pointed to Earth through an entire orbit. That is possible only if the Moon is translating without local rotation.
It’s an observation that the Moon is rotating keeping the same side facing the Earth.
I am done arguing this.
bob d…”I am done arguing this”.
^^^
You’re conceding the non-spinners are right??? Good on you, Bruce.
No. He is concluding that you are wrong. Which you are.
Yeah, I have gone on to arguing that the gravity of the Moon and Earth can put a torque on both, which changes the rate of rotation of both.
Which means IHBS that both the Earth and Moon are rotating.
It Has Been Shown
for the clown car.
Wrong bob! Gravity can NOT induce a torque on Moon. You just don’t understand the science.
Study the “barbell problem”. Maybe get some adult to help you. It’s not that hard to understand.
A barbell is in stable circular orbit around Earth at high enough altitude there is no atmosphere. The bar travels tangent to the orbit, with the heavy end (front) having twice the mass of the other end (rear). Assume ends are point masses, to make calculations easier. The separation of the two masses is 1 meter. The 1-meter bar has so little mass, it can be ignored. Use “g” for the acceleration due to gravity. (No numbers needed, just “g”.)
Find the torque due to gravity on the barbell.
Since the barbell spins on its own axis like our moon once per earthen orbit there’s an easily calculable torque as the barbell passes through horizontal. Clint R and DREMT should show us the correct math or if not, then astute blog readers will know they haven’t passed high school junior, or college freshman, level physics.
Clint R
Use the wrong constant, get the wrong answer!
“Use g for the acceleration due to gravity. (No numbers needed, just g.)”
To calculate the torque on the barbell, you need to use Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation.
That’s the one with the big G
If you do, you will find the force on the big end is greater than the force on the small end, which produces a torque on the barbell.
Off with you clown.
You don’t understand which equation to use to solve the problem.
Both bob and Ball4 reveal they can’t solve the simple problem. Neither could RLH, TM, Swanson, Norman, Willard, or Entropic man. Folkerts got the right answer, but he didn’t show the solution. He may have just found the answer somewhere.
As I stated, none of the “spinners” know anything about the science. They just want to protect their cult.
Clint R,
You are in the clown cult, not the cult that knows physics.
You don’t know how to do the calculation to find the torque on the barbell.
Too Bad.
Hahaha, Clint R can’t even use math to solve his own simple physics problem; Clint R continues the never-ending entertainment. If you (or Gordon, or DREMT) can do so Clint, then let’s see your equations. I’m sure Clint will live up to all my expectations and pass much preferring the physics devoid ad hom route.
If given enough rope, the cult idiots will hang themselves, every time.
None of them have solved the barbell problem. bob is confused about “G” and “g”. He doesn’t realize “g” is calculated from “G”. Since the problem included “g”, he no longer needs “G”.
“G” and “g” don’t even have the same units!
Post up your problem’s math solution then Clint R. You don’t have one? I thought so. Clint can’t mathematically even solve his own simple problem. Typical for an entertainer.
Hint: this is an open book problem site thus Clint R can use any reliable physics ref. needed but I doubt any reliable ref. will be understood well enough.
Clint R,
Dear, I am not the one confused.
You put a barbell in orbit and then used g, which is the force of gravity at the earth’s surface.
There are other mistakes you make by using g for an object in orbit.
But then you don’t understand physics, so you make them mistakes.
bob can’t even understand the problem! He’s still confused about “g”, although the problem statement clearly defines “g”. It’s the gravitational acceleration at the barbell distance.
The more rope bob gets, the higher he can hang himself….
Still no solution (and I’d call that there never will be) for the problem posed by the blog foremost entertainment provider Clueless Clint; only entertainment including useless ad hom.s from Clint will be provided.
Clue: the solution for net effective torque on Clint’s apparatus orbiting Earth doesn’t need Clint’s given g explicitly but it does need G.
Clint R,
“problem statement clearly defines g”
Uhm, no,
the problem statement merely states use g, which is the wrong constant to use.
And
You gave us the answer before the problem
“Gravity can NOT induce a torque on Moon. You just dont understand the science.”
So you start of saying the torque would be zero.
But then you said use g,
If we used the incorrect constant g, and calculated the force on each end of the barbell, using the equation F=ma, or F=mg to calculate the torque T=FD we would get a torque of T = mg in the direction of the orbit, if the mass of the heavy side is 2m and the lighter side 1m.
Which would cause the barbell to rotate with the heavy end closest to earth. Like the Moon.
So, do you feel stupid yet?
I may have more to say when I have time. They’re truly braindead!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-743470
Clint R again takes the ad hom route out of town. Very predictable and hugely entertaining. Clint really can’t solve the problem or understand any ref. to do so.
Clint R,
Thing is, that I have used a torque wrench a time or two, big ones, little ones, and even hydraulic ones.
There is no torque around the center of mass or a torque wrench, as the force you put on the handle is equal and opposite to the torque put on the nut at the other end. Even if the dial indicator on the torque wrench indicates that there is a torque.
What’s new?
Clint R screwed up a calculation again!
Ball4, you either didn’t know how to follow the link or your didn’t understand the solution.
That’s why you’re a braindead cult idiot. That’s not an attack, it’s FACT.
You have NOTHING of substance. You just ramble incoherently, hoping something will stick.
But, it never does….
Braindead bob, if you can’t understand “torque”, you can’t understand a torque wrench.
Quality Assurance has watched me enough times to verify that I do indeed understand torque and know how to use a torque wrench.
I didn’t get fired from a Nuclear Power Plant for not using a torque wrench correctly.
You don’t measure torque from the center of mass of the torque wrench.
My brain may be dead, but at least I have a brain.
Brainless Clint R is beaten again.
Calling commenters names is indeed an ad hom attack Clint R 7:57am which you use to avoid having to use physics and solve your own problem statement. When you post a reliable link I’ll look into it, until then keep up the excellent entertainment devoid of physics.
None of the braindead cult idiots were able to solve the simple “barbell” problem. Both bob and Ball4 acted as is there were no solution possible!
So when I linked to the solution, neither was able to understand the simple solution! They don’t know anything about the issue.
bob claimed he was taught how to use a torque wrench, but he revealed he doesn’t understand “torque”. He was even confused how a torque wrench actually works. Ball4 doesn’t even know enough to raise an intelligent question. If he doesn’t understand something, he just believes it is wrong.
We are learning about braindead cult idiots.
Clint R,
All you have is ad-hom attacks
“Both bob and Ball4 reveal they can’t solve the simple problem.”
bob is confused about “G” and “g”.
The more rope bob gets, the higher he can hang himself….
They’re truly braindead!
bob claimed he was taught how to use a torque wrench, but he revealed he doesn’t understand “torque”.
He was even confused how a torque wrench actually works.
Dumb Clint R thinks a torque wrench measures the torque at the center of mass of the torque wrench.
Afraid not.
Now what happens to the barbell in orbit?
Does it stay in position with the barbell traveling in tangent to its orbit?
Or does the barbell rotate until the heavy end is down, facing the earth?
angech..”bobdroege says:
Lets go to a gym.
Lie down on the bench press, Ill put three 45 pound plates on one side and none on the other.
How are you going to keep the bar from rotating?”
***
Reply to Bob…No, Bob, how are YOU going to keep the bar from rotating as you put the 3 x 45 lb plates on the bar?
The way we usually do it is push the bar in till the collar butts against the bench press holders then put on 1 x 45 pound weight. The weight of the bar is about 45 pounds as well and with such a small fulcrum the bar weight alone will balance the 45 pound plate. Then we go to the other end of the bar and put on another plate, then push the bar and plates into a balanced position.
Thanks Gordon,
You proved my point, gravity can cause a torque.
bob d…”Thanks Gordon,
You proved my point, gravity can cause a torque”.
***
Don’t mention it Bob, always happy to help out an Aussie reprobate.
What I actually proved is that you are a dumbo for trying to load 3 x 45 pound plates on one side of a barbell. One would be enough to tilt the bar up and smack you in the head. Don’t ask how I know.
“The speed is due to the incredible interplay between light, matter, and gravity known as friction (for simplicity).”
Gordon, you get things in your head and you just can’t let go.
Yes I have been there, but I’m no man from Snowy River.
And actually, I have never loaded three 45 pound plates on one side of a barbell.
I may be that dumb, but I’m not that strong, 240 is my personal best.
Center of gravity
The center of gravity of an object is the point you can suspend the object from without there being any torque exerted by the force of gravity, no matter how the object is oriented. If you suspend an object from any point, let it go and allow it to come to rest, the center of gravity will lie along a vertical line that passes through the point of suspension. Unless you’ve been exceedingly careful in balancing the object, the center of gravity will generally lie below the suspension point.
Let me ask all of you, do you think that this data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values-1.jpg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
shows that the average values for the year so far are
a) above the mean
b) above the median
c) the same as either of the above
d) below the median
e) below the mean
Being a little colour blind it’s hard to tell, but it looks like the median is on average above the mean (dotted line is more often above the bold line).
barry
Here is another, anomaly based view on similar data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfJM5XjD6Rm7THgMXMJw05xelfKERO0x/view
generated some weeks ago out of three different methods for building daily means out of USCRN’s absolute hourly information:
-(TMIN+TMAX)/2
– median
and
– 24 hour average
These three were computed for each day with complete 24h data in each of the 138 available, commissioned and active station series.
The three monthly anomaly time series were generated out of the averaging of daily data in a 2.5 degree grid and, like do all people worldwide, including area and latitude weighting.
The reference period, 2016-2020, was chosen such that a maximum of stations provided data for anomaly building.
Apart from the start of the observed period, where much less stations are available, the difference between the three averaging methods of course exists, but… is it really worth such a tedious, lengthy discussion? I don’t know.
*
An interesting point was that when taking the 24h average as pristine reference, the differences between
– 24h average and (TMIN+TMAX)/2
and
– 24h average and median
were on average clearly latitude dependent:
https://drive.google.com/drive/search?q=title:%22USCRN%20lat%20distr%22%20USCRN
This means that, in order to obtain a real comparison of median and (TMIN+TMAX)/2, you have to perform regression work to extract latitudinal dependencies.
*
Source
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
There exists also a subhourly data set in USCRN, but when generating daily data with 2 (or even 3) digits after the decimal point, the difference between hourly and subhourly source is negligible.
I didn’t ask if the median was above the mean (they are very close together).
I asked if the average temperature this year so far was above or below either of them.
You answered that the bold line (this years average) is below the dotted line (the median) for most of the year.
I agree.
(The color scheme came from CET but I could change it if required).
RLH,
In the graph, mean temperatures are averages – ‘average’ is in brackets next to ‘mean’. I took them to be the same thing.
I was a little confused, but as I didn’t see average temps as a separate quantity from the other two, I compared “50% percentile (Median)” with “Mean (Average).”
If you were asking how “Year to date” anomalies (purple?) line compared with the other two, yes, same answer. They are generally lower.
(I thought that mean/median anomalies were averaged anomalies over more than one year, seeing as the curve is much smoother and the values run for the course of the year, and that the “Year to date” was just for the latest year, and not part of the query)
The thinner lines are those accumulated over the whole period that the stations have been active.
The thicker line is just this year.
“If you were asking how ‘Year to date’ anomalies (purple?) line compared with the other two, yes, same answer. They are generally lower”
The thicker line is higher than the thin lines? I think not. See Feb, Apr, May, Aug and Sep.
So if the thicker line is lower, how does this year turn into the ‘highest ever’?
I’m unaware of anyone who expects 2021 to be ‘highest ever’. It’s currently 10th for CONUS year to date and 6th Global per the NOAA dataset.
So as I claimed before, global temperatures have been going down for quite a while now, despite claims to the contrary.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
sigh
We agree – “Year to date” anomalies (purple?) line compared with the other two, yes, same answer. They are generally lower.
“So if the thicker line is lower, how does this year turn into the ‘highest ever’?”
It isn’t according to that graph.
This is getting tedious. What’s your point?
barry says: This is getting tedious. Whats your point?
It’s troll bait.
Would a person engaging in good faith who is capable of downloading reams of data, processing it, and generating the plots presented not be able to compute definitive answers to the questions he’s posed?
RLH is a bad actor JAQing off at your expense.
RLH is not only a troll, he’s an insane troll. He just wants to argue. It doesn’t matter with who, or about what, he just wants to argue.
He’s a lonely loser. Everyone should just ignore him. He’ll get tired of not getting any attention and go somewhere else.
That this year is not going to be the ‘warmest ever’.
“RLH is a bad actor”
Wrong. I just present pictures of the data which contradict others rose tinted glasses.
Clint R is desperate to continue arguing regardless of if he has any real science behind him.
“That this year is not going to be the ‘warmest ever’.”
You don’t say. What a waste of time you are. Mark is right.
Richard’s algorithm is greedy and lazy:
0. Respond by squirreling some factoid;
1. Challenged, brag;
2. Pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. Countered, try to insult
He’s a one-trick pony.
Willard is an idiot. That’s his ‘one trick’.
Barry: Do you deny that the rest of this year is likely to lower than it is right now, anomaly wise?
After all, we are supposed to follow the ENSO with about 5 months delay.
That will then continue to make this year lower than the last again. Same as the last few years.
Eventually this descent will run out but how long will it be before we are back to where we were a few years ago?
Picture of data:
Annual Global Head Content Anomaly (0-2000 m)
You’ll look so silly when things don’t turn out as you expect.
“Barry: Do you deny that…”
After being called out for “JAQing”, you immediately do it.
I dunno who the fuck is saying the US will have its warmest year evah nor why I should care. It’s not me, yet you’re banging on about it for no reason I can think of.
You ask leading questions, put words in my mouth and don’t explain yourself.
From now on, on any subject….
—————————————————–
Unless and until you state your case candidly and fully this will be the standard reply, if any.
Otherwise, goodbye.
There are those who claim that the world will continue to get hotter even if the world has been cooling for the last few years.
Hottest ever both now and in the future is all that most ‘warmistas’ on here claim.
You are saying nothing specific in reference to nothing specific and asking for a lot of time and attention to do it.
Wanker.
maguff…”Well, a quick check of the NASA misconceptions page reveals that as-of-today it still reads:”
***
Part of the reply I received from NASA.
“I may be able to help resolve the confusion in this case. It sounds to me like we are considering the system from two different frames of reference. While you describe the Moon’s motion relative to Earth’s axis of rotation, our site describes the Moon’s motion relative to its own axis of rotation. I find this visualization very helpful, myself, and have added the same link to the “Misconceptions” item that you mentioned”.
the visualization…some link…
https://u367894.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=pFyUr3V1Adurs1X8I-2FfiO-2FUXRORHjh4bD2M18lSXRNUjDuWP2a-2Bjo2BJz789ae93m9hP_jGtyclnxEqU-2BvYvfbFO6syXxK-2BtFJMQ7Na6nOreLkFzWbFN-2Ff9IFm3ZH3chQrd7bZ7DHQx-2Bo84bwWIxTesZbG-2BTIDGVJomE92U6yoHXV4WuKZSPNFhH0TRyBzBl9C4wNLyLtA0P-2Fw3v5aUXoP5jAie0FMDXXU7OloocndQcSt4bTep4CDwvdduHBGmIN-2BRB3e7zyirYF-2BMCZhzBFjCv05V0cZJPmO-2FbgN1wAUN5R6FJpnLxHOCQGbpByL7lE-2FCJ8-2BIG63I7c7tQubIavO8W81w-3D-3D
***
WRT to reference frames, I pointed out the obvious. If the Moon does not appear to be rotating from Earth as reference frame it’s impossible for it to begin rotating in another reference frame. The NASA rep seemed to accept my argument that the Moon is not rotating locally as viewed from Earth.
With regard to the visualization, it is plain wrong. The animator has tried to give the impression of local rotation by following the light cast on the Moon by the Sun. Meantime, he/she has created a circle around the Moon with a partial radial line projecting from the near face. It is obvious, from following that partial radial line through a full orbit that the Moon is not rotating locally but is translating.
The evidence is clear. The radial line portion intercepts the Moon at the near face. A tangential line drawn perpendicular to the line represents an inner orbital circle. Another perpendicular line where the projected radial line meet the COG draws out a medium concentric orbit while another perpendicular line to it at the far face traces out an outer concentric orbit.
If those three points are always moving in parallel, local rotation is impossible.
> If the Moon does not appear to be rotating from Earth as reference frame it’s impossible for it to begin rotating in another reference frame.
C’mon, Gordo. Think for a change. Or look and see:
https://youtu.be/ImM9cg6vk1w
If I watch a merry go round from above it is definitely rotating. If I stand in the centre of it, it does not appear to rotate relative to me.
Yes, reference frame makes a difference.
This is basic.
barry, this is NOT about reference frames. That’s just one of the ways the cult tries to pervert reality. The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The model is even used in many colleges and universities. If the ball were rotating about its axis (had axial rotation), the string would wrap around it. This is not complicated.
What’s fascinating is the effect this issue has on people. Like you, many declare it “boring”. Yet, they can’t leave it alone!
As interesting, NONE of the “spinners” have ANY knowledge of the topic. Again and again we see completely irrational attempts to defend the established nonsense, for no reason other than to protect the cult. They don’t know anything about the subject, but they automatically accept what the “learned” institutions preach.
The Moon issue provides a great opportunity for people to learn about cults. Our “modern” society is dominated by cults, where “free thinking” is frowned upon. I’ve even seen fringe support to make it a crime to speak out against the AGW nonsense! Cults love censorship.
You observe Moon by observing Moon.
Ah!
“As interesting, NONE of the “spinners” have ANY knowledge of the topic.”
We have secret knowledge only distributed to those who have attended the secret meetings, learned the secret incantations, learned the secret handshakes, and secret silly walks.
And passed the secret initiation rites comprised of a series of challenges to determine if the applicant is worthy to wear the sacred robes and special silly hats.
And then in a secret meeting held in a secret location, a secret scroll is bestowed on them, while wearing the secret robes and silly hats, conferring them the duties and rights as a member of this very special secret society.
Yes, I am a member of a cult, and possess a BAS degree, you want fries with that?
“Like you, many declare it “boring”. Yet, they can’t leave it alone!”
Have you noticed how many comments I’ve made it about it lately?
Gordon’s inanities do spike the tedium, I’ll admit.
That’s an excellent old video on reference frames. The conclusion speaks directly to the point above, with implications for the boring moon rotation argument. Here is the link to that exact time stamp.
https://youtu.be/ImM9cg6vk1w?t=1573
…and from an inertial frame of reference, the wooden horse on a merry-go-round is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own internal axis.
A part of the merry-go-round rotates about the merry-go-round’s central axis. Who would have thought that would happen?
I’m glad you agree, but a surprising number of your fellow “Spinners” think the wooden horse is rotating about an axis that passes through the body of the horse itself.
But the horse is not in itself an object, just a part of the whole, much larger object. So it has no axis as such for it to rotate about. Which makes all your points mute.
…and yet a surprising number of your fellow “Spinners” still think the wooden horse is rotating about an axis that passes through the body of the horse itself. Which makes all my points not moot.
RLH at 5:29 AM
You mean it’s a rigid body.
A rigid body can be considered as a combination of a
large number of particles in which all the particles remain at a fixed distance from one another, both before and after applying a load. This model is important because the body’s shape does not change when a load is applied, and so we do not have to consider the type of material from which the body is made.
Agreed.
Ah, Tyson now disagrees with his earlier comments from a previous month, where he stated that the wooden horse was rotating on its own, internal axis. They’re learning, gradually.
The Moon is NOT part of the Earth.
I’m not talking about the moon. I’m talking about a wooden horse on a merry-go-round.
So you agree that a merry-go-round and parts of it have no relevance to the Moon/Earth then.
Apart from the obvious point about internal vs. external axis rotation.
None of the things you mention have an external axis of rotation that is external to the whole thing. External to part of it doesn’t count.
The Moon/Earth pair has a barycenter axis of revolution which is not quite the same thing.
RLH has a lot to learn.
DREMT is incapable of learning things. He is in a tint, tiny, cult.
He thinks the same as flat earthers do, that gyros don’t show the Earth and the Moon are rotating on their own axis and revolving around their combined barycenter.
Gyros would seemingly show that the wooden horse is rotating about an axis that passes through the body of the horse. That would be wrong though, as we both agree. The horse is rotating, but not on its own axis.
… as observed from the horse.
RLH didn’t mention anything about "as observed from the horse", Ball4.
You can make any point a reference point if you wish. Won’t alter what is happening, only the way you see it and describe it.
The horse is not a separate, distinct, part of the merry-go-round. It is just a small part of the whole thing.
“Gyros would seemingly show that the wooden horse is rotating”
A gyro will show the horse is rotating. It will not show the axis it is rotating (or revolving) about.
Thus all gyros on a merry-go-round will change at the same rate as each other. Each will be aligned to the fixed stars.
It’s great when you think you are arguing with me, but you are actually just helping to make my point for me. Thank you.
Not in the slightest. You ae wrong in your descriptions about what happens during the orbit of another body.
Thank you for your assistance.
In pointing out that you are wrong. No problem.
We agree, you ridiculous clown. Kind of hard for you to argue with me when you agree with me, but you try to anyway.
> from an inertial frame of reference
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Replying to my comments isn’t a way to ignore them.
A tangent represents a direction in a straight line, not an orbit of any sort.
Gordon Robertson at 9:30 PM
Okay, now that NASA has told you to go pound sand, may I suggest a new target for your crusade of fact resistance about the Moon.
There is this free online basic Astronomy textbook that has been downloaded 500,000 times and whose mission is “to teach students skeptical thinking and to ask “How do we know?” about our current picture of the universe.”
In it you will find the following paragraph:
You could contact them and ask that the paragraph be changed, no?
Here is the link: https://openstax.org/details/books/astronomy
“…your crusade of fact resistance”
It is a fact that the wooden horse on a merry-go-round is not rotating on its own internal axis. What’s with your crusade to resist that fact?
It has no ‘internal axis’ for it to rotate about.
So you think that Tyson is wrong. Good. Me too.
Just as the individual atoms of a body have no internal axis of their own, so the parts of a merry-go-round have no internal axis of their own.
You CAN consider each individual atom to have its own axis but collectively they only have one.
So Tyson was wrong when he stated a few months ago that the wooden horse is rotating on its own, internal axis. Got it.
DREMT got it wrong. Before posting, DREMT should have paid attention to:
“You CAN consider each individual atom to have its own axis but collectively they only have one.”
Tyson was wrong, Ball4 was wrong, as were many of the “Spinners”. Got it.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Tyson was wrong, Ball4 was wrong, Willard was wrong, as were many of the “Spinners”. Got it.
DREMT is wrong as usual.
Not in the least, RLH. Tyson, Ball4, Willard and many of the "Spinners" have all argued before that the wooden horse is rotating about an axis that passes through the body of the horse itself. You disagree with that, because you are aware that they are wrong. Like me, you understand that the wooden horse is not rotating about an axis that passes through the body of the horse itself.
“You CAN consider each individual atom to have its own axis but collectively they only have one.”
Like me, you understand that the wooden horse is not rotating about an axis that passes through the body of the horse itself.
… as observed from the horse.
RLH didn’t mention anything about "as observed from the horse", Ball4.
DREMT: You can observe anything from any point and make that your frame of reference if you like. Won’t alter what happens in the slightest only how you describe it.
Exactly.
So your point is lost. The Moon rotates once in its orbit around the Moon/Earth barycenter.
The point is that the wooden horse on a merry-go-round is not rotating about an axis that passes through the body of the wooden horse. Thank you for your assistance in making that point.
Thanking RLH for assistance of 4:52pm now has helped DREMT admit the horse rotates once about its own axis in its orbit around the horse/mgr barycenter keeping one face to the center. Similar to our moon.
The left hand side of an object is not rotating about an axis to the left hand side of the whole.
So what?
So you agree that all the “Spinners” who argue the wooden horse on a merry-go-round is rotating about an axis passing through the body of the wooden horse are wrong.
I agree that a gyro situated on the horse will show that it rotates on its axis once per revolution of the whole. But that will be true regardless where on the merry-go-round the gyro(s) is placed.
Ah, so now you’re arguing with yourself. Earlier, you said:
“A gyro will show the horse is rotating. It will not show the axis it is rotating (or revolving) about.”
Now, you say:
“a gyro situated on the horse will show that it rotates on its axis”
I also note that you are now arguing the wooden horse does have its own axis, when earlier you argued that it doesn’t have its own axis.
“Ah, so now youre arguing with yourself. Earlier, you said:
‘A gyro will show the horse is rotating. It will not show the axis it is rotating (or revolving) about.'”
I am purely clearing up your misconceptions.
“Now, you say:
‘a gyro situated on the horse will show that it rotates on its axis'”
The gyro will show a rotation of the merry-go-round. It will not be able to show what axis that is about.
“I also note that you are now arguing the wooden horse does have its own axis, when earlier you argued that it doesnt have its own axis”
It is you who are confused (As usual).
Gyros placed all over the merry-go-round will all show that it rotates. Each individual gyro will show that the individual gyro records rotation of thing it is attached to about the axis of that gyro. i.e. the gyro will remain pointing to the fixed stars whilst the merry-go-round rotates about it. Nothing in that is contradictory (unlike you and your claims).
Thus 2 gyros on 2 separate horses will both record an identical rotation. Both are correct. As will a 3rd attached to the center.
"The gyro will show a rotation of the merry-go-round. It will not be able to show what axis that is about."
I agree with that.
Gyros (plural) will show that a merry-go-round is rotating. They will all show that it is rotating at the same speed regardless of where they are placed on it. Therefore, each gyro individually could consider it to be on ‘the’ axis. Only the one in the center would be correct.
None of them will ‘face’ the center at any time.
Sure, OK. No contradiction there with any of my arguments.
Gordon Robertson at 9:30 PM
Further to my comment; since you said here:http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-551795
“I took a year of astrophysics and we barely touched math. I’d say a mechanical engineer is much more qualified on the kinematics of orbiting bodies than an astronomer.”
The authors of this online textbook would benefit from your knowledge, no?
Also, this is a Rice University project where I have vested interests and would like to see their response to your ideas.
I’d day that Gordo isn’t a mechanical engineer, having somehow missed the physics class about Newton’s First Law.
TM, that “walking around something” has been debunked several times. You’re not paying attention. You’re only trying to find ways to protect your cult. If I debunk it again, you will just find something else to throw against the wall. Your problem is you have NOTHING.
Take this challenge: Agree to not comment for 90 days if I explain the “walking around something” to you. It’s actually a good way to learn.
Do you accept the challenge?
What are babbling about now, Pup?
Yes, you’re just another braindead cult idiot, fanatically avoiding reality.
Here come the attacks from Pup.
He appears frustrated because he knows so little science.
OK, Willard.
Pup, your ineffective flak provides evidence I’m over the target. Thanks.
I’m already aware you are anti-science.
I appreciate you using my words, but you should acknowledge the source, lest you be charged with plagiarism.
Thanks.
Pup, no one is making you read or respond to my comments.
> OK, Willard
You’re confused, Pup. Twasn’t me.
Have you done the pole dance experiment yet?
“What are babbling about now”
Clint R was referring to the “walking around something” example that you quoted from your online Astronomy textbook. Try to keep up.
None of that answers the questions I first posed. Is the average temperature higher or lower than the median or the mean?
Nor does using ‘temperatures’ based on already rounded data carry much statistical or arithmetic weight either.
I have shown him this before where the best he can achieve is +/- 1 in the last (first) decimal place.
P.S. USCRN published data (at Monthly, Daily, Hourly and Sub-Hourly) relies on the non-rounded 30 second data for ALL of their published work (which is what I use) accumulated automatically into wider and wider sets so it is more accurate than anything the Blinny does. It is then rounded to 1 decimal place as you see.
But he is stubborn and still thinks that he can out calculate them.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/README.txt
> None of that
What’s “that,” dummy.
Idiot. Again.
Idiot. Again.
Tell me, dummy: what would Nyquist say about MP3s?
That they are limited in their bandwidth to at best 1/2 the sampling frequency. What else?
Tell me idiot, why you consider the very large thermal machine that is Earth will not experience internal quasi-periodicities?
We all know you’re a cycle nut. What else?
Pray tell, dummy: have you ever done any blind test on the musical quality of various compressed audio files?
Yes. Lots of them. Blind and double blind. I started doing this at my Uncles when I was quite small. Started with various types of analogue, through digital types as well as tape (reel to reel and cassettes), CDs, MP3 players, amplifiers, connections, speakers, headphones, etc. Followed this up with various audio types on PCs also.
Now I find that my audio range is more limited than it was but I still can hear artifacts that are present in many compressed audio forms.
Also did quite a bit of picture compression, both moving and still, for various artifacts that occur there also. Again on PCs and other storage forms both analogue and digital.
Recognizing that large physical systems will have resonances as well as other behaviors is not hard. In fact it is certain.
Very good.
Then you should realize the silliness of your point about Nyquist. If we can call it that, for you’re mostly dogwhistling it. Meteorology has little to do with trying to find a maximum data rate for noiseless condition.
Nyquist states that it is impossible to recover frequencies (in both time and space) that are higher than 1/2 the sampling frequency. In fact the distortions that occur with less than 1/10 the sampling frequency are easy to see and observe.
Thus if you place your measuring instruments all clustered together in 30% of the ‘floor’, you will find it impossible to determine the true ‘temperature’ of any large space, vertically and horizontally.
This will be compounded further if you cluster the heating elements in the center and the cooling elements near the edge.
But you know all about Nyquist don’t you?
Willard: Please explain to me why Nyquist is OK when determining grid size in a model, but inadequate when describing the sampling size for measurements that you feed into that model.
Please explain why lossless meteorological temperature measurements would make all the difference in the world, dummy.
Episode 1536 Scott Adams: Bjorn Lomborg Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9569eb6jQlQ
In terms Musk and Mars {and space}, roughly that you have to use nuclear power.
Nuclear power has the advantage of making waste heat- and Mars is cold.
But I don’t see a “dependance” upon nuclear energy.
Or space {including Mars} is mostly about solar energy.
And Mars surface generally is better using solar power, than Earth surface. And you have Mars orbit which better than Mars surface for solar energy
I find it fascinating that so many people are ready to declare with 100% certainty that an object is or is not rotating. Yet they are not willing / not able to define precisely what they mean by “rotating” nor how we could in practice measure a rotation.
(Similarly for other interminable discussions.)
With a gyro (laser if you like) would probably be the best and most accurate. Foucault pendulum if the rotation is slow would be a second choice but that also requires a precision clock.
Folkerts, it’s no wonder you can’t understand physics if you can’t understand something as basic as “rotating”.
Go to a some place that has a ceiling fan. Have them turn the fan on and off, and explain to you what “rotating” means.
It may take more than one training session for you to learn, since you’re braindead.
Clint R: Please explain the differences between rotating and revolving.
So, it is “obvious” that if hold a fan (with the axle vertical for the sake of discussion) and turn it on so it turns at 6 RPM relative to the room, that the fan blade is “rotating” at 6 RPM.
And just as obviously, the fan blade is still ‘rotating’ if I carry the base in a straight line (keeping the base oriented the same way with respect to the room for the sake of discussion). Still rotating 6 RPM.
And just as obviously, the fan blade is ‘rotating’ if I carry the base around a square. Or in a zig-zag pattern. Or in a circle once every 10 sec. Still rotating 6 RPM.
But this last motion is IDENTICAL to just placing the fan blade on a merry-go-round that is spinning at 6 RPM. Since this motion is identical to the previous motion, if one is ‘rotating’ surely the other is ‘rotating’.
So using your ‘obvious’ definition of ‘rotating’, the fan blade just sitting on the merry-go-round must also be rotating. A horse on a MGR must be rotating. The moon must be rotating. Or do you now want to refine your definition?
[Conversely, suppose I have a swivel chair with sensors and motors that always keep the chair pointing north. The ‘obvious’ conclusion is that the chair never rotates because it always faces the same direction. Even if it is on a MGR platform, it is not rotating. But this is not the same as your ‘not rotating’ moon. Your ‘intiutive’ definition if rotation is again insufficient]
Wrong again, Folkerts.
You still don’t understand the motions involved. You’re just not cut out for science.
Maybe you should consider “creative writing”….
See, Pup?
That’s NOTHING.
You really said NOTHING.
It’s never “nothing” trying to help people. I gave Folkerts some free advice, which will help him in his career. Like you, he’s not going anywhere as it is. But, he likes to make stuff up, so he could be a good fiction writer.
You don’t have any talents at all, however. So you will be harder to help. Can you say “Would you like fries with that”?
You gave NOTHING, Pup.
That’s all you got.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
tim…”And just as obviously, the fan blade is rotating if I carry the base around a square. Or in a zig-zag pattern. Or in a circle once every 10 sec. Still rotating 6 RPM.
But this last motion is IDENTICAL to just placing the fan blade on a merry-go-round that is spinning at 6 RPM. Since this motion is identical to the previous motion, if one is rotating surely the other is rotating”.
***
Tim, you cannot understand this unless you get out of your thought experiments and into real physics. You spinners have been employing every abstract ruse available to get around the physical facts.
A fan spins because an electric motor has an armature which is driven by a torque from a magnetic field. If that fan is sitting on an MGR turning at 6 RPM and it is not plugged into an electrical source, the blades are not turning…period.
It’s little wonder you cannot understand the physical aspects of the Moon’s motion when you are so confused about a fan and what causes its blades to turn. You think that changing a frame of reference can start or stop an electric motor.
> If that fan is sitting on an MGR turning at 6 RPM and it is not plugged into an electrical source, the blades are not turningperiod.
C’mon, Gordo. Think for a change. You could argue the same for the Moon. It’s not gravity that moves the Moon. It’s something else. What is it?
Tim Folkerts at 4:18 PM
Rotation is defined by the time derivative of the position vector of a point fixed on the solid body being analyzed. The unit vectors have a zero time derivative when defined on a rotating frame and, not zero when defined on an inertial frame.
Colloquialy referred to as the fixed stars, the International Celestial Reference Frame is a widely used inertial frame.
For Moon, the issue is “axial rotation”. No reference frames are needed. Is the ball-on-a-string rotating about its axis? No, because the string would wrap around it. Is Moon rotating about its axis? No, because we would see all sides of it from Earth.
There’s no issue to speak of, Pup, except that either you have no intuition for dynamism or you are not very good at trolling.
You know, you could enjoy the majesty of the universe, or your life, of everything:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4944
Why you prefer to suck at trolling might remain a mystery forever.
Do the pole dance experiment. Enjoy life. Discover how silly Moon Dragons’ stance truly is.
Dud, you’re the loser troll here. You’ve placed second to RLH two months now. You don’t have a life. You have NOTHING to offer. You’re just another useless braindead cult idiot.
Nothing is more real than nothing, Pup.
Your NOTHING is worse than nothing.
It’s boring.
The Moon looks like cheese. Don’t you think?
rlh…”No it hasn’t. It now rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth”.
***
Let me dumb this right down for you. You have a steel horse on a merry-go-round with a steel floor. The horse is bolted to the floor, riveted to the floor, and welded to floor of the MGR so it is impossible for the horse to turn about its own axis (COG).
As the horse turns on the MGR, the same side of the horse always faces the centre of the MGR. That describes the motion of the Moon in its orbit.
As you are describing its motion, the steel horse would have to rotate once on its axis as the MGR completed one revolution.
It should be clear to you that in order to keep one side facing the Earth the Moon cannot rotate on its axis just as the steel horse cannot rotate on its axis.
I have already predicted how you’ll try to wriggle out of this. You’ll claim a horse on an MGR is not the Moon in its orbit. If you do, I am going to label you stark, raving daft.
I have laid this out using basic calculus principles and you have failed to respond with a rebuttal. That suggests to me, that although you have a good understanding of statistics you have zero comprehension with regard to calculus.
Gordon’s steel horse is forced to rotate once on its axis as the MGR completes one revolution because it is bolted to the floor, riveted to the floor, and welded to floor of the MGR.
Gordon’s horse doesn’t rotate wrt to the MGR because it is bolted to the floor, riveted to the floor, and welded to floor of the MGR.
Our moon is not bolted, riveted, or welded to anything nor is it attached by a string to anything, our moon is free to rotate once per rev. to keep the man in the moon facing inward wrt to the Earth.
Pretty simple Gordon. Even so, this is way beyond Gordon’s understanding.
Ball4 is obsessed with proving how braindead he is.
Maybe he’s hoping for a promotion within his cult?
Fun to watch Clint R take the ad hom train out of town again. Is that train spinning Clint?
No ad hom, troll — FACT.
You’re a braindead cult idiot. Just observe your effort to pervert reality of Gordon’s comment.
More fun with ad hom entertainment, Clint & no physics. Now, can you try to counter with actual physics and no ad hom? I won’t be waiting around.
Ball4, how easily you forget.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-940164
B,
The Moon is not rotating about an internal axis. That is why you see the same face (the bottom) of the Moon as it continuously falls towards the Earth. As you see the bottom of any non-rotating object if it is falling towards your head!
As it turns out, the Moon has sufficient momentum that it is actually moving away from the Earth very, very, slowly.
A good thing. Much slower, and it would eventually collide with the Earth! Not a scenario to look forward to.
Maybe you might use a little bit of your time to locate a useful description of the GHE, find Trenberth’s missing heat, or discover the reason that Michael Mann fraudulently claimed to be a Nobel Laureate in Court documents!
All too difficult, I suppose.
ball4…”Gordons horse doesnt rotate wrt to the MGR because it is bolted to the floor, riveted to the floor, and welded to floor of the MGR.
Our moon is not bolted, riveted, or welded to anything nor is it attached by a string to anything, our moon is free to rotate once per rev. to keep the man in the moon facing inward wrt to the Earth”.
**
Once again, Ball4 misses the forest for the trees. The point is, the Moon keeps the same face pointed to the Earth just as the steel horse keeps the same face pointed to the centre of the MGR. The steel horse cannot rotate about a local axis as you freely admit, so why should the Moon be able to magically keep the same face pointed at the Earth while rotating through exactly one rotation per orbit?
It’s not possible, but illusion based on an appeal to authority has made you blindly presume it is possible. Admit it, you are trying to think this through in your mind rather than trying to set up an experiment to see if the presumption is correct.
Try it. Take two coins and make one rotate through 360 degrees while completing one orbit of the other while keeping a mark on the moving coin pointed at the centre of the stationary coin.
Norman tried it even though he reached the wrong conclusion. He balked at the fact you must adjust the moving coin as you SLIDE it around the other coin. If you try rotating it, the mark cannot remain pointed to the centre of the other coin.
The coins are not a good model of the Moon’s orbit but they do prove you cannot perform rotation through 360 degrees while keeping the same side pointed to the centre of the other.
I can easily explain Norman’s issue about having to adjust the coin as it moves but I’m in a hurry to go somewhere. Later, if you’re interested.
“..why should the Moon be able to magically keep the same face pointed at the Earth while rotating through exactly one rotation per orbit?”
No magic Gordon, just watch the moon rise and set at your position the man in the moon will continuously change orientation to look at you during that whole time.
Similarly, if you try rotating your coin exactly once per orbit of the center, the mark changes its orientation 360 and remains pointed to the center of the other coin.
ball4…”No magic Gordon, just watch the moon rise and set at your position the man in the moon will continuously change orientation to look at you during that whole time.
Similarly, if you try rotating your coin exactly once per orbit of the center, the mark changes its orientation 360 and remains pointed to the center of the other coin”.
***
Missed the forest for the trees…again.
That change of orientation of the near face is not rotation about the Moon’s axis. It’s a property of translation in an orbit.
Draw the coins on an x-y plane as a circle at 0,0 and another at 5,0 (3 o’clock). Now draw a radial line (radius) from 0,0 to 0,5. Therefore, the tip of the radial arrow is touching the centre of the movable coin. A line drawn perpendicular to the radial line is a tangent line to the circle defined by the radius of R = 5, at 5,0. The centre of the coin is going to trace out that circle as an orbit.
You can see from this alone that the tangent line will change orientation through 360 degrees as the coin follows the circular orbit. But….the near side of the coin DOES NOT rotate around the coin centre.
It can’t because the radial line can be extended through the coin to touch the far side of the coin. Since the near side, the centre and the far side are all turning in concentric circles with the radial line, the near side and far side cannot rotate about the centre, as would be required for rotation about the centre.
It would be nice if you could see this but you are so mired in regurgitating what you have been told you seem to find it impossible to observe for yourself. I guess that’s why you are a climate alarmist.
“That change of orientation of the near face is not rotation about the Moons axis. Its a property of translation in an orbit”
Word salad. The REVOLUTION in an orbit is a rotation of a sort about a barycenter. It is also (potentially) an exact rotation about its own axis at the same time.
If the moon were rotating about both the Earth/moon barycenter and on its own axis, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
“If the moon were rotating about both the Earth/moon barycenter and on its own axis, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth”
WRONG. If it rotates once of its axis per orbit of the Earth. The 2 events would be synchronized.
No I am not wrong, I am correct.
The only way you could argue that the moon is both orbiting and rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, is if you claim "orbiting" is something other than "rotation about an external axis". "Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis", is already motion like our moon, where the same side of the object remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout.
“No I am not wrong, I am correct”
No. You are wrong.
I’m not wrong. Lol. Even if I were wrong about the moon not rotating on its own axis, I would still not be wrong about this. If the moon were rotating about both the Earth/moon barycenter and on its own axis, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth. That is just a fact about rotation.
Most "Spinners" don’t even notice the wording, or understand the implications, but what "Spinners" actually argue is not that the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter and on its own axis. What they actually argue (whether they are aware of it or not) is that the moon is translating around the Earth/moon barycenter whilst rotating on its own axis.
The ball-on-a-string resolves the issue of axial rotation quite easily. If the ball is rotating, the string wraps around it. If the ball is not rotating, the string does not wrap around it.
This is a really easy concept to understand, except for the braindead cult idiots.
DREMT, Clint R, etc. are wrong as always.
Being part of a tiny, tiny cult of flat earthers they cannot see that of course.
If the ball is rotating more or less than once per rev., the string wraps around it.
Try it. Take two coins and make one rotate through 360 degrees while completing one orbit of the other while keeping a mark on the moving coin pointed at the centre of the stationary coin. It’s really very easy to prove DREMT wrong as Gordon points out.
Everything I’ve said in this sub-thread is correct. What most "Spinners" actually argue (whether they are aware of it or not) is that the moon is translating around the Earth/moon barycenter (by which I mean, motion like the "moon on the right") whilst also rotating on its own axis.
They are not arguing that the moon is rotating around the Earth/moon barycenter (by which I mean, motion like the "moon on the left") whilst also rotating on its own axis. Otherwise they would be arguing that 1 + 1 = 1.
> 1 + 1 = 1
That’s where Kiddo’s wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasles%27_theorem_(kinematics)
Worse is that he knows this.
So he’s trolling.
He should stop, but he won’t.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
” … is if you claim “orbiting” is something other than “rotation about an external axis”.”
But that is SO easy to claim this is wrong!
* “Rotation about an external axis” is a circular motion about that axis.
* The moon does not move in a circle.
** Therefore …
The simplest of all possible arguments!
So now that we know that the moon does NOT rotate about an external axis, maybe you can provide a more precise definition that would describe what you actually mean by “orbiting”.
Tim, numerous sources state that “revolution/orbit” is a rotation about an external axis, whilst being well aware that orbits in general are not circular.
“Tim, numerous sources state that “revolution/orbit” is a rotation about an external axis”
No, they really don’t!
Numerous sources say “revolution” can be a synonym for “rotation” (ie a circular motions)
Numerous sources say “revolution” can be a synonym for “orbit” (ie a path around a star or planet).
No one says that “orbit” and “rotation” are the same. No one says that physical orbits can be treated as mathematical circles.
You are making the weakest imaginable semantic argument.
Thoughtco:
“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.”
Wiki on Rotation:
“If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
“A rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That common point lies within the axis of that motion. The axis is 90 degrees perpendicular to the plane of the motion. If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. There is no fundamental difference between a “rotation” and an “orbit” and or "spin". The key distinction is simply where the axis of the rotation lies, either within or outside of a body in question. This distinction can be demonstrated for both “rigid” and “non rigid” bodies.”
Kiddo knows how to copy/paste.
But, he has no idea what it means.
That’s just one of the symptoms of a Moon Dragon Crank.
He copied that from the Wiki page dealing with orbits. The quotes refer to celestial bodies, most of which are usually rotating about their axes. The quote does NOT apply to the geometric definition of rotation, so he’s wrong.
Gordon just as an analogy for you to consider …
Let me dumb this right down for you. You have a car on a flatbed truck with a steel floor. The car is bolted to the floor, riveted to the floor, and welded to floor of the truck so it is impossible for the car to move relative to the truck.
When the truck starts to move forward, the car ALSO moves forward. Nothing seems odd about this conclusion.
I can draw in infinite number of axes with x = west, y = north, z = up. In all of these coordinate systems, the car has the same velocity. The car is simultaneously moving in all of the coordinate systems.
And for the MGR, I can draw an infinite number of coordinate systems where your MGR horse has the same angular velocity. In all of these coordinate systems, the hose has the same angular velocity. The horse is simultaneously rotating in all of the coordinate systems.
I doubt this will change many minds, but it is at least worth contemplating to see that things are not as black and white as people sometimes think.
The horse is rotating, Tim, but not on its own axis. It is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round.
The horse is simultaneously rotating in all of the coordinate systems, Kiddo.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
Tell Flop to come debate Tim, Kiddo.
“The horse is rotating, Tim, but not on its own axis. ”
Ah, so we are making progress. The horse is indeed rotating. We agree to that much.
The question then is “about which axis — or axes — is the horse rotating.” So now we need a definition for what it means for an object to “rotate about an axis”. I would say something like “every point of the object moves in a circular path around the axis — every point moving the same angular distance in the same time; each point maintaining a constant distance from the axis.”
It is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
I don’t accept your authority to simply tell us what is correct.
To conclude whether or not something has some property, you need to be able to define that property and then show that the definition is satisfied.
How do you define “rotating about a given axis”? Do you have any objections to my definition?
I am not asking you to accept it on my authority, Tim. I have linked to sources in the past that clearly show what “rotation about an external axis” is. I don’t need to keep repeating links to those sources. If you have been paying attention to the arguments over the past couple of years, you would be aware that it is settled beyond any doubt that the wooden horse is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own internal axis.
“I don’t need to keep repeating links to those sources. ”
With all due respects
1) Wikipedia and “thoughtco” are not authoritative sources. Nor are they even self-consistent. They are a hodge-podge of colloquial descriptions scattered among attempts at more precise definitions.
2) *you* should be able to give your own explanation. It only takes one or two lines. Less time probably than you spend trying to avoid giving us your own understanding.
I am not talking about Thoughtco and Wikipedia. I was referring to Madhavi et al. Sorry, Tim, it has all already been discussed too many times for me to be bothered going through the motions again.
The wooden horse is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
Those lecture notes say:
“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.”
Do all particles of the moon move in circular paths about the earth-moon barycenter? NO!
So clearly the moon does NOT rotate around the earth.
Those lecture notes say:
“a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
The motion of the moon can be expressed as a combination of translation (of a specific point, like the COM) and a rotation about the COM. Your lecture notes seem to contradict you at every turn!
Those lecture notes go on to say:
“We proceed by returning to the equations we had derived for the arbitrary motion of a rigid body. Recall that these related the velocity and acceleration of a point A in the body to the translational motion of an arbitrary reference point B [ie the COM translating in an ellipse], and the absolute rotational motion of the body [ie the rotation of the body of the moon about reference point] … ”
Again — the notes clearly say the COM of the moon TRANSLATES around the earth and the body of the moon ROTATES around the COM.
Its there in black and white. I GUARANTEE you that professor Madhavi would agree that the moon is rotating about its axis and translating around the earth. To imagine otherwise is sheer folly.
I thought we were talking about the wooden horse on the merry-go-round? As per Madhavi, it is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, and not rotating about its own, internal axis.
As for the moon, numerous sources state that “revolution/orbit” is a rotation about an external axis, whilst being well aware that orbits in general are not circular. There is no such thing, in reality, as a perfect circle. So, in order to apply these concepts to real life situations, you cannot restrict “rotation about an external axis” to only perfectly circular motion. Clearly elliptical motion is also considered acceptable.
We are just repeating ourselves, though. All this has been discussed many times before.
“I thought we were talking about the wooden horse on the merry-go-round? ”
Well, we are only talking MGRs as a model for the motion of the moon. But we can talk about MGRs.
“As per Madhavi, it is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, and not rotating about its own, internal axis.”
Close! But not quite!
The entire MGR can be treated as a rigid body. The motion of this body can be described in many ways. The simplest (but not only!) way is to use the center of the MGR as the “arbitrary point”. With this choice, the arbitrary point is not translating, resulting in “pure rotation”.
But the choice of point is arbitrary. We could choose any point we want. Specifically, we could choose a point at the center of the horse. For this choice, that point is TRANSLATING in a circle and every other point on the MGR is rotating about that point in the horse. THIS IS AN EQUALLY VALID DESCRIPTION OF THE MOTION.
Perhaps that is the stumbling block. You are so focused on the simple, intuitive choice of “rotation with no translation” that you can’t see the alternate description with “translation + rotation”. Your own reference makes it clear that ANY arbitrary point on the MGR can be used to describe the motion, yet you only see your preferred choice.
“As for the moon, numerous sources state …”
and we are back to wikipedia and ‘thoughtco’ as scientific sources. Back to using colloquial descriptions as definitive.
“But the choice of point is arbitrary. We could choose any point we want. Specifically, we could choose a point at the center of the horse. For this choice, that point is TRANSLATING in a circle and every other point on the MGR is rotating about that point in the horse. THIS IS AN EQUALLY VALID DESCRIPTION OF THE MOTION.”
No, it is not, Tim…because every other point on the MGR is not rotating about a point in the center of the horse. Every point on the MGR is rotating about a point in the center of the MGR.
Tim, we’ve been through this already. As per the notes from Brown, you do not describe as a general plane motion (translation plus rotation) that which can be described as a simply a rotation or a translation. The wooden horse on the merry-go-round can be described as a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, and thus that is how it should be described. Simply a rotation.
“I am not talking about Thoughtco and Wikipedia. I was referring to Madhavi et al.”
But then he immediately declares that Madhavi must be getting it rotation WRONG, because, ya know, Thoughtco sez…
Or lets’s try: there are no perfect circles, so ya know, any shape is the same as a circle!
Loser. Troll.
Let me go back to your own reference.
“We proceed by returning to the equations we had derived for the arbitrary motion of a rigid body. Recall that these related the velocity and acceleration of a point A in the body to the translational motion of an arbitrary reference point B ”
If you understood your references (rather than quoting whichever one seems to agree with your pre=deterined conclusions) you would see that an object can be thought of rotating about ANY point in the object. Do you understand every line of math in that reference? Can you follow each paragraph in the discussion? Clearly now, since you agree with the reference only until it disagrees with you.
“and thus that is how it should be described. ”
No. It should be described however you want (as long as it it correct). The coffee cup on my desk can be described as stationary — relative to the desk. Or just as correctly as moving 1000 km/hr toward the east relative to the center of the earth. Or at some faster speed relative to the sun. All motion requires choices of reference frames.
The MGR horse can MORE EASILY be described as a pure rotation about the center of the MGR. But it can ALSO be described as a translation of the horse’s COM and a rotation about the COM.
And here is the kicker. The moon CANNOT be accurately described as a pure translation about the COM. That simply does not give an accurate description of the motion. The moon does NOT move like a horse attached to a rigid platform. The ONLY accurate description for the moon is a translation around the earth plus a rotation of the moon itself.
“The MGR horse can MORE EASILY be described as a pure rotation about the center of the MGR. But it can ALSO be described as a translation of the horse’s COM and a rotation about the COM.”
No, Tim. It is just a matter of basic logic. There are three groups into which you can classify rigid body motion:
1) Translation.
2) Rotation.
3) General Plane Motion.
If you start putting into category 3) that which belongs in category 2), then what is the point of having category 2) in the first place!?
“There are three groups … ”
No there is one group — general rigid body motion. There are two special cases — pure translation and pure rotation.
And AGAIN, whether or not we call ‘pure rotation’ a fundamentally different ‘group’, the moon DOES NOT undergo a ‘pure rotation’ about a central point. That simply fails. The simplest way to describe the moon is translation (of the COM in an ellipse) plus rotation (around the COM).
PS. The ‘point’ of three categories to to make it conceptually easier for beginners who are just learning. Just like there a chapter on 1D motion in freshman physics to introduce the concepts of velocity and acceleration. Only later are the students taught about vectors and 2D (or 3D) motions.
There are three groups, Tim. Many sources class “revolution/orbit” in group 2). You have to deny that this is the case. You are in denial about that, let’s be clear. You and my stalker repeatedly claim that “revolution/orbit” cannot be classed in group 2), simply on the basis that an orbit is generally elliptical, and not circular. This ignores the sources you are in denial about, and it ignores the fact that there are no perfect circles in reality, only ellipses to one extent or another. And yes, it also ignores Ftop_t’s Desmos work, in which he rotated an object about an external axis in an elliptical pattern.
Regardless, none of this is even an issue when discussing the wooden horse on a merry-go-round, which moves as close to circular motion as you can get. But you still won’t accept that even the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis! There’s really no hope for you, because you won’t even get to step one. You simply cannot think about the wooden horse without jumping back to the moon every time, bringing up the same points over and over again.
> There are three groups
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasles%27_theorem_(kinematics)
The Moon Dragon cranks’ buck stops there.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
DREMT, you need to ‘think outside the box’. To consider new perspectives.
For example, suppose I glue a little horse on top of an x-y plotter like this.
https://content.instructables.com/ORIG/FTX/A7JQ/JX8TFFBP/FTXA7JQJX8TFFBP.jpg
The nose of the horse always faces the same side of the plotter.
Now I program the plotter to draw a circle on the paper, lets say in a counter-clockwise direction once every 10 sec.
** Is the horse “rotating”? If so, about which axis and at what rate?
Now suppose I instead mount the horse on a small platform that can be turned by a motor glued to the plotter head. I turn on the motor so the platform turns once every 10 seconds, but keep the arms of the plotter stationary.
** Is the horse “rotating”? If so, about which axis and at what rate?
Now do both simultaneously. so the horse moves in a circle and the nose always points forward.
** Is the horse “rotating”? If so, about which axis and at what rate?
Tim, you need to “think outside the box”. To consider new perspectives. Here’s one:
The wooden horse on the merry-go-round is bolted to the floor of the merry-go-round, such that it cannot physically rotate on its own axis when the merry-go-round is not moving. When the MGR starts rotating, that physical reality does not change. The wooden horse is still not rotating on its own axis. It is merely rotating about the center of the MGR, same as every other part of the MGR.
” simply on the basis that an orbit is generally elliptical, and not circular. ”
Yes! A motion that is not circular cannot be classified as circular. Period. That does not meet the criteria for your “group 2”. Full stop.
If you wish to ignore ev
If you wish to ignore every word I’ve said, then do so.
@Tim,
Now you are asking the right question
“Where is the axis of rotation?” is critical
Also,
“How many axis of rotation are there?”
One of my early demonstrations allowed the user to manipulate the location of an axis of rotation
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ppxccxo0w5
The triangle will rotate around the orange dot titled “Fixed Axis”
You drag the orange dot anywhere inside or outside of the triangle to observe rotation around a single fixed point.
Example 1 – Just outside the corner of the triangle
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qmqrfhqrlp
Example 2 – Along a side
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mwz5mo1isc
Example 3 – At the Origin
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/x03m0ovvxl
In each example, there is one and only one axis of rotation.
Now, if I turn on the orbital motion about the origin and also keep the rotation around the orange fixed axis, the each of those points in the example above, the red triangle shows how the movement would behave with TWO rotational axis.
Rotation about the origin
Rotation about the fixed axis (either internal or external)
Example 1 with Orbital motion – https://www.desmos.com/calculator/8yqbtzaain
Example 2 with Orbital motion -https://www.desmos.com/calculator/pjldfgcmvk
Example 3 with Orbital motion – https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bnvjawpoji
Note, now the rotational location for the two axis is in the same place, I’ll leave it to you to figure out the following questions…
How many orbits does the red triangle make for each orbit of the black triangle?
Why is the resonance for the red triangle greater than for the black triangle.
When you grasp the behavior of moving the Fixed Axis for both the black and red triangles, you will have answered the critical questions at the top;
“Where is the axis of rotation?” is critical
Also,
“How many axis of rotation are there?”
You almost got it, Flop.
Now, all you need is to turn your geometry constructions into a physical context to get Tim’s point about reference frames.
@Williard,
Learn the basics before you move on to the more complicated.
Try answering the basic questions for each example
Where is the axis of rotation?
How many axis of rotation are there?
Then progress to why the red triangle is moving faster than the black triangle in this example
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bnvjawpoji
Walk before you try to run…
Been there, done that, dear Flop, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-806717
My turn to play riddles: a construction only establishes possibility, not necessity. Do you agree?
Nope. Identifying the location and number of axis is a basic requirement for discussing further. Your link provides an answer to neither.
The shape of the object is a triangle. If the intention is to dispute basic agreed upon terms by saying the triangle is an elephant, then there is no intention to demonstrate good faith.
As a reminder, the questions are:
1. Where is the axis of rotation in each example?
(I will accept a general description relative to the black triangle like “it is outside the triangle shape and below and to the right of the center of the triangle” or an (x,y) coordinate)
2. How many axis of rotation are there in each example?
(This is a numeric value. I will accept any whole integer zero or greater)
If you can’t establish this basic level of understanding, anything further is moot.
That’s where you’re wrong, Flop:
Your charades are utterly irrelevant, whereas the basic definition of an isometry dispels any trick you might wish to pull.
Physics does not reduce to geometry, you know.
Tim?!
@ Ftop
“the red triangle shows how the movement would behave with TWO rotational axis.”
You have done some clever programming. You have shown mastery of vector addition and rotation.
The fundamental problem with your approach is defaulting to a second *axis* rather than a simple *translation*.
For ANY motion you get by combining 1 or 2 or 3 (or more) individual rotations, I can generate EXACTLY the same motion with 1 rotation and translations of my x-y plotter.
In particular, for the moon I could use one rotation at a fixed rate about the moon’s COM and one translation at vary speeds around an ellipse. You would need at least 3 rotations (eg. a general motion around the planet, a correction for the elliptical shape and speed, and a rotation about moon’s axis). All three of these rotation would have to be at varying rates.
"You have shown mastery of vector addition and rotation."
So now, Tim, you go and explain it to bob.
Please explain to Kiddo how Bob’s point work when using proper reference frames, Tim.
Thank you for correcting bob, Tim.
“There are three groups, Tim.”
DREMT lectures Tim endlessly that he is putting something in the wrong group though it fits in either one perfectly well.
While he SHAMELESSLY puts our Moon in a group that it cannot possibly fit into!
By this action, he is clearly saying:
‘I have no integrity’
‘I am just here to troll’
Tim to FTOP”
“The fundamental problem with your approach is defaulting to a second *axis* rather than a simple *translation*.”
Exactly. I said this to him a week or so ago, and awhile back.
But he simply has no answer. He simply evades this basic point.
Then he comes back and repeats the same mistake over and over.
Tim, bob’s still not listening, even though you corrected him. I guess he doesn’t listen to anybody. Oh well.
Flop?!
Tim, Ftop_t has responded to you, further down-thread. Down you go.
maguff…”…whose mission is to teach students skeptical thinking and to ask How do we know? about our current picture of the universe.
In it you will find the following paragraph:
The Moon rotates on its axis in exactly the same time that it takes to revolve about Earth. As a consequence, the Moon always keeps the same face turned toward Earth (Figure 4.15). You can simulate this yourself by orbiting your roommate or another volunteer. Start by facing your roommate. If you make one rotation (spin) with your shoulders in the exact same time that you revolve around him or her, you will continue to face your roommate during the whole orbit.”
***
It’s mission is to teach skeptical thinking then it engages in traditional thinking, based on an appeal to authority, with no basis in physics.
If you walk around the roommate, always facing him/her, it is impossible to rotate about your vertical axis through 360 degrees.
The difference between critical or skeptical thinking and this thinking based on an appeal to authority is the typical dumbass conclusion they reach.
In order to orbit a roommate while facing the roommate you must sidestep around a circle. If you rotate about your vertical axis, even a small amount, you are beginning to face away from that person. By the time you reach half-way, you are facing directly away from that person.
This is stupid simple yet you and your fellow spinners are so caught up in butt-kissing to authority it has robbed you of your ability to think skeptically or critically.
> If you walk around the roommate, always facing him/her, it is impossible to rotate about your vertical axis through 360 degrees.
C’mon, Gordo. Think for a change. If your eyes always look at your roommate, after turning around your roommate completely your eyes will have tracked all the points of an imaginary circle that you and your roommate describe. And you will be in the middle of that circle.
Or think of it this way. As soon as you move forward on your orbit to walk around your roommate, you need to rotate your body so that you keep looking at them. If you don’t, your eyes will move way from them as you walk around.
It’s basic geometry. It’s basic physics.
There is nothing you can do about that.
willard…”Cmon, Gordo. Think for a change”.
***
I think you should think for a change and supply a reply to the physics I pointed out in rebuttal to the incorrect assertion of rotation. Instead, you supply a thought experiment based on an imaginary circle that cannot be defined.
If I am standing at 0,0 on a large x-y plane, facing down the x-axis, and I start to rotate my body so I face 90 degrees (0,5), then 180 degrees (-5,0), then 270 degrees (0,-5) then back to facing the x-axis (5,0), I have rotated through 360 degrees. That is pure rotation about my vertical axis (z-axis).
If my friend now stands at 0,0 and I stand facing her from 5,0, in order to keep facing her, I must side-step around the circle of R = 5. If she follows my motion she is rotating but I am not.
Here’s your proof. First, I want to clarify side-stepping. The only way I can keep facing my friend is to extend my right leg to the side one pace, then follow that by moving my left leg sideways till they are together, then repeat all the way around the circle. It would be easier to walk around the circle with my left shoulder facing my friend but the problem was stated with me facing her so I’ll stick with that.
I need to define two more concentric circles, one to represent my front side and another to represent my back. So, I’ll draw a new circle within the old one with R = 4.5 units and another outside at 5.5 units. As I side-step around the original circle at R = 5, my face always follows the inner concentric circle while the back of my head follows the outer concentric circle.
Suppose instead of circles we employed cylinders with enough room for me to side-step around between two cylindrical walls (not for the claustrophobic). The cylinder walls are close enough for me to side-step but not for me to turn my shoulders in a circle that would be required for local rotation.
Are you getting this? You are performing a sideways translation without local rotation.
When I rotated about 0,0, my face and the back of my head rotated around my vertical axis. As I side-step around the circle, facing my friend, my face and back of my head DO NOT rotate about my vertical axis. They can’t since they are moving along concentric circles along with my vertical axis. The cylindrical walls prove that because I cannot turn my shoulders to rotate about my vertical axis.
This is physics, Willard.
And during your travels, you will have rotated on your own axis, from head to toe, once per your path around her.
…you will have rotated around your friend, and not on your own axis.
Will an external observer see all sides of you? How can they do that without you actually rotating?
You are rotating, but not on your own axis.
How will you tell?
…because you are always facing your friend whilst moving around them. That motion is "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
“That motion is “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”
Wrong. That is a rotation. Pure and simple. An axis that is part of the whole cannot be an external axis by definition.
No, I’m not wrong. The external axis I am referring to goes through the body of your friend, that you are rotating around. It is most definitely external to you.
You and the friend are 2 separate objects.
A revolution/orbit about the center of the friend requires a rotation about you own axis to make you always face them.
Yes.
"A revolution/orbit about the center of the friend requires a rotation about you own axis to make you always face them."
Depends on what you think "revolution/orbit" is.
A revolution/orbit about something is just that.
No, a "revolution/orbit" (without axial rotation) is either motion like the "moon on the left" or it is motion like the "moon on the right".
A revolution/orbit without axial rotation wrt the fixed stars will keep the object ‘pointing’ towards a fixed star.
See? You are going with the “moon on the right”. If you went with the “moon on the left” then a revolution/orbit about the center of the friend would not require a rotation about your own axis to make you always face them.
If you agree that a gyro will remain pointing at a fixed star, no matter where on the MGR it is placed, I can only agree with you.
You seem to have responded in the wrong place.
> This is physics
C’mon, Gordo. Think for a change. ALL the concepts you invoked come from geometry. What you call a “proof” is nothing more than a thought experiment. And your “sideways translation” is no less imaginary than my circle, which was actually an orbit.
That you have to rotate your body to keep looking at your buddy is physics.
“You are performing a sideways translation without local rotation.”
If you are standing at (0,5) facing the center (facing directly in the -x directions) and you translate without rotating by ‘side stepping’, you would be moving in the +y direction. You would end up somewhere like (0.5, 5) after one step, and be facing the point (0, 0.5) — NOT facing your friend at (0, 0)! . After 2 steps you are at (1, 5), and (n/2, 5) after n steps.
If you want to be facing your friend after the first step, you would take that step to (5, 0.5) and then ROTATE about the point (5, 0.5) (about 1/10 radian or ~ 6 degrees in this example).
You would repeat this process. Side step straight to the side, then rotate a little. Side step straight to the side, then rotate a little. This will move you in polygon path around the center. Translating. rotating, translating, rotating …
“Changing direction” is NOT “axial rotation”, unless you’re a braindead cult idiot.
A rotation is still a rotation. No matter how you try and dress it up.
The location of the axis of rotation matters a great deal.
An axis of rotation inside an object is always an internal axis. It is not possible to have a rotational axis outside an object unless you use gravity, in which case it ceases to be a single object but 2 (or more).
So does direction change for rotations, Kiddo, in contrast to what Pup just suggested.
"The axis of rotation need not go through the body". Google that phrase, and begin to learn about rotation.
Tell me how you can rotate about an external axis? What force do you use to perform such a feat?
You can only rotate about an internal axis. You can revolve about an external axis but that is not the same thing.
I repeat my previous comment.
pups, your challenge produced these results:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_body
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_body
In which the Physics section referencing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
“In Newton’s time the fixed stars were invoked as a reference frame, supposedly at rest relative to absolute space. In reference frames that were either at rest with respect to the fixed stars or in uniform translation relative to these stars, Newton’s laws of motion were supposed to hold. In contrast, in frames accelerating with respect to the fixed stars, an important case being frames rotating relative to the fixed stars, the laws of motion did not hold in their simplest form, but had to be supplemented by the addition of fictitious forces, for example, the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force. ”
Applications
Inertial navigation systems used a cluster of gyroscopes and accelerometers to determine accelerations relative to inertial space. After a gyroscope is spun up in a particular orientation in inertial space, the law of conservation of angular momentum requires that it retain that orientation as long as no external forces are applied to it. Three orthogonal gyroscopes establish an inertial reference frame, and the accelerators measure acceleration relative to that frame.
No, it should actually take you to the Wiki article on “Rotation around a fixed axis”, which states:
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
Pay attention, Kiddo:
“According to Euler’s rotation theorem, simultaneous rotation along a number of stationary axes at the same time is impossible; if two rotations are forced at the same time, a new axis of rotation will appear. “
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
Pay attention once more, Kiddo:
“This article assumes that the rotation is also stable, such that no torque is required to keep it going. The kinematics and dynamics of rotation around a fixed axis of a rigid body are mathematically much simpler than those for free rotation of a rigid body; they are entirely analogous to those of linear motion along a single fixed direction, which is not true for free rotation of a rigid body.”
Willard knows how to copy/paste.
But, he has no idea what it means.
That’s just one of the symptoms of “braindead”.
He copied that from the wiki page dealing with axial rotation. The quote refers to something like Earth, with is rotating about its axis. The quote does NOT apply to Moon, which has NO axial rotation.
… as observed from the moon.
CORRECTION: The second link in my last post (wiki/Rigid_body) should have been:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
I told you what the article was, and quoted the relevant paragraph. I was making a point to RLH, you see. Nothing to do with you, really.
Of course Kiddo’s using Richard as a springboard.
That’s all he got left for his trolling.
No response from RLH…
DREMT finds another authoritative source
“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.”
But elsewhere he regularly declares that such definitions can be IGNORED:
‘They want to argue that rotation about an external axis has to happen in a perfect circle! The desperation is laughable.”
Does he even realize how contradictory his own arguments have become??
Does he care? Trolls certainly don’t.
DREMT is wrong, as usual.
You said, “you can only rotate about an internal axis”.
I found a quote that states the axis of rotation need not go through the body (be internal). Thus, you are proven wrong, and I am right. As usual.
> “Changing direction” is NOT “axial rotation”
You should pay more attention to Kiddo’s Master Argument, Pup.
At the very least read the handouts he constantly cites.
"“Changing direction” is NOT “axial rotation”, unless you’re a braindead cult idiot."
I couldn’t agree more, Clint. The "Spinners" think any change in orientation that an object makes is "axial rotation", in other words that an object is rotating about an internal axis just because it is changing direction whilst it moves.
But as we know from the wooden horse on the merry-go-round, the wooden horse is changing direction whilst it moves, but it is not rotating on its own internal axis. It is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round.
So whilst "changing direction" might be an indicator of rotation about some axis, it is not an indicator of "axial rotation", or internal axis rotation, necessarily.
Moon Dragon cranks still believe that if they can prove that it is possible for the Moon not to spin, then it does not spinning.
Neither reality nor logic works like that.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
Kiddo can ignore that he clings to a misconceived “necessarily” all he likes.
“If you walk around the roommate, always facing him/her, it is impossible to rotate about your vertical axis through 360 degrees.”
You are ‘begging the question’. You have built in the rotation into your description of motion. Here is the *correct* description.
If you are facing north and I tell you to move 1 m to the east without turning your body, you would simply move sideways 1 m, always facing north. Anyone in this discussion would, too. If I tell you to move 1 m to the south without turning, you would simply walk backwards 1 m, always facing north. If I tell you to move 1 m in a direction 30 degrees north of west without turning, you would simply walk diagonally 1 m, always facing north.
THAT is what it means to translate without rotating.
“THAT is what it means to translate without rotating.”
Sure. And if you simply side-step around your friend, moving around them whilst always facing them, you are rotating about your friend, and not on your own axis (motion as per the “moon on the left”). Or, as you would insist, you could describe that motion as translation in a circle (motion as per the “moon on the right”) plus internal axis rotation.
However, for “orbital motion without axial rotation”, only one of the descriptions is correct (either the “moon on the left” or the “moon on the right”). For various reasons, as discussed ad nauseam, “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion as per the “moon on the left”.
Of course, the MOTL/MOTR dichotomy is precisely why this issue transcends reference frames. Pretty much no “Spinners” seem to get that, though.
> the MOTL/MOTR dichotomy
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
There is no dichotomy.
In fact you still do not distinguish between a geometric from a physical interpretation of it.
Hence why it’s so much fun.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
rlh..”It (horse on MGR) has no internal axis for it to rotate about.”
***
It has a COG. If you stood the base of the horse on ice and tried to rotate it, you could rotate it about its COG. I have removed that possibility by bolting, riveting, and welding it to the floor of the MGR. Still, it keeps the same face pointed to the axis (axle) of the MGR without rotating about its COG.
So does an aircraft flying at 35,000 feet around the Equator at constant velocity. So, does the Moon, flying much higher in essentially a vacuum.
The point is, if the object keeps the same face pointed at an external axis of rotation (orbit) it is impossible for that body to rotate about an internal COG.
…more or less than once per rev.
“It has a COG”
It has a center. But it is only part of the whole.
That is like saying the left hand side of something is to left of the whole thing. True but misleading.
The aircraft’s horizontal gyros will be adjusted to keep them parallel with the Earth’s surface as it travels around the Equator. Are you denying that simple fact?
The gyros aren’t doing any actual adjusting, it is the aircraft’s control surfaces.
With Moon, that “adjusting” is done by gravity. It’s analogous to the string “adjusting” the path of the ball.
That doesn’t alter the fact that they are adjusted to be parallel to the Earth’s surface as they move horizontally. Thus making them rotate 360 degrees per trip around the equator.
Alternatively, if you are attached to the gyro, you will see the aircraft rotate 360 degrees about you.
And yes, the autopilot can use them (as are constantly rotating) to keep a ‘level’ flight for the aircraft through using the control surfaces.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10108
“The average temperature was 0.81 C in September. This was up a little from August (0.76C). However 2021 is turning out to cooler than recent years with an average annual temperature with 3 months remaining of 0.69C. This makes it on track to be the coolest year since 2014“
Gordon Robertson at 9:28 PM
[…]The difference between critical or skeptical thinking and this thinking based on an appeal to authority is the typical dumbass conclusion they reach.[…]
Gordon Robertson at 12:39 AM
[…]If I am standing at 0,0 on a large x-y plane[…]
You are just affirming the fact that all science denial are the same.
Christos Vournas claims to have invented a new equation for an Earth without an atmosphere and yet uses the Earth’s present day albedo in his calculation, immune to the fact that without an atmosphere the Earth’s albedo would be closer to the Moon’s.
You, in support of your non-spinner ideas, claim that reference frames are not necessary and yet want to use vectors in your justifications, immune to the fact that vectors must be defined in a reference frame.
This is not skepticism; it is just plain denial.
I must apologize for saying here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-938597 that you are fact resistant because in actuality you are fact immune.
“Christos Vournas claims to have invented a new equation for an Earth without an atmosphere and yet uses the Earth’s present day albedo in his calculation, immune to the fact that without an atmosphere the Earth’s albedo would be closer to the Moon’s.”
…and you could make that criticism of the calculations that yield 255 K.
Only if you don’t understand any of this, Kiddo.
Dragon Cranks got NOTHING.
Where’s Flop?
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
I always get a big, big laugh when comparing the dumb merry-go-round and ball-on-a-string stuff written on this blog by a few ignoramuses, with Tobias Mayer’s splendid treatise (beginning at pdf page 189)
https://tinyurl.com/2bmsjwy7
published in 1750.
In this treatise, Mayer started with a proof (using Newton’s laws of gravity) that Moon’s spheroid shape is of sufficient sphericity to allow the use of spherical trigonometry when computing arcs and angles on the lunar surface.
He then transformed step by step, by use of spherical trigonometry, the results of his numerous observations of a few craters on the Moon (mainly Manilius, because it is much smaller than those observed earlier, and nearer to the lunar equator).
He finally managed to obtain the selenocentric coordinates of these observed craters, i.e. coordinates fully disconnected from and independent of terrestrial matters.
Using the same results, he managed also to compute Moon’s rotation period about its polar axis, as well as the inclination of this axis wrt the Ecliptic.
Mayer’s computation of the lunar rotation period is nearly equal to that computed today with data coming from lunar laser ranging.
Bindidon, Mayer was making measurements of Moon’s surface (mapping), and observations of its libration. Moon does NOT rotate about its axis.
You don’t understand any of this.
Moon DOES rotate about its axis.
You dont understand any of this.
Clint R
Mayers treatise concerning Moons rotation about its own axis has nothing to do with libration.
This word namely occurs only once in the treatises 130 pages. Here is the translation:
” Dominicus Cassini finally got into the right lane. It occurred to him to explain this phenomenon, which until then had been called the libration of the Moon, by the rotation of the Moon around its axis. ”
You are dumb, and keep dumb.
Braindead Bindidon, I never said rotation had anything to do with libration. You are trying to pervert reality.
You do that to protect your cult. You actually believe you can pervert reality. That makes you a braindead cult idiot.
Thanks for the umpteenth proof of your own degree of flatearthism!
I really enjoy.
Not as much as I enjoy your ineffective and immature flak.
Thanks.
One more time, an ignoramus writes
” Mayer was making measurements of Moon’s surface (mapping), and observations of its libration. ”
though he never read anything about Mayer’s work, let alone would he understand even a tiny bit of it.
One more time, I reply that Mayer’s work didn’t have anything to do with libration.
Bindidon, you need to correct wikipedia:
“Mayer’s first important astronomical work was a careful investigation of the libration of the Moon (Kosmographische Nachrichten, Nuremberg, 1750)”
Or, admit you don’t know anything about the issues….
Or you could admit that you are wrong. As everybody else agrees.
I wonder if Braindead Bindidon gets a “big, big laugh” when it’s revealed he doesn’t know squat about the people he finds on the Internet.
I do….
Jupiter’s Galilean moon’s (Io, Europa, Ganymede, Calisto) are also tidally locked to the mother-planet moons…
Galileo Galilei, when studying with telescope, didn’t mention any rotation about their axis.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I have observed the moons of Jupiter with a telescope of similar power and resolution as Galileo, and I didn’t notice any rotation either.
Galileo’s theory of tides was also interesting, Christos.
You should try to revive it!
See the diagram showing moon’s trajectory around the sun and think about how the moon would move to continue facing the earth. The moon is rotating around its axis; there is no other plausible explanation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg
Ken, if you were swinging a ball-on-a-string around your head, as you walked around a tree, your “trajectory” would look the same. But, the ball was NOT rotating about its axis.
You don’t understand any of this. You just want to believe in your cult. So, like the others, you search for things you believe support your beliefs. And, when taught where you’re wrong, you just reject learning. You then become a “braindead cult idiot”.
Is that “free advice,” Pup?
2. Pinned down, Just Ask Questions
Twasn’t a question, Pup.
You don’t understand any of this.
You got NOTHING.
Cherish it. That’s all you got.
3. Countered, try to insult
Wrong again, Pup.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment. Report.
“But, the ball was NOT rotating about its axis”
A gyro attached to the ball would show that it is rotating about its axis.
“A gyro will show the [ball] is rotating. It will not show the axis it is rotating (or revolving) about.”
As I said. All gyros attached to, say, a merry-go-round, where ever they are placed, will show the same rotation of the object they are attached to (or the point on it to which they are attached) wrt the fixed stars.
Thus one will show the horse is rotating on its own axis, another will show the merry-go-round likewise.
Both (all) will be correct.
“Thus one will show the horse is rotating on its own axis…”
…which will be wrong, as you have already agreed. The wooden horse is not rotating about an axis that goes through the body of the horse.
A gyro attached to the horse will show that it rotates about the gyro (which can be considered to be on an individual axis for this case).
All horses on the merry-go-round and its own axis will all show the same thing at the same time.
Thus you can claim that each individual gyro shows a rotation about itself if you so wish.
You can claim a lot of things, RLH. The fact is that the wooden horse is not rotating about an axis that goes through the wooden horse, as you accept and agree. So you need to accept and agree the limitations of a gyro in discerning axes of rotation. Plus what that means wrt inertial reference frames and the moon issue.
“The fact is that the wooden horse is not rotating about an axis that goes through the wooden horse, as you accept and agree”
I ‘agree’ that a gyro attached to the horse will show that the horse is rotating. I ‘agree’ also that a gyro attached to the center will show that the MGR is rotating too. Each individual gyro will have an axis going through them.
Do you deny those simple observations?
The horse is rotating…but not on its own axis. As you agree.
As far as the gyro attached to the horse is concerned, the axis of rotation runs though the point they are joined.
The same rotation would be shown on a gyro attached to the central pivot point.
You have agreed that the horse is rotating, but not on its own axis. That will not be forgotten for as long as you comment on this site, I can promise you that. There is no way for you to try and back out of it now. You just have to learn to accept the limitations of a gyro in discerning axes of rotation, and what that means wrt inertial reference frames and the moon issue.
Galileo Galilei: 1564-1641
Does that speak to you, with respect e.g. to the ability to observe fixed points on a planet distant from Earth by 664 million km with a telescope – at the beginning of the XVIIth century?
What about thinking a bit before writing?
No wonder that you bore us all the time with your trivial Phi invention.
Bindidon
“No wonder that you bore us all the time with your trivial Phi invention.”
Φ – is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor. It is a New and very important concept for the correct estimation of planetary “energy in” (not reflected) SW EM energy estimation. I have proposed to the scientific community… because Φ is a key parameter in the planetary Radiative Energy Budget.
You mean you still hopelessly grasping on the trace gas CO2 0.04% content in a very thin Earth’s atmosphere?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Before you rant about any ‘grasping on the trace gas CO2’, I would suggest that you manage to translate the following documemt
https://tinyurl.com/56t5e94z
in Greek, and read, reread and rereread it until you managed to understand it down to tiniest details.
And then come back here.
binny…”Before you rant about any grasping on the trace gas CO2, I would suggest that you manage to translate the following documemt …”
***
Must you persist in being an ignoramus and an idiot? The paper to which you link is about unvalidated models, not science.
It is a New and very important concept for the correct estimation of planetary “energy in” (not reflected) SW EM energy estimation.
Φ is a key parameter in the planetary Radiative Energy Budget.
And… it is not Greek for you anymore!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Mann to receive Leo Szilard Lectureship Award from American Physical Society
Leo would not approve.
TM,
Would that be the world renowned physicist Michal Mann, or the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann?
You know, the one who pretends to be a “climate scientist”?
It seems at least one of them is getting recognition for their sterling efforts in arms “control”. Persistent arm-waving takes a lot of effort, I guess.
So this would be the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann, then?
Self proclaimed climatologist, who can’t bring himself to admit that climate is the average of weather statistics, and delusional to boot. Also self styled Nobel Prize winner at one time, but forced to admit that printing up his own Nobel Prize certificate didn’t really mean that he was awarded a Nobel Prize.
He could probably take lessons from a schoolchild – Greta Thunberg. She seems to be pretty influential.
swenson…”Self proclaimed climatologist”
***
I thought Mann is a geologist.
Geophysicist, Gordo.
Do you ever double-check anything?
I’m delighted to see that this post has struck a nerve, that it hit a vein with the under-educated crowd.
It might have been the fact that Michael Mann received his undergraduate degrees in physics and applied math from the University of California, Berkeley, and his master’s degree in physics and doctorate in geology and geophysics from Yale University. Or maybe it is the fact that Mann, the author of more than 200 peer-reviewed publications, has been recognized for his scientific work with many awards.
You never know with the insane clown posse, the ICP, of Robertson & Swenson.
maguff…”The award recognizes outstanding accomplishments by physicists in promoting the use of physics for the benefit of society in such areas as the environment, arms control and science policy”.
***
Big lie, Mann is not even a physicist, he’s a geologist. Seems the APS has gone the way of the National Academy of Science, it has been taken over by unscrupulous climate alarmists.
Again, Gordo.
Geophysicist.
If you’re to double-down, at least double-check.
You don’t even need to think to do that.
ExxonMobil plans to increase carbon capture at LaBarge, Wyoming facility
We are Energy Transition
Nothing to worry about. 7 millions tonnes won’t even be noticed.
No forests will be lost due to such nonsense.
To paraphrase and second this comment, today would be a good day for Pup to take a course of Thorazine.
This one’s for Pup Thorazine Shuffle
This ones newer and better, arguably!
So let’s argue about music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqCBiC55ZSM
Nice.
Counterpoint:
https://listen.tidal.com/album/175635067
Nice.
I’m not a big fan of DMB, but this guest appearance by Warren Haynes is top shelf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYrD2SthaMU
NG loves DMB:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/28/ng-s-audit/
willard…”After Harvey and Uri, I think people are tired of abstract discussions about whether climate change is real and have mostly moved on to actually doing something about all the bad weather”.
***
Terrific scientific insight, NG. [/SARC OFF].
Not one bit of scientific evidence just more rhetoric.
I don’t imagine he tells his students that Coriolis is a pseudo-force, meaning it’s not a force at all, but something that seems to give the impression of a force.
maguff…”Im not a big fan of DMB, but this guest appearance by Warren Haynes is top shelf.”
***
Had to turn it off before the intro solo ended. Way too long for their talent level on guitar and more a poor man’s Pink Floyd. A very poor man. Mathews looked bemused and not sure what to do.
Compare those two buskers to the intricate intro soloing of Don Felder in Hotel California. That’s before Henley and Frey ripped him off for the music and cut him out of the songwriting proceeds.
That’s just for a start. IMHO, soloing should be limited to one’s talent level and those two buskers lacked the chops to offer a solo of that length. It was a rip off of blues licks and Pink Floyd.
I won’t get into real blues/rock guitarists like Stevie Ray Vaughn, Stevie Vey, Ritchie Blackmore, etc.
> I don’t imagine he tells his students that Coriolis is a pseudo-force
C’mon, Gordo. Think before you type.
I just showed you a video that does speak of that kind of force.
willard…”I just showed you a video that does speak of that kind of force”.
***
Coriolis is still a pseudo-force, aka fictitious force, aka D’Alembert force. There appears to be a force acting but there is no force. Like turning a corner in a car at speed, a force seems to push you toward the door but there is no force acting in that direction. Rather, the door is pushing on you and you’d better be sure the door is closed.
Your body wants to move straight ahead but the door guides you around the curve. Same with the Moon. It wants to move in a straight line but gravity guides it into an orbit.
You spinners are always on about reference frames. Here’s a perfect example of where they should be applied…not to the Moon’s orbit.
https://opentextbc.ca/openstaxcollegephysics/chapter/fictitious-forces-and-non-inertial-frames-the-coriolis-force/
C’mon, Gordo. Think for a change. There’s no conspiracy to hide fictitious forces in physics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force
That may not imply what you make it imply.
willard…”Theres no conspiracy to hide fictitious forces in physics:”
***
Did not imply that, only that Coriolis force is not a force, it’s a fictitious force, as the adjective claims. Then again, it seems you need to have that explained to you.
C’mon, Gordo. Be serious for a change.
You said “I don’t imagine he tells his students that Coriolis is a pseudo-force.”
Who do you think you’re kidding here?
maguff…”ExxonMobil today initiated the process for engineering, procurement and construction contracts as part of its plans to expand carbon capture and storage…”
***
You don’t think Exxon are doing this as a public service, do you?
They could capture all the CO2 in the atmosphere and there would be no cooling. If alarmists want to check this they could remove the CO2 from the air in a real greenhouse and see if it cooled.
Simple test. Build a greenhouse, seal it off from outside air, evacuate all the air then replace it with a mix of 99% nitrogen and oxygen, the rest with argon. My bet it no one would notice even a slight change in GH temperature.
Come to think of it, that has already been done on a smaller scale by R.W. Wood and he noted no difference.
> My bet
How much, Gordo?
Just to make sure you offer something reasonable:
http://clim8.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
Gordon Robertson at 9:37 PM
Are you saying that your knowledge of this matter is stuck in 1909?
You need to get up to speed fast! The following is from ~ 6 years ago.
A sequence of Septembers
2021
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2021/gridtemp202109e.png
2010
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2010/gridtemp201009e.png
1973
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1973/gridtemp197309e.png
1956
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1956/gridtemp195609e.png
*
2021 has been until now a cool year in Germoney. But there is a difference between cool… and cold.
binny…”2021 has been until now a cool year in Germoney. But there is a difference between cool and cold”.
***
Binny is in denial, along with the hippos. RLH is right, 2021 is showing cooling, whether you take the median or the mean.
Oh Noes, the ignoramus again…
RLH shows USCRN data which, though recorded by the worldwide best instruments, is not even representative for the US, a country which itself way, way away from being representative for the global climate shown in the JMA grid distributions.
USCRN covers only 130 of the over 200 UAH grid cells covered by GHCN daily.
By how much the lowest USCRN average in 2021 differs from the average of all US stations – AND above all from UAH49 (CONUS+AK)!!! – you can see here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KYHQ4lcwMxpbFp3T4ruvqIFRmiH2_EhS/view
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10108
“The average temperature was 0.81 C in September. This was up a little from August (0.76C). However 2021 is turning out to cooler than recent years with an average annual temperature with 3 months remaining of 0.69C. This makes it on track to be the coolest year since 2014”
I don’t need hints on Clive Best: I visit his blog since years, and enjoyed his nice reaction concerning a comparison of my little layman averaging of GHCN daily worldwide data with his professional, icosahedron based evaluation.
Search for his wording about that!
I am aware of the many ways that point data is turned into area/volume estimations by people. Icosahedron based is one such way.
None of them address the fact that even paired USCRN stations show quite a difference, month compared to month, when comparing to each other. They are only a few km apart after all, thus leading to questions about ‘averaging’ anything to produce accurate estimations for areas of any sort. And that is just for 2m. Day and night for the next few hundred meters vertically is not even so easy as that.
“USCRN covers only 130 of the over 200 UAH grid cells covered by GHCN daily”
So very accurate data over less cells makes the more inaccurate data over more cells correct? Get a life.
Please note that worldwide, over 1/3 of all stations show a decline, not a rise at all.
“While the trend distributions are broad, with one-third of the stations in the US and worldwide having a negative trend”
Please note also that assuming that point samples can be simple averaged to make much wider cells correct does not seem to be as easy as claimed.
RLH says: While the trend distributions are broad, with one-third of the stations in the US and worldwide having a negative trend . . .
Since you’re not in the habit of identifying the source of quotations, it’s worth noting that you appear to be citing the 2011 Berkley Earth Project paper abstract for “A Study of Temperature Trends Using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications”. The bottom line result being . . . “we conclude that urban warming does not substantially affect estimates of recent global warming — confirming the key conclusion of the previous groups’ work.”
You are indeed correct (as any simple use of Google et al will show).
The FACTS are that the conclusion the papers draws are mostly down to how the statistics are handled but the quote is exactly as claimed. How CO2 creates a downwards tend in some of the stations is not discussed.
One could ask why it is that the median is used in the paper, as the mean is rejected due to ‘significant’ outliers without stating if those are at the low or high end. Only the central 80% is displayed with an almost flat distribution for records longer than 30 years. Slopes as much as +/- 15 degree C/century are covered in the paper. The rest is unstated.
It is worth noting that the use of mean, median, mode, standard deviation, etc. are fairly useless as a statistic for U shaped (i.e. sinusoidal) distributions where they do not have any real meaning as such.
In climate temperatures we have 3 U shaped distributions that operate simultaneously at any site comprised of
1) Yearly (yearly cycle)
2) Daily (daily cycle)
3) Hourly/Daily/Weekly/Monthly (weather and weather fronts)
How they interact and what final distribution then results is never addressed in the literature.
“However, a U-shaped distribution cant be turned into a bell curve by a meaningful transformation, even if it is perfectly symmetric (Iversen & Norpoth, 1987).”
” So very accurate data over less cells makes the more inaccurate data over more cells correct? ”
As usual, you intentionally misrepresent what I wrote.
What I wrote was that USCRN is less representative for the US as a whole than is GHCN daily.
Moreover, I have shown two years ago that the difference between for example the ‘good’ USCRN station AK_Kenai_29_ENE and the ‘bad’ GHCN daily station at Anchorage Airport is negligible.
They of course differ in absolute data by 2 C, but show perfectly similar anomalies wrt a common reference period.
Get a life, RLH.
” Please note also that assuming that point samples can be simple averaged to make much wider cells correct does not seem to be as easy as claimed. ”
Where does this sentencious stuff come from?
Do you have a source, or is it the result of your imagination?
You doubt about everything, but never give any scientific contradiction to what you doubt about.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-USCRN-station-distribution-at-the-end-of-2012-Paired-sites-are-denoted-with-blue_fig4_258758117
Point samples, at best, represent 100m by 100m squares at 2m. Not 100kms or more as you (and others) suggest.
Checkout the differences between the USCRN paired stations if you doubt me.
I didn’t expect you to post a simpled picture
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-943345
showing paired USCRN sites.
That pic, RLH, I have seen months ago.
I expect you to prove that your personal claim
” Please note also that assuming that point samples can be simple averaged to make much wider cells correct does not seem to be as easy as claimed. ”
has been scientifically validated.
Has been validated with statistics that apply more to normal (bell curve) distributions than U shaped ones you mean (pun).
Mean, Median, Mode, Standard deviation, etc. have no real meaning in U shaped distributions and the climate data is full of them.
“That pic, RLH, I have seen months ago”
Shows quite an even distributions of stations all over the USA I think.
As I said above
“However, a U-shaped distribution cant be turned into a bell curve by a meaningful transformation, even if it is perfectly symmetric (Iversen & Norpoth, 1987).”
I repeat
I expect you to prove that your personal claim
” Please note also that assuming that point samples can be simple averaged to make much wider cells correct does not seem to be as easy as claimed. ”
has been scientifically validated.
Your reply
” Has been validated with statistics that apply more to normal (bell curve) distributions than U shaped ones you mean (pun).
Mean, Median, Mode, Standard deviation, etc. have no real meaning in U shaped distributions and the climate data is full of them. ”
is absolutely irrelevant, as it is again and again your strictly personal meaning.
Show REAL, scientifically validated sources, RLH!
So you consider Iversen & Norpoth non-scientists fo you?
However, a U-shaped distribution cant be turned into a bell curve by a meaningful transformation, even if it is perfectly symmetric (Iversen & Norpoth, 1987).
U shape is removed by averaging over days. This is basic!
Seasonal cycle is removed by using anomalies. This is basic!
Why are you so determined to stay ignorant of these basic facts, RLH?
“U shape is removed by averaging over days”
Which ‘average’ do you consider appropriate to remove the daily cycle and why? Given that mean, median, mode are only appropriate for ‘normal’ distributions (see below).
It is not as though the distribution is that simple.
e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53927_stillwater_5-wnw_profile.jpg
from
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53927_stillwater_5-wnw.jpeg
“However, a U-shaped distribution can’t be turned into a bell curve by a meaningful transformation, even if it is perfectly symmetric (Iversen & Norpoth, 1987) Little Green Book”
All the above does not address the fact that the actual hourly temperature readings at any station will be drawn from the (approx) 10+ degree C daily cycle superimposed on the 10’s degree C yearly cycle superimposed further on the units+ degree C of the weather variations on top of that.
Of course you could just ‘average’ it all together and go with that if you want to do.
willard…”It’s not gravity that moves the Moon. It’s something else. What is it?”
***
It’s called momentum. Newton II: f = ma. If you apply a force to a mass that is light enough to respond to the force, the mass accelerates. Once the force is removed, the mass maintains a constant velocity until it is opposed by an opposing force. If there is no such opposing force, as with the Moon, it maintains that velocity indefinitely.
Momentum = mass x velocity. Constant velocity with the Moon produces a constant momentum. No one knows where the Moon got that momentum, it just is.
So, we have the Moon moving with constant momentum along an instantantaneous linear path and Earth’s gravity is pulling it off that linear path and eventually into a near-circular orbit.
Hope you are taking notes, there will be a test soon.
> It’s called momentum.
C’mon, Gordo. Think for a change. I’m not asking you for a name of the physical concept. I’m asking you to identify what makes the Moon move. Where does the momentum come from?
From there you should be intelligent enough to realize that the idea that the Moon doesn’t spin makes zero sense.
willard…” I’m not asking you for a name of the physical concept. I’m asking you to identify what makes the Moon move. Where does the momentum come from?”
***
I told you in my last reply, no one knows where it came from. It’s a property of the Moon that just is. If you are inferring it’s caused by Earth’s gravity or any mysterious source, you are wrong.
Even if you try to relate this to your spinner cause, that kind of momentum would be angular moment, an unrelated form of momentum to its linear momentum. The Earth has both linear momentum and angular momentum and viewed from the Moon, you could see all faces of the Earth because it rotates 27+ times for each lunar orbit.
Why is it you can only see one side of the Moon? Answer: it has no angular moment, ergo it’s not rotating about a local axis.
Don’t feel bad, even NASA doesn’t understand that.
> no one knows where it came from.
C’mon, Gordo. Don’t hide under your ignorance. Think.
From wherever it comes, the force that propelled the Moon out of the Earth (a) did as with all the satellites we know, and (b) is still there. We know that satellites spin.
Do you realize that Moon Dragon cranks need to posit that gravity stopped the Moon from spinning?
willard…”From wherever it comes, the force that propelled the Moon out of the Earth (a) did as with all the satellites we know, and (b) is still there. We know that satellites spin”.
***
Proves you are as daft as a March hare. How did:
1)a body the size of the Moon get propelled to a speed of over 1000 km/hr to an altitude where it very conveniently had the correct speed to enter orbit at that altitude?
When sats are launched using a rocket, there are intricate calculations required to get it into orbit.
2)How did it become a sphere?
3)Why is it made of cheese and why is there a Man In The Moon?
4)How did the cow jump over the Moon? Why did the little dog think it was so funny and why did the dish run away with the spoon?
Any more fairy tales?
Oh, yeah, and where’s the perfectly spherical hole on Earth from which the Moon emanated?
C’mon, Gordo. You’re not thinking again. Make an effort.
Incredulity does not an argument make.
More so yours.
Try again, this time with more feeling.
Wondering Wee Willy,
Apart from the fact that you still can’t accept that the term “Dragon” as a term of opprobrium derives from the idiot “Sky Dragon” believers who are deluded enough to believe that CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a situation where “we’ll all turn into chickens and we’ll all be fried, grilled, toasted and roasted,”, as expressed by one lunatic. No, Christine, Sky Dragons will cannot consume us with their fiery breath!
Moving right along, you might need to convince people, like your mate Ken Rice, that tidal locking does not result from gravitational force, as even Wikipedia acknowledges –
“The effect arises between two bodies when their gravitational interaction slows a body’s rotation until it becomes tidally locked.”
See? Even Wikipedia is right occasionally.
You are silly enough, no doubt, to still believe that celestial creatures push the Moon around its orbit, and slow the rotation of bodies like the Moon and the Earth.
Sky Dragons, perhaps?
Do you realise you just make yourself look more foolish than usual by pretending that you understsnd physics?
Mike Flynn,
Microgravity Fled,
Tidal locking is also called spin-orbit locking.
Have you ever wondered why? Probly not!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wee Willy Idiot,
A fine demonstration of dimwittery on your part, as usual.
You could always look up that erratic fountain of occasional truth, Wikipedia.
Here’s a sample –
“Tidal locking (also called gravitational locking, captured rotation and spinorbit locking) . . .”
As I said, you just make yourself look foolish – or even more foolish by resorting to your kindergarten standard attempts to appear intelligent. Get a grip, pull your head out of your ass, and accept reality. No GHE, CO2 does not make thermometers hotter, and Michael Mann is not a renowned physicist, nor a Nobel laureate.
Or carry on wearing your ass as a hat. Don’t be surprised if people call you an asshat. The only person to blame is yourself.
Mike Flynn,
Makeup Featurette,
“Spin” refers to axial rotation:
Moon Dragon Cranks like you got NOTHING.
Aw diddums!
Woeful Wee Willy,
As a result of gravity, you idiot! The Moon has stopped rotating, just as a pendulum eventually stops swinging. Even in a vacuum!
What the heck is a Moon Dragon, anyway?
Have you completely lost all attachment to reality?
Mike Flynn,
Mad Fabulist,
A tidal lock does not refer to a lack of spin, but to the synchronization of an orbit with a spin.
Hope this helps!
Whacky Wee Willy,
Don’t be stupid. You will wind up as deluded as some of the crew at NASA or the NSF who prefer their fantasies to reality.
The apparent rotating “around its own axis” has all the physical reality of the Moon simultaneously rotating on two axes simultaneously to create longitudinal and latitudinal libration.
Perception, laddie, perception!
The Moon falls toward the Earth continuously. We only ever see the “bottom” of the Moon as a result.
You aren’t alone – there are probably many people who should know better, who seem to think that “celestial forcings” are somehow “pushing” the Moon around its orbit.
Nope. Just gravitational force. The Moon is in free fall, and even Wikipedia has the grace to agree with me. Gee.
Carry on with your fantasy.
Mike Flynn,
Macabre Fabrication,
Tidal locking describes the Moon spinning in about the same time it orbits the Earth.
It’s really not that complex.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
ken…”See the diagram showing moons trajectory around the sun and think about how the moon would move to continue facing the earth”.
***
I am not taking a shot at you, I think you have a genuine interest in understanding this problem. However, you cannot trust Wikipedia. Any idiot can post there and Wiki editors have a policy of who can and who cannot post there. It’s not a reliable source of scientific fact.
You refer to the Moon having a trajectory around the Sun.
Here’s one definition of trajectory:
***the path followed by a projectile flying or an object moving under the action of given forces***.
Consider first part of definition: the path followed by a projectile flying. The lunar path has been established as its orbit around the Earth.
The second part: an object moving under the action of a given force.
Which force moves the Moon? The Earth gravitational field moves it off its linear path. The solar gravitational field has little effect on the Moon and in no way affects the Moon’s trajectory.
The Moon has no trajectory around the Sun, the Wiki article is mistaken. It has one linear trajectory due to it’s native linear momentum and a resultant trajectory, the orbit, due to Earth’s gravitational field’s bending effect on its linear momentum.
“The solar gravitational field has little effect on the Moon”
If you do the calculations, the Sun’s gravity has larger influence on the Moon than the Earth’s does.
Wrong again, RLH. The Sun/Moon calculation is more than the Earth/Moon calculation, but Earth has the larger “influence” on Moon. That’s why Sun does not pull Moon away.
The reason for Earth’s greater influence is explained by relativistic gravity wells. But, that’s WAY over your head.
“by using Newtons law of gravity, you find that even with its greater distance, the Sun pulls on the Moon about twice as hard as the Earth does”
“If you look at the orbit of the Moon, it orbits the Sun similar to the way Earth does. Normally the motion of the Moon around the Sun is drawn as a kind of Spirograph pattern, but its actual motion is basically the same orbit as Earth with a small wobble to it”
Now RLH is confused by the Spirograph! First Ken, and now RLH. They can’t learn.
All they have to do is track Moon along the “supposed” Spirograph and they would realize it has to do a magical flip to always keep one face toward Earth. But….they have no interest in reality.
rlh…”If you look at the orbit of the Moon, it orbits the Sun similar to the way Earth does”.
***
We humans can be said to orbit the Sun as well, but not under our own steam. The Earth has the required momentum to remain in orbit but neither humans nor the Moon have the required momentum to orbit the Sun.
On the other hand, the Moon has only the required momentum to orbit the Earth. If the Earth disappeared, the Moon would fly off on a straight line, the direction dependent on the direction when the Earth disappeared.
“If the Earth disappeared, the Moon would fly off on a straight line, the direction dependent on the direction when the Earth disappeared”
If the Sun disappeared, the Earth would fly off on a straight line, the direction dependent on the direction when the Sun disappeared
One rule for the Moon and another for Earth is your distorted position.
rlh…”If you do the calculations, the Suns gravity has larger influence on the Moon than the Earths does”.
***
Let’s see your calculations.
Gravitational force per mass due to the Sun = 0.00589 N/kg
Gravitational force per mass due to the Earth = 0.00270 N/kg
https://www.wired.com/2012/12/does-the-moon-orbit-the-sun-or-the-earth/
Gravity and Orbits
You can turn gravity On/Off.
Only in science fiction.
There is this new invention in Science and Engineering, they call it Modeling and simulation. All the kids are doing it!
You can MODEL turning gravity on and off. You cannot actually do so.
‘relativistic’
Clint tries to impress us with jargon, without offering a clue as to its relevance. Maybe he can enlighten us?
Sorry Nate — I don’t attempt to teach physics to braindead cult idiots.
If you can’t freely, unabashedly, without reservations, admit that the ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating about it axis, then you’re a braindead cult idiot.
If one were to attach a gyro to the ball at the end of a string, what would it show? After all the gyro will remain ‘pointing’ at a fixed star.
What would a gyro attached to the string very, very, near to the pivot show also? The same rotation rate or different?
How do you explain the lack of difference between those 2 ‘axis’?
There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string. Same as with the wooden horse on a merry-go-round.
RLH demonstrates why you can’t teach phyics to braindead cult idiots. He’s been told several times that a gyro can NOT tell the difference between “orbiting” and “axial rotation”.
But, RLH can’t learn.
Clint sez he “dont attempt to teach physics to braindead ”
Translation: Clint is a troll who misuses jargon that he doesnt actually understand.
Everyone gets this.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-945331
“Even in the stations with records longer than 30 years, 24% have negative trends”
I don’t see those in your presentations.
“Even in the stations with records longer than 30 years, 24% have negative trends”
I don’t see those in your presentations.
Exxon to close two Houston office towers after worker exodus
Schlumberger posts $550M profit in Q3 amid rebounding oil demand
maguff…”Schlumberger posts $550M profit in Q3 amid rebounding oil demand…”
***
Aided largely by the Green movement which has switched sides and want oil companies to raise prices to deprive people of gasoline and other fossil fuel products.
Willard at 6:32 PM
I do like #41 (Europe 2009) better than any other version of that song.
I rather like the sound of *The Empyrean* this morning:
His version of Song to the Siren is rather cool:
https://tidal.com/browse/track/23266902
It seems that I still can’t stop laughing when I read the nonsense written about the German astronomer Mayer by ignoramuses like Robertson and Clint R.
Here is a nice example (posted by Clint R):
1. October 22, 2021 at 3:57 PM
Bindidon, you need to correct wikipedia:
“Mayer’s first important astronomical work was a careful investigation of the libration of the Moon (Kosmographische Nachrichten, Nuremberg, 1750)”
Or, admit you dont know anything about the issues…
2. October 22, 2021 at 6:10 PM
I wonder if Braindead Bindidon gets a “big, big laugh” when it’s revealed he doesn’t know squat about the people he finds on the Internet.
I do…
*
What is interesting is that such people usually refute any hint on Wikipedia: all what is found there is in their opinion no more than trash.
Unless, unless… Wikipedia exceptionally writes something that fits to their egocentric narrative :- ).
*
Yes: Wikipedia is wrong concerning Mayer, because Mayer indeed was not primarily busy with lunar libration.
On the contrary: he was able to show how the Moon can be observed without these distortions caused by the libration.
*
The most probable reason for the misrepresentation of Mayer’s work in Wiki is that the person(s) responsible for the Mayer page might have been highly influenced by articles about Mayer written by Eric Gray Forbes, a former professor for astronbomy and history of science at Edinburgh University.
*
Forbes himself, though having explicitly mentioned Mayer’s treatise about Moon’s rotation in the reference list of his main Mayer paper
https://tinyurl.com/9na67akj
did not write anything about what, according to Mayer, caused the lunar libration (in longitude), nor how Mayer exactly managed to find it out.
Nice smokescreen, Braindead Bindidon, but you’re caught again!
You didn’t realize that the museum honoring Mayer also lists the “Werke” by Mayer.
https://www.astronomie-nuernberg.de/index.php?category=personen&page=mayer-tobias
Kosmographische Nachrichten und Sammlungen auf das Jahr 1748. Nrnberg: Homann 1750 [New York Public Library]
Clint R
With each trial you become more and more ridiculous.
Of course I did realize that, you dumbie.
Where, do you think, did I discover the Mayer contributions of e.g. Armin Huettermann?
Give it up, and try to learn German: taht would allow you to understand his treatise.
Bindidon, your cult beliefs not only make you braindead, they also make you a sociopath.
I stated: “Bindidon, Mayer was making measurements of Moon’s surface (mapping), and observations of its libration. Moon does NOT rotate about its axis.”
Then you stated: “One more time, I reply that Mayer’s work didn’t have anything to do with libration.”
Then I pointed out Mayer’s “Werke”, mentioned by both wikipedia and Mayer’s museum.
And now, you continue with your denial!
You make this too easy.
Clint R
” Then I pointed out Mayer’s ‘Werke’, mentioned by both wikipedia and Mayers museum. ”
Why don’t you try to read them?
You would then understand that Mayer’s ‘Werke’ have nothing to do with libration.
I repeat, extra for you: the 130 pages of Mayer’s treatise over Moon’s rotation about its axis contain the word ‘libration’ ONLY ONCE.
Do you really believe that an astronomer who publishes a treatise about libration would write that word only at one single place? Really?
You are the one who stays in utter denial.
Clint R
Re.: Kosmographische Nachrichten auf das Jahr 1748 (the pdf file is 575 pages in size)
Here is the one and only reference to ‘Libration’
https://books.google.es/books?redir_esc=y&hl=de&id=nY5BAAAAcAAJ&q=Libration#v=snippet&q=Libration&f=false
Feel free to compare the output of the link above with that of the searfch for ‘Ansehung’ (in 1750, ‘in Ansehung’ was something similar to ‘with respect to’)
https://books.google.es/books?redir_esc=y&hl=de&id=nY5BAAAAcAAJ&q=Ansehung#v=snippet&q=Ansehung&f=false
Do you think you will get it now?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-943499
No, Clint R didn’t get it now.
He prefers to stay in his denial of evidence.
Evwen if I would translate Mayer’s work so he could understand it, he would continue to say it’s braindead cult.
So what!
I enjoy not to be a dumb denialist.
The third time’s the charm…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-943499
But it should be added that Eric Gray Forbes was not the only person who managed to ‘work around’ Tobias Mayer’s major results.
Gudrun Wolfschmidt, (meanwhile retired) professor of astronomy at the U Hamburg, wrote in a symposium on the occasion of the 250th anniversary of Tobias Mayer’s death, a laudation in which, as in Forbes ‘articles, Mayer’s treatise was included in the literature list, but in which, as in Forbes’ articles as well, the core work (period of lunar rotation and inclination of the polar axis relative to the Ecliptic) simply was kept invisible.
No wonder then if people think that Mayer’s work was about libration and statistics!
No: I won’t translate Mayer’s 130 pages long treatise in English.
Good news: Biden is finally building a border wall! Bad news: It’s just for the border of his $2 million beach house.
https://notthebee.com/article/good-news-biden-is-finally-building-a-border-wall-bad-news-its-just-for-the-border-of-his-2-million-beach-house
Why should Biden build a wall when his cowardly predecessor Trump canceled his own wall construction project?
Binny,
I don’t know.
Why don’t you tell me?
Bini the Marxist Propagandist. Always the propaganda.
–Bindidon says:
October 23, 2021 at 4:16 PM
Why should Biden build a wall when his cowardly predecessor Trump canceled his own wall construction project?–
Because he has $2 million beach house which would increase in value
with a border wall.
binny…”Forbes himself, though having explicitly mentioned Mayers treatise about Moons rotation in the reference list of his main Mayer paper …did not write anything about what, according to Mayer, caused the lunar libration (in longitude), nor how Mayer exactly managed to find it out”.
***
As Clint pointed out, you are out of touch with your heroes. Mayer was known best for his lunar tables, that allowed mariners of the time to predict their longitude by observing the Moon. Once an accurate clock was developed, it rendered his tables obsolete, and that is why he remains largely unknown.
As far as him being one of the greatest astronomers is a load of hooey. He was an expert on certain aspects of the Moon, not astronomy in general.
His treatment of the alleged Moon’s local rotation was poorly done. He tried to use a statistical analysis, using a theorized collection of points in the Moon. He made a major blunder, however, by presuming a centrifugal force that is not there in the kinematic analysis of the Moon’s motion.
He did not need to go through all that to explain libration. A nobody like me has done it using the characteristics of an ellipse.
three things to watch
short time ocean oscillations ElNino LaNina
long time ocean oscillations AMO PDO
Solar cycles
Grand Solar Minimum forecast
https://youtu.be/MUXUSoYmeTI?t=2520
rlh…”A gyro attached to the horse will show that it rotates about the gyro (which can be considered to be on an individual axis for this case)”.
***
How can it rotate about the gyro if the horse is bolted to the floor?
The gyro is not detecting rotation of the horse about its COG/axis, it is detecting a deviation in the orientation of the horse’s nose-to-tail axis. Orientation is not rotation about a local axis.
If you lay out your MGR on an x-y plane, centred at 0,0, and draw a radial line from 0,0 through the horse’s COG, that radial line will rotate about 0,0 as the MGR and the horse turn about 0,0.
Draw a line perpendicular to the radial line to represent the nose-to-tail axis of the horse. This line should be a tangent line to a circle traced out by the COG of the horse as the MGR turns. It is the change in orientation of this tangent line that will be detected by the gyro.
If you draw two more tangent lines, one to represent the near side of the horse to the MGR axis, and another to represent the far side of the horse, those tangent line represent an inner and an outer concentric circle to the circle traced by the COG.
It is plain to see that the inner side of the horse, the outer side, and the COG are all turning in concentric circles. Ergo, it is impossible for the horse to rotate about its COG.
You spinners need to get it straight that a change in orientation of the nose-to-tail axis of the horse is not rotation about its COG.
> it is impossible for the horse to rotate about its COG.
C’mon, Gordo. Think:
https://youtu.be/OZIB_leg75Q
willard…”> it is impossible for the horse to rotate about its COG.
Cmon, Gordo. Think:”
***
The horse is bolted to the floor of the MGR you ninny.
C’mon, Gordo. Think:
To what is bolted the floor?
Not-so-wily Wee Willy Idiot,
Who cares about your stupid gotchas?
The Moon is in free fall. That’s why you only see the bottom of the Moon when you look up!
Maybe if you and your fellow SkyDragons all concentrate really, really, hard, you can get the Moon to start spinning. Or you could try something easier first – getting pigs to fly!
Learn some physics, if you can spare the time from your infatuation with “silly semantic games”.
Mike Flynn,
Manuring Flirt,
If you ever built a deck, you’d know that bolting things to it means little when spring comes. It’s how your deck is anchored to the ground that matters. And even if you do a real good job at fixating your deck, it won’t prevent the Earth from spinning and rotating!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Worrying Wee Willy,
Oh, I see!
Now you attempt diversionary obfuscation – the standby of idiot climate crackpots! Decks, spring – fixated decks even – the Earth spinning and rotating! All completely irrelevant.
You are trying, Wee Willy, very trying.
The Moon continuously falls towards Earth. Flap your arms as much as you like – reality won’t take a holiday just because you can’t accept it.
Mike Flynn,
Multitudinous Freakishness,
The Earth’s gravity does not prevent the Moon from spinning. All it can do is to synchronize it with its orbiting the Earth.
Like the Earth and the Sun, eventually.
Just wait a few billion years!
Woeful Wee Willy,
Of course the Earth’s gravity has stopped the Moon spinning around an internal axis. How could it not?
The Moon is not a perfectly homogenous sphere. That’s the sort of unrealistic and nonsensical assumption that a balding, bearded, bumbling buffoon might make, trying to pass off amateurish computer animations as “experiments”!
Next thing, some idiot will claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun makes the thermometer hotter!
Ridiculous, I know, but some weak-minded people have been convinced that it’s true!
Hard to believe, but it takes all kinds, as they say.
Mike Flynn,
Malnourished Fountainhead,
You ask–
“How could it not?”
The answer is quite simple:
Gravity is not a brake pedal!
Just look at all the other moons.
Even you should be able to see that!
Aw diddums!
“How can it rotate about the gyro if the horse is bolted to the floor?”
As seen from the gyro (wherever it is placed) the object it is attached to rotates about it.
All Gyros on a merry-go-round, at its center, each individual horse, etc. will show exactly the same rotation as seen by the gyro.
“If you lay out your MGR on an x-y plane, centred at 0,0, and draw a radial line from 0,0 through the horse’s COG, that radial line will rotate about 0,0 as the MGR and the horse turn about 0,0.”
And what if we choose that x-y plane to have (0,0) at the horse’s COM? Everything you say after than applies exactly the same.
Truly, I would like to know what SPECIFICALLY people think differentiates the two. No insults. No “anyone could see that …”.
Sure, the x-y plane is now translating around. But it was translating before, as the earth turned and the moon caused the earth to wobble and the sun flew around the center of the galaxy. For what fundamental reason is the one complicated translation OK, but the other only slightly more complicated translational forbidden?
*********************************************
Conversely, if we talk about the moon instead, it is clear the moon does NOT trace out a circle around any center. Draw two more tangent lines to the inside and outside of the horse, and these do not trace out concentric circles. (They don’t even trace out ‘concentric ellipses’, however you might want to define that concept.) The inside and outside DO trace circles if you draw the radial lines from the COM of the moon, not from the COM of the erath-moon system.
**********************************
So the only conclusion from your own discussion about what ‘rotation’ means is that that moon does NOT ‘rotate’ about the earth (nor the earth-moon barycenter, nor any similar point). Yes, a moon in a perfectly circular orbit could be considered to be rotating about the barycenter, but even the slightest eccentricity, and the moon no longer rotates around the barycenter.
Folkerts, did you have a point in all that rambling, other than attempting to pervert reality?
Tim, upthread where we were talking yesterday, Ftop_t has written a comment addressed to you. Perhaps he can explain it to you in a way you will understand.
All Flop did was to prove that it was possible to construct a rotation on an external axis, Kiddo. That only refutes the idea that it’d impossible to do so, which nobody argues.
What Flop still misses from his construction is some physics.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
“How can it rotate about the gyro if the horse is bolted to the floor?”
When looking at the gyro from the horse does the gyro change in its direction as the MGR rotates? Yes.
When looking at the horse from the gyro does the horse change in its direction as the MGR rotates? Yes.
Just 2 different points of view of the same thing.
…and, regardless, the wooden horse on the MGR has only one axis of rotation, which does not go through the body of the wooden horse.
…as observed from the horse.
No, as observed from anywhere.
… anywhere on the horse.
Deliberate irritant, cease.
Correcting your writing is being helpful, not an irritant.
Deliberate irritant, begone.
No reliable counter points? I thought so.
Deliberate irritant, desist.
–I stand with SpaceX and want them to have full approval to do as many launches as they need to make this system actually work, said one participant, Aiden Girlya, at the Oct. 20 hearing, in a comment representative of many of the pro-SpaceX views aired at the meetings. I do not believe they should be limited to a certain amount. They should be able to do as many launches as they need to because we have not seen any environmental impacts so far.
Others emphasized the economic benefits of having SpaceX in the area, arguing they outweighed any environmental impacts. Jessica Tetreau-Kalifa, a Brownsville, Texas, city commissioner, said at the Oct. 18 hearing that SpaceX had turned the city from one of the poorest in the country to one of the most sought-after ZIP codes to live and work. I dont just ask you, I beg you to give them that permit.
Opponents of SpaceXs plans argued that the environmental impacts are already significant and that the draft PEA underestimates the even larger impacts of orbital launches. Bill Berg, a member of a nonprofit group called Save RGV that is opposed to a Boca Chica launch site, noted Oct. 20 that the number of nests of piping plovers, a threatened bird species, had dropped in the area from 41 three years ago to one this year.
Those opponents called on the FAA to require the development of an environmental impact statement (EIS), a more details environmental review, before issuing a launch license. Development of an EIS would take months or potentially years, delaying SpaceXs plans.–
https://spacenews.com/spacex-boca-chica-environmental-review-draws-strong-public-support-and-criticism/
Starship could launch in November, if FAA approve this launch.
gbaikie…”Opponents of SpaceXs plans argued that the environmental impacts are already significant and that the draft PEA underestimates the even larger impacts of orbital launches”.
***
These clowns won’t be happy till we’re freezing in the dark and riding around in horse-drawn buggies. Till now, we have endured them, the time has come to start kicking their sorry butts.
The FAA is allowing public comment until Nov 1 2021.
[[Personally, I wish I was living in the region as it seems rather significant and exciting event.]]
But there all kinds of people with varying ideas and having such public comment period, could possibly provide information that could be helpful to FAA in order to make their decision.
In past it seems FAA has been doing pretty job generally and I am somewhat confident they will not screw this up- though there could be stuff which is brought to light that could result in actually require a further delay.
Of course this about the first test launch of super heavy booster, which when operational is planned to be the powerful rocket to take off from a launch pad.
Hmm.
I am wondering how many people are going to show up to watch the launch- I hope they have a plan on how to deal with a potential of large amount visitors.
In terms of environmental impact, it seems large crowds could be the most significant issue.
maguff…”As Ive noted in prior posts, our scientists and researchers were among the first to grapple with the fact there might be a connection between the carbon dioxide emissions from humanitys use of fossil fuels and climate fluctuations”.
***
“…there ***might*** be a connection between the carbon dioxide emissions from humanitys use of fossil fuels and climate fluctuations”.
Great science…there MIGHT be a relationship.
R.W. Wood proved in 1909 that the underlying premise that CO2 is warming the atmosphere is misguided. One basis of the stupidity (AGW) is that CO2 can absorb infrared radiation. Then there is a leap of faith in how that translates to the atmosphere.
So, some wannabee scientists have extended the pseudo-science behind the alleged greenhouse effect (GHE) which is based on the rubbish that infrared energy is trapped by the glass in a greenhouse. No one has explained how that causes warming, it is all presumed.
R. W. Wood, a world renowned expert on the properties of gases like CO2, doubted that was the case. He devised an experiment to show clearly that a modeled greenhouse with glass, which traps IR and another with halite, which does not, rose to the same temperature.
Wood concluded that warming in a greenhouse had nothing to do with trapped IR but was solely due to the lack of convection.
Not to be put off by actual science, the alarmists continued to compare the molecules of a trace gas in the atmosphere to the glass in a real greenhouse. They claimed CO2 traps heat without having the slightest idea what heat is and how it can be trapped. The real glass in a greenhouse blocks molecules of air (99% nitrogen and oxygen) from rising as they are heated. How the heck do a few molecules of CO2 block molecules of air from rising?
So, yes, 1909 is significant in that no one has proved Wood wrong. Some wannabee in the States claims to have done that but he messed up the Wood experiment by substituting plastic wrap for glass. In doing so, the twit trapped water vapour in the housings and skewed the results.
> no one has proved Wood wrong
C’mon, Gordo:
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
Read. Then think.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You obviously don’t realise that Vaughan Pratt did not duplicate R W Wood’s experimental setup.
Vaughan even attempted to replicate his initial results after being justifiably criticised.
Unfortunately, his shambolic and misguided “experiment” merely showed that he couldn’t even appreciate why Wood set up his experiment as he did. Nor do you.
Feel free to try to disprove Wood’s results. How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
Manufacturing Fenestrations,
You might have missed:
Aw diddums!
willard…”Woods apparatus and methodology are unsuited to answering his question as to whether IR-trapping materials are capable of significant warming, because the addition of glass to the salt box rendered the two boxes either the same or differing at most in the amount of glass used”.
***
As Swenson said, neither you nor the author of the piece above seem to understand what Wood was trying to prove. He was not trying to prove that IR-trapping(???) materials are incapable of significant warming, he was trying to prove that IR trapping had nothing to do with the warming in a greenhouse.
A greenhouse does not warm because IR is trapped by the glass, it warms because all molecules in the air-mix try to rise when the interior of the greenhouse and the soil are heated when solar SW energy is absorbed by them. Normally, without the glass, the molecules would continue to rise but the glass prevents that, hence trapping molecules of gas, not IR.
Wood correctly identified the cause of the heating, a lack of convection to allow the heated molecules to escape. In the atmosphere, there is no such trapping and the air continues to rise, allowing the surface to cool.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
I missed nothing. Vaughan, being an incompetent amateur climate crackpot, didn’t have the brains to realise why Wood did what he did. Look into things a bit further, and see why Vaughan abandoned attempts to show that Wood was wrong.
Next time, try appealing to a real authority. If you can find one who supports your looney ideas, that is!
Good luck with that.
Mike Flynn,
Mediocre Fool,
You said absolutely nothing.
Begone, troll!
willard…re Pratt’s folly…dealing with you is like taking candy from a baby.
Here’s an in-depth scientific analysis of the three main experiments of Wood, Pratt, and Nahle.
https://principia-scientific.com/the-famous-wood-s-experiment-fully-explained/
Vaughn Pratt is a computer programmer for cripes sake. What would he know about science? He was so stupid, he used saran wrap on the box that showed a higher temperatures. The saran wrap trapped moisture in the box, skewing the readings.
Wood was a physicist who was so renowned, Neils Bohr consulted him about sodium vapour.
Seems you thrive on making a fool of yourself, Willy.
Gordo,
C’mon. Nasif’s crap has been refuted more than a decade ago:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-36702
Read the whole thread for more. Or at least what remains of it. Judy had to zamboni it because JohnO’s a big baby.
Think.
Witless Wee Willy,
Oh, another bizarre “waste your time because I will have a tantrum if you don’t'” demand, is it?
The problem is that climate cranks cannot provide any experimental support for lunatic assertions that increased CO2 in a mixture of gases will somehow make thermometers hotter!
Keep flogging that dead horse, Wee Willy! Maybe it will come to life, but it looks totally moribund to me. Maybe you could appeal to the authority of a world famous climate scientist! If you can find one, let me know. I always enjoy a good laugh!
WWW
Just curious, in your exchanges with Dmitry do you feel owned? Because observing from afar seems like you should.
Glad to see you here, Pozzo.
Interesting that water vapor is considered important to this experiment but that RH is not when considering weather station measurements.
Does anyone share the opinion atmosphere keeps Earth’s surface +33C warmer?
I mean the widely accepted view which claims without atmosphere Earth would have been a snowball planet. It says atmosphere is the cause average surface temperature is not 255K but it is 288K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This is an IQ test, isn’t it!
The atmosphere and oceans allow for better heat retention than if they were not there. But, that’s not the bogus GHE. The bogus GHE says if you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, it will raise surface temperatures. That doesn’t happen. Adding more CO2 allows for slight cooling, as more emission to space happens.
That means that all the warming that has occurred since the LIA is due to natural variation, mainly ocean oscillations.
Clint R
You posted this nonsense already and I showed you it was totally wrong. You still like to make up false ideas and present them as fact even after proven wrong. Amazingly stupid. It is okay to be wrong with ignorance (which you have an abundance) but to continue saying things that are proven wrong is stupid.
Why do you think adding more CO2 will increase emission to space?
Again I will show you why this is wrong. You will not understand the link and say something that is really stupid but that will not stop you. You seem proud of your arrogant stupid mind. Weird personality. Most change when proven wrong. Not your or Gordon Robertson.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Since you are too stupid to use this tool I will inform you. I set the atmosphere to standard atmosphere. With 0 CO2 present the outgoing IR is 295.976 W/m^2. If you input 400 CO2 with all the other values the same you get 267.842 W/m^2 to space. The CO2 reduces the amount by 28.134 W/m^2. You are a blithering idiot that is clueless about any science and you can’t learn. Wow you are dumb person! Sad that you are proud of this fact.
N,
You are an idiot twice over!
First, the majority of the Sun’s output is IR. I hope you are not assuming that the atmosphere allows all radiation from the Sun to reach the surface, because even NASA would tell you that you are wrong.
Second, it makes no difference what the radiative flux to space is. Cooling is cooling, not heating. Heat does not “accumulate”, and anybody that thinks it does is just plain stupid, stupid, stupid.
That would be you, I suppose. The Earth has cooled from the molten state to its present temperature. All quite natural. No magic involved. If you truly believe you can heat the Earth with your magic CO2 wand, I’m sure the populations in cold places would pay you handsomely.
You are a delusional fool.
[laughing]
Swenson
You are just wrong. Accept that. YOU: “Second, it makes no difference what the radiative flux to space is. Cooling is cooling, not heating.”
You are clueless. It does matter how much energy is going to space. There is a constant solar input. If less leaves then the surface warms up (with same solar input). If you can’t understand this bother Willard as you are then too stupid to have a rational conversation with. Clint R is about as stupid as I can tolerate. If you can’t grasp that concept you go to the lower levels of stupid thought process. It is hard to become as stupid as Clint R but you are trying very hard to get there. Not sure why.
N,
Maybe you are unaware of the phenomenon called “nighttime”. This occurs regularly, and allows all the heat of the day to escape to space. The surface temperature drops as this happens.
You will deny this, of course, as it is antithetical to climate crank dogma.
You might even deny that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a much hotter state!
Nature doesn’t care about your fantasies, and neither do I.
Carry on.
Norman, MODTRAN is a computer model. Did you know I could program a computer to give whatever results I want? Strawberries absorb IR, so I could write a program where strawberries could heat Earth hotter than Sun.
Clint R
You are not intelligent enough to program a computer and you are too stupid to understand the physics behind the MODTRAN model.
You will never be able to understand the GHE because you are just that stupid. Your strawberry point is another one of your endless stupid comments like baking a turkey with ice cubes or boiling water with ice cubes. It shows how totally ignorant you are of the actual science. You could read it in a textbook but that would require thinking and effort. You are not only arrogant and stupid, you also are very lazy. Too lazy to tape a rubber band to the top of a can and run a test. That is extreme laziness.
Stupid, arrogant and lazy. Not much to brag about but you do brag.
Norman, I’m sure enjoying your meltdown. It’s too bad you can’t change reality with your tantrums, huh?
PS Do you have a link to that NASA rubber-band/tape/can experiment. I bet that’s as amusing as your meltdowns.
Clint R
Amazing how stupid you are, you could not produce an intelligent comment if you had to. Just stupid post after stupid post.
Really amazing how little thinking ability you have. Question, since you are actually a stupid person with limited knowledge of science, why are you so arrogant? What drives that sense of superior knowledge in you when you know that you are ignorant of any actual science and too lazy to read any.
Idiot that can’t tape a rubber band to a can. Wow your really are a dumb one!
Did you lose that link, Norman?
No hurry. Maybe you can find it after your tantrum is over.
4 billion years ago the Earth rotates every five hours, since slowed by th moon to 24 hours.
https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/11/28/3642932.htm
What does your theory predict for the change in temperature over that time and how does it compare with reality?
Ent, your mathematician Rosemary knows nothing about science or physics. Her example of angular momentum was comical.
Thanks for the laugh.
According to Christos Vournas, I believe the higher spin would cause a warmer planet. Therefore the planet should have cooled with the slower spin. Christos, can you comment?
Thank you Stephen.
4 Bya Earth was very different then now. Sun was a new star with weaker irradiance…
If we consider a planet with Earth features rotating (24h/day)/5day = 4,8 rot/day, or 4,8 times faster it surely would be warmer.
Since Earth has a vast water surface and atmosphere, we cannot estimate the planetary average Albedo, because for a warmer Earth Albedo would be necessarily higher.
The New equation is for planets without atmosphere mean surface temperatures… the planets Albedo in equation are measured by NASA.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Gordon Robertson
You claim that the atmosphere is like Wood’s greenhouse.
Convection carries heat up to the tropopause, at which point convection stops and the heat …. dissipates.
You don’t say what form the heat takes after it dissipates or where it goes. You just expect it to disappear.
LOT violation!
Exxon has no further need to hedge by contributing to climate change deniers’ organizations; there is now 99.9 percent agreement that greenhouse gas emissions have caused the climate of our planet to change.
All Exxon had to do was review its 1982 report.
Figure 3: GROWTH OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 AND AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE AS A FUNCTION OF TIME
8000 years of CO2 and temperature going in the opposite directions against your 60
https://i.postimg.cc/rpKn1d7Y/GISP2-Temperature-Since10700-BP-with-CO2-from-EPICA-Dome-C.gif
Let me raise you, Eboy:
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fnature06763/MediaObjects/41586_2008_Article_BFnature06763_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://ibb.co/8gp8vF5
Exxon is 99.9% wrong.
That’s why they’re losing money.
You have to be braindead to be an oil company and lose money with rising oil prices.
You’re not an investor, Pup, and it shows.
Wrong again, Dud.
You’re a worthless troll, and it shows.
Tell me, Pup:
What’s the profit margin of oil companies when the barrel is at 60 bucks?
2. Pinned down, Just Ask Questions
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-939165
Wrong again, Pup.
You forgot to pin down:
https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
Willard at 10:47 AM
The first thing to know is that $ 60/Bbl is the benchmark price which has to be adjusted for quality because not all oils are created equal.
Next you deduct: operating costs, transportation, depreciation, overhead; local, state and federal taxes; interest; and you are left with about 30 to 40 percent of the benchmark price.
And let’s not forget the overvaluation of most if not all the FF stocks!
If either of the two braindead cult idiots had a clue, they would know WTI closed Friday over $80/bbl.
Right on, Pup — the first time since 2014.
Seven years ago.
Exxon is owned by shareholders (ie Blackrock) that want Exxon to stop producing oil.
All public companies, XOM and BLK included, have a fiduciary responsibility to conduct business for the benefit of their shareholders. As long as a project meets the hurdle rate of return it should be pursued.
XOM has a responsibility to conduct business for the benefit of their shareholders. Recently a lot of people with ‘green’ agendas such as BLK are becoming stakeholders with enough holdings to influence votes on policy direction.
BP is no longer in the oil business; they are transforming to be a ‘green’ energy company. Sure they still produce oil; but they’re not looking to add to their portfolio of oil assets.
Exxon was forced to put two ‘green’ asshats on their board of directors.
A lot of banks have been forced by ‘investors’ with an agenda, to stop lending to oil and coal companies with the net result of much higher gas prices for you and I.
Its not fair to small investors who have no way to predict these fundamental changes and end up having to sell out at a loss.
There’s a simple solution, Kennui —
Become a gold nut, like so many other climate contrarians.
Ken at 4:49 PM
BLK is a public company too with a fiduciary to its shareholders. BLK’s stake in XOM has to meet the hurdle rate of all other investments carried by the fund.
To your “small investors” I say, if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
“Deep time” and AGW are false religions, TM.
It’s important to learn to differentiate between false religions and science.
Pup is long on “But Religion”:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
Cranks are fond of fringe moves.
MCGuffin, this is nothing but more propaganda from a science denier trying to give false credibility to AGW hypothesis by comparing it to other fields of study. AGW is definitely is not established truth.
Unlike ‘deep time’, continental drift, and asteroid strikes, AGW is not supported by empirical evidence.
> AGW is not supported by empirical evidence.
Wrongo:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
AGW is not supported by empirical evidence.
Whereas your assertion was warranted ca. 1896 when Svante Arrhenius was calculating the effect of atmospheric CO2 on global temperature, it is unsupported by evidence in today’s world. Providing a citation to one peer reviewed reference is the least you could do.
Shut up with your idiotic peer-reviewed evidence bullshit. Ed Berry’s recent paper is peer-reviewed and you propagandists attack the paper or the work and you haven’t even read it or examined the math, or falsified the math. It isn’t about science with you. It is about advancing the agenda. So shut up with your scientific pretense.
There’s zero evidence you read Ed’s paper, Troglodyte.
All I see is a pre-print, btw:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/
Willard at 1:01 PM
https://tinyurl.com/Why-Ed-Berry-is-Full-of-Shit
Willard at 1:01 PM
That mathematics is on Berry’s side. All of his assertions are backed up by mathematics. Name one thing he misrepresents.
There are many in the American Meteorological society who agree with Berry’s position. All you have to do is falsify Berry’s paper. He’s falsified the IPCC carbon cycle.
>Theres zero evidence you read Eds paper, Troglodyte.
I’m in his acknowledgements.
TM, observing that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing is “empirical evidence”, that CO2 is increasing.
But tying CO2 increase to temperature increase is where science stops and your cult beliefs start.
> observing that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing is “empirical evidence,” that CO2 is increasing.
That’s not empirical science, Pup.
That’s a tautology.
Witless Wee Willy,
“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.” – Richard Feynman.
Are you really too stupid to realise that you brainless climate crackpots can’t even produce a theory which doesn’t make everybody with any sense roll around the floor laughing?
Give it a try, dummy.
Here are a few hints to get you started. Include the words CO2 and temperature. Make sure your “theory” is stated in such a way that experiment could conclusively demonstrate that it is wrong.
Only joking, I know you can’t. Nor can any other climate crank.
Back to your “silly semantic games”, laddie. Have you managed to win one yet?
Mike Flynn,
Mediocre Fool,
As Dick also said-
You’re a hell of a long way from the pituitary, man!
Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wandering Wee Willy,
I guess you can’t even find a theory, then?
You should just make some irrelevant and obscure comment – maybe some onlookers might think you couldn’t possibly be as stupid as you appear.
They would be wrong, wouldn’t they?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Manly Flavourless,
You don’t know your Dick very well, do you?
Here’s another one I like —
“Under no circumstances be a gentleman! You must disrespect the girls.”
Dick was a bit of a dick, don’t you think?
Aw diddums!
Wonky Wee Willy,
Yes, you probably are as stupid as your peculiar comments suggest.
Still can’t produce an AGW “theory”, can you?
Hardly surprising – “climate science” is an oxymoron. Just a bunch of second raters, unable to achieve recognition in any form of “real” science – you know, physics, that sort of thing.
You might as well stick to diversionary attempts to avoid the fact that CO2 has no effect on thermometers. Production of CO2 by combustion does create heat, of course, much to the horror of delusional characters like James Hansen, et.al.
Not terribly bright, climate cranks. No wonder they all have to work for the Government, one way or the other. Nobody else would pay them for their predictions of doom.
maguff…”he fails to mention that his poster was not subjected to a peer review for scientific credibility…”
1)Scientific credibility is not dependent on peer review. Nothing in the scientific method requires peer review.
2)The HIV/AIDS theory was never subjected to peer review.
Mike Flynn,
Morning Fictionalization,
The point you’re trying to dodge is quite simple:
Pup illustrated empirical science with a truism.
That’s so simple even you can understand that!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Peer reviewed paper
Spectral analysis of 2000 year global proxy temperature data
Weiss, Carl Otto ; Luedecke, Horst-Joachim
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EGUGA..20.4924W/abstract
Link won’t work; you’ll have to look it up by the title.
There a book of papers.
‘Evidence Based Climate Science’, edited by Don Easterbrook.
ISBN-10 : 0123859565
ISBN-13 : 978-0123859563
Let me know if you want more.
Product description
From the Back Cover
Climate change is arguably the most important and most controversial environmental science issue of our time. The debate over its causes continues in the scientific community and in the media without true consensus about the role of greenhouse gas emissions as a contributing factor.
Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming objectively gathers and analyzes a vast amount of scientific data from experts in meteorology, geology, atmospheric physics, solar physics, geophysics, climatology, and computer modeling. It examines patterns of past climate changes, influences of changes in ocean temperatures, the effects of solar variation, and the effect of CO2 to clearly present counter-global warming evidence not embraced by proponents of CO2.
Key features:
Authored by the worlds leading climate scientists, each with more than 25 years of experience in the field
Offers an unbiased analysis of scientific data―readers can see for themselves the evidence for the amount and timing of global temperature changes
Includes extensive analysis of the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its role in global warming
Provides comprehensive citations, references, and bibliography
Presents adaptation strategies as alternative reactions to greenhouse gas emission reductions
About the Author
Dr. Don Easterbrook has done extensive research into the of global climate changes, global warming and cooling, as well as the cause of abrupt global climate changes at the end of the last Ice Age. He studies the relationship of 25-30 year glacial and ocean warming and cooling cycles to solar variation and global warming and cooling. Additionally, he has analyzed the correlation of Quaternary inter-hemispheric climate changes, the of radiocarbon marine reservoir values, Holocene glaciation of the Cascade Range, and the Holocene climate changes, otherwise known as The Little Ice Age. He has analyzed the tephra and lahar chronology of Mt. Baker, and has extensively used shorelines to determine isostatic uplift rates in the Puget Lowland.
Conference proceedings are not peer reviewed, Kennui.
Whining Wee Willy,
Peer reviewed?
That includes nonsense like this –
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”
Peer reviewed and all, but a complete and utter load of balderdash! Only fools like you willingly accept such rubbish as serious science!
What about the more than 30,000 peer reviewed papers retracted in the past few years? Still keen on believing nonsense because it has been “peer reviewed” by other incompetents?
Maybe you could find a peer reviewed AGW theory, but it would have to be immediately retracted on the basis that a consensus of idiots is not part of the scientific method.
Mike Flynn,
Missed Fireshot,
Ken wrote —
“Peer reviewed paper”
It wasn’t?
Get it?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Whickering Wee Willy,
And that is important because . . . ?
Is the paper factual or not?
Next thing you’ll be claiming that peer reviewed publications by dimwits like Schmidt, Mann, and Trenberth represent scientific fact!
Accept reality, dimwit!
Swenson, here is quote from Mark Twain ‘Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.’
Ken,
I can’t help it. I was brought up to feel obliged to help those less fortunate than myself.
I’d challenge poor Wee Willy to a battle of wits, but it’s bad form to duel with an unarmed opponent. So I am happy to let Wee Willy to put his foot in his mouth, and then shoot himself in the foot, so to speak.
Wee Willy doesn’t need my help to be a dimwit. His odd attempts at flattery, by imitating me, fall flat – doesn’t posssess my innate flair and panache. In any case, lurkers are free to make up their own minds as to Wee Willy’s precarious mental state – or otherwise.
Oh well, I have to agree with Mark Twain, but I am a victim of my upbringing. At least Wee Willy seems to be a suitable object for my compassion. Even fleas have uses, I suppose, let alone pathetic creatures like Wee Willy.
Onwards and upwards!
Mike Flynn,
Mentoring Friction,
Please do continue to ridicule Kennui’s points.
Most obliged!
Ken
Simply put your link in tinyurl.com, and you get this:
https://tinyurl.com/dv4jxbn9
Ken
Concerning Luedecke, I wouldn’t wonder him writing anything else: he is the major press officer at EIKE, the German ultrasceptic site, which is financed by the German fuel industry like WUWT is by Heartland and GWPF.
And referring to Luedecke and Easterbrook: that is like the inverse of the CO2 alarmists.
Meaning in the middle of such a broad spectrum would be more welcome.
There are two paradigms in the climate sciences.
a. The climate model projections.
b. The empirical data.
The empirical data does not in any way support the climate model projections. The AGW hypothesis hangs entirely on the climate model projections.
Any other field of science the climate model projections would be understood to be scientifically false.
There is no middle ground.
> There is no middle ground.
There actually is, Kennui, in fact that’s all there is.
Without data a theory is blind.
Without a theory data are void.
> Meaning in the middle of such a broad spectrum would be more welcome
The luckwarmer gambit is an old one, Binny.
It’s as silly as comparing Nazis who kill people with Antifas who smash windows.
Theory: Carbon Dioxide does not cause significant warming or other changes to climate at atmospheric concentrations above 400 ppm.
Data: the empirical data indicates there are no significant changes to the climate that can be attributed to causes other than natural cycles.
See the graph at the top of this blog.
No middle ground.
Prior to 20th century it was recognized that earth went thru period of glaciation and interglacial periods.
In early part of 20th {before plate tectonic and the on going impact of planetary bodies was accept- recent impactors was slowly accepted after the Apollo program as it once argued lunar crater were volcanic rather than mostly from impactors} it was suggested that CO2 levels caused glaciation and interglacial periods. This was proven to be wrong.
And we presently don’t know what causes glaciation and interglacial periods, other than the seems to be related to changes in earth’s orbit [Milankovitch cycles].
It also known we have been and will continue to be in 34 million year old ice age, which is called “Late Cenozoic Ice Age, or Antarctic Glaciation”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
It was once thought we entered Late Cenozoic Ice Age during reduction of CO2 due to “weathering process”- this has also been disproven.
So currently we don’t know what causes interglaciation and glaciation period. Nor do we know exactly why our oceans became so cold- other than the location of Antarctica moving at south pole is related, or one called now, the “Late Cenozoic Ice Age, or Antarctic Glaciation” or beginning Antarctic Glaciation marks beginning of our Age.
In my opinion {and others} Earth climate is not about our atmosphere, but is about our ocean.
gbaikie, AIUI, the earth appears to be experiencing a series of Ice Ages interspersed with infrequent, short Interglacials. This oscillation is thought to be due to the Milankovitch astronomical cycles, beginning perhaps 3.2 million years BP. Before that, during the Pliocene, the Earth was warmer than today and did not exhibit the cycles of the Ice Ages.
One possible cause for this transition was the closing of the Isthmus of Panama, which blocked the equatorial flow of waters from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans while atmospheric circulation moved fresh water over the barrier. Over time, the Mid Atlantic became saltier and the Pacific less, thus providing the start for the Thermohaline sinking in the high latitude North Atlantic. The sinking process is also strengthened by the seasonal growth of sea-ice, which results in additional salt entering the cold surface waters, which then sink to the depths of the North Atlantic. A similar process occurs around the Antarctic, which produces the coldest, deepest waters in the Atlantic.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X05004048?via%3Dihub
–October 24, 2021 at 1:37 PM
gbaikie, AIUI, the earth appears to be experiencing a series of Ice Ages interspersed with infrequent, short Interglacials. This oscillation is thought to be due to the Milankovitch astronomical cycles, beginning perhaps 3.2 million years BP. Before that, during the Pliocene, the Earth was warmer than today and did not exhibit the cycles of the Ice Ages.–
I don’t know. It seems the Milankovitch astronomical cycles have always effected global climate. But as I said, we don’t know how it works, exactly
Or never seen an argument of when they began to effect global climate.
I read that Greenland in last couple million year become a “permanent ice cap”. Or after glaciation period, instead melting during interglacial period, it didn’t.
Or glaciation period currently, is when temperate zones develop more glaciers and peak glaciation occur when get continental ice sheet- on some continent other the permanent ice sheet on the Antarctica continent.
And Greenland is an island.
So, it seem one have cold periods which not counted as glaciation period. Or we can argue about definition.
And in such argument, one could argue we already begun entering into a glaciation period.
But I would instead talk about temperature of the ocean. A cold period is when ocean is 3 C or colder, and warm period is 4 C or warmer.
And 3.5 C is in doubt. 🙂
Another metric is the amount of deserts. Currently it’s said 1/3rd of all land areas are deserts. Cooler periods have more deserts, warmer periods have less deserts.
Or since the Holocene had green Sahara desert, we can count the Holocene as interglacial period.
Another metric might be when all polar sea all melts. Or when are polar sea within arctic circle remains frozen year round.
So Holocene also had that in the arctic
Wiki:
The Late Cenozoic Ice Age has seen extensive ice sheets in Antarctica for the last 34 Ma. During the last 3 Ma, ice sheets have also developed on the northern hemisphere. That phase is known as the Quaternary glaciation, and was marked by more or less extensive glaciation. They first appeared with a dominant frequency of 41,000 years, but after the Mid-Pleistocene Transition that changed to high-amplitude cycles, with an average period of 100,000 years. And:
” The marine record preserves all the past glaciations; the land-based evidence is less complete because successive glaciations may wipe out evidence of their predecessors. Ice cores from continental ice accumulations also provide a complete record, but do not go as far back in time as marine data.”
My note, ocean surface is only about 200 million years. Or best record is not that old when consider the list of all the other ice ages:
Known ice ages:
Pongola 2900–2780 {million}
Sturt 715–680
Marino 650–635
Gaskiers 580
Baykonur 547
Andean-Saharan 450–420
(incl. Hirnantian and
Late Ordovician glaciation)
Karoo 360–289
And finally, now:
Late Cenozoic Ice Age 34–present
(incl. Quaternary glaciation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
ES,
“Pleistocene climate is characterized by a persistent succession of glacial-to-interglacial cycles driven by orbital forcing.”
You really can’t see anything in that opening sentence that might be speculation presented as fact?
I suppose that if you can’t, you might well be gullible enough to accept the authors’ conclusions.
Carry on.
Swenson/Flynn, the second sentence reads:
That report was a reference from gbaikie’s link and it presents the results of considerable oceanographic work. I only just found it and can’t say that I’ve fully digested it. Perhaps you didn’t read past the first sentence, since you’ve shown no understanding of the contents in your reply.
ES,
So you accept thre opening sentence as fact, without reservation?
Fair enough if you are a dedicated climate cultist. If you really can’t see anything wrong with even the opening sentence, then there is no point trying to point out the obvious.
Swenson/Flynn, If you find reason to question that first sentence, why do you continue to pass up on the opportunity to provide us with another example your deep wisdom? You might start by critiquing THIS GRAPH from gbaikies link.
ES,
You seem to be employing one of the usual cultist ploys to weasel out of admitting you are a gullible wee climate crank.
Why should I take any notice of a self admitted gullible unthinking ignoramus?
If you want to critique somebody’s comment, go your hardest. That’s your affair, not mine. Why you would expect me to do your work for you, has got me stumped!
Here’s a hint – speculation unsupported by experimentation is just speculation. If you want to accept speculation as fact, good for you. I accept some speculations about the future as being good enough to bet my life on – my aircraft won’t fall out of the sky with me in it, my motor vehicle will go in the direction I point it, and so on.
Speculation about CO2 in the atmosphere raising surface temperatures, on the other hand, is pure fantasy. Would you bet your life on it? If so, what concrete actions have you taken to avoid any disaster you foresee?
Pffffft!
Swenson/Flynn, That paper from which you copied the first sentence was about paleoclimate, that is, the Earth’s climate history. The authors present lots of data which evidences the climate changes between 3.3 and 2.5 million yers BP associated with the closure of the narrow land bridge between North and South America.
There’s nothing in there regarding the effects of humanities addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. But, as the old saying goes, those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it.
Monday La Nina update Ensamble
You know La Nina – that thing that Bindiblindon cannot see – that one
https://i.postimg.cc/W4Tm9V3h/Comparison.jpg
Conversely, I see things that people like you persistently negate:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Sea.html
I would prefer to see all these pictures in 100 % white.
Then you will have no objection to this CFS v2 forecast
https://imgur.com/aTpC05f
Bindiblindons cat always finds the warmest spot in the house
your argument is invalid
https://i.postimg.cc/qvC3T9j8/invalid.jpg
To that forecast I agreed at least 6 months ago, after having admitted that my ‘impressions were wrong.
But, as opposed to me, some never admit having been wrong.
Bindiblindon and his forecast – Ha ha ha haaah
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-751890
It’s not about being wrong about forecast, anybody can be wrong with forecasting , it’s about how stupidly you go about it
tim…”And what if we choose that x-y plane to have (0,0) at the horse’s COM? Everything you say after than applies exactly the same”.
***
There is a reality that is actually there, the real physical world, and we can call that actuality. There is a reality created by human thought that has no existence. Why do you persist in living in the latter?
Why would anyone choose an orbiting body as the centre of rotation when the body about which is is orbiting is the real-world centre of the orbit? In a study of the lunar orbit, a philosopher might have a reason to play with mental images but in real science, no one cares about reference frames unless they are pertinent to relative motion.
You spinner are trying to obfuscate your way out of an obvious real-world situation. The Moon orbit the Earth, that’s the physical reality. You can’t get out of that by using a frames of reference based on the Moon, even if NASA tries to do that as well.
My three tangent lines, always moving parallel to each other, are valid and prove without a doubt that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis. Even if you use the Moon as the 0,0 position, the same holds true.
> Why would anyone choose an orbiting body as the centre of rotation when the body about which is is orbiting is the real-world centre of the orbit?
C’mon, Gordo.
Heliocentrists asked the same silly question.
Try to think from time to time.
C’mon Wee Willy,
Is that really the best you can do?
Rhetorical question, of course.
Mike Flynn,
Meritorious Flunker.
>Why would anyone choose an orbiting body as the centre of rotation when the body about which is is orbiting is the real-world centre of the orbit?
Because the orbiting body is NOT *rotating* about that ‘real-world centre’. As simple as that.
Rotation about an axis *means* a circular path around the axis. The moon does not do that around the earth-moon barycenter. The moon *does* do that about it’s own axis.
Also: “The Moon orbit the Earth, thats the physical reality. ”
Yes. But you keep conflating the words “orbit” and “rotate”. The moon absolutely does “orbit” the earth. The moon absolutely does NOT “rotate” around the earth.
“The moon *does* do that about it’s own axis.”
Only if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the right”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“The moon absolutely does “orbit” the earth. The moon absolutely does NOT “rotate” around the earth.”
Tim, “revolution/orbit” is a rotation about an external axis. You are still in denial about the sources which make this clear…and yes, those sources are well aware that an orbit is elliptical and not circular. Now, go and talk to Ftop_t.
@Tim,
You really have to grasp the concept of an internal vs and external axis of rotation
Internal Axis of Rotation
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/w9mvuh8alk
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/rkrm4rkkxr
External Axis of Rotation
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qmqrfhqrlp
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mwz5mo1isc
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/x03m0ovvxl (also an orbit)
Note: the last external example can also be called an “orbit”. It is rotating around an external axis (0,0) and not rotating about an internal axis.
Take a few minutes to drag the orange dot around and then click on the circle in line 31 to see how the object moves if it is rotating around an axis (orange) and orbiting (0,0)
ftop-t (and DREMT)
You need to grasp what “rotation about an external axis” means.
It requires the object to be rigidly attached to the external axis (either physically or mathematically). Like a MGR horse. Like a ball on the end of a rigid rod. Or like the pretty DESMOS animations. This results in an object moving in a perfect circle, maintaining a perfect orientation relative to the center.
The moon is NOT rigidly attached to anything. The moon is NOT moving in a circle. The moon is NOT keeping the same orientation relative to any external axis.
Basically, by equating “orbit” to “rotation about an external axis” you are limiting yourself to ONLY explain perfectly circular orbits. This IS OK for horses bolted to MGRs or triangles ‘bolted to DESMOS animations’. But it will fail for real moons in real elliptical motions around planets.
If you try to upgrade your animation to include general elliptical orbits, I suspect you will rapidly realize your model is not ready for real moons.
Wow!!
Now I understand how empirical science died…
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3ejwl4e4tl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
A circle is a subcategory of an ellipse where the intersection place is not inclined.
Feel free to change the shape of the ellipse on lines 33 & 34
Lines 18, 19, 20 have the formulas for an ellipse
Geometry isn’t exactly an empirical science, Flop.
Don’t quit your day job.
> A circle is a subcategory of an ellipse where the intersection place is not inclined.
Circles have properties that ellipses don’t have, Flop.
At least get your categories right.
Among the properties that ellipses don’t have but circles do is the possibility to generate them using one rotation.
In this animation:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3ejwl4e4tl
Flop has to break the isometry of what he portrays as a rotation by stretching the line that connects the Moon to the Earth.
And let’s recall that a rotation implies an isometry.
So no isometry, no rotation.
Just the appearance of one.
That’s who Flop’s trick works.
That’s correct, Moon is NOT rotating. It just appears to be, as viewed from idiot space.
> Moon is NOT rotating.
That’s where you’re wrong, Pup:
https://youtu.be/qxtp4xV1xMw
“A circle is a subcategory of an ellipse where the intersection place is not inclined.”
Yes. A very SPECIAL subcategory. You are using the equations for “rigid body motion” when talking about the “external axis”. You can’t just generalize “rigid bodies that maintain fixed dimensions and shapes” to “stretchy bodies that distort as they turn”.
Thinking that “it worked for a special case, therefore it will work for a more generalized case” is a dangerous path to start down!
“Feel free to change the shape of the ellipse on lines 33 & 34”
That is insufficient! Wikipedia has a rather extended discussion of how to compute the motion of an orbiting body along an ellipse. Getting the motion of the COM right would be a major undertaking. Both the distance and the angular velocity change throughout the orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#Position_as_a_function_of_time
THEN you would have to create your ‘triangle’ and have it follow that elliptical path. And have it turn at the correct rate to match how moons actually move.
PS “empirical science” is based on measurements and observations of the universe. Not on computer models. Especially not a computer model where you choose an equation you think is right and make the ‘moon’ follow your equations, rather than measure the actual motions of moons and make your equations agree with observations.
“https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3ejwl4e4tl”
Thanks for that link.
Yep. A fascinating study in how NOT to do orbits.
* The planet is at the center, not at one focus. Break’s Kepler’s 1st Law
* The angular speed is constant around the planet. Break’s Kepler’s 2nd Law.
From that start, pretty much nothing will be right.
Even the “nose always points forward” people should be up in arms since the animation doesn’t match that expectation either. But Clint seems so happy to find anyone who also disagrees with science that he is willing to skip “Youve got your moon rotating in different directions! Its OSCILLATING! There is NO physics to support such nonsense.”
Folkerts is still confused about “orbital motion” and “axial rotation”. He can’t understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
But, check this:
PS “empirical science” is based on measurements and observations of Earth. Not on computer models. Especially not a computer model where you choose an equation you think is right and make the temperatures follow your equation, rather than following the laws of physcis.
Ftop_t
Note that if you consider an arrow drawn from the center of the orbiting object to one of the black dots your animation….
You will note that in one complete orbit, the arrow traces a circle around center of the orbiting object.
This is the very definition of rotation around an axis, according to Mahdavi and others.
This axis being aligned with the center of the body that is orbiting.
You have to stop providing ammunition for the other side.
If you are going to keep doing this, we can consider the case closed.
bob has learned nothing in three years.
DREMT has learned nothing. Ever.
Case closed
I have asked Tim to come and explain it to you, bob.
Just remember, rotation about an external with no rotation about an internal axis is motion as per the “moon on the left”; not the “moon on the right”, as you erroneously believe. Once you get over this mistake that you have repeatedly made over the past three years, you may have a shot at understanding the “Non-Spinner” position for the first time ever.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Actually, DREMT, you are still the one more in need of an explanation, although I do partially agree with what you wrote.
****************************
There are often several ways to describe the same thing and to solve the same problems. You tend to give one possible correct explanation (but can’t seem to see the other correct answers).
So the “moon on the left” can equally well be described as
a) rotating about a stationary external axis (you are correct)
b) translating about a circle and rotating about its own axis (another correct description.)
Likewise. the ‘moon on the right’ can equally well be described as
a) rotating about a stationary external axis while rotating *backwards* about its own axis.
b) translating in a circle (with no rotation about any axis).
Everyone can be right here! The two descriptions are similar in complexity, so there is no clear “winner”. Yet.
************************************
But what about a real tidally locked moon in a real elliptical orbit?
a1) It is not rotating about an external axis. The motion is not a circle, as required.
a2) It could with some difficulty be described by THREE rotations. A basic rotation about the planet, a corrective rotation to create the elliptical path, and a final rotation to keep the moon aligned in the right direction.
b) it could easily and directly be described as translating around the ellipse and also rotating on its own axis.
Your approach fails (or perhaps more precisely, is a hopelessly complex set of epicycles). Science’s approach is simple. It is elegant. The elliptical path is easily and elegantly predicted with the law of gravity. The rotation is easily and elegantly predicted with conservation of angular momentum.
Why would any one go back to arbitrary epicycles when a simple, elegant solution exists?
"So the “moon on the left” can equally well be described as a) rotating about a stationary external axis (you are correct) b) translating about a circle and rotating about its own axis (another correct description.)
Likewise. the ‘moon on the right’ can equally well be described as a) rotating about a stationary external axis while rotating *backwards* about its own axis. b) translating in a circle (with no rotation about any axis)."
Tim "explains" to me what I have explicitly made clear many, many times in the past! I have said exactly what he has just written there, many times before. What he is forgetting to mention here is a very important point, however, which is that these descriptions transcend reference frames.
If you say that the "moon on the left" is rotating on its own axis "from the inertial reference frame", for example, what you are actually saying is that the "moon on the left" is translating in a circle (by which I mean motion like the "moon on the right") and rotating about its own internal axis as well, at the same time. That is the only way in which you can describe the "moon on the left" as rotating on its own axis. It is not rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis, for instance.
Now, whilst Tim dribbles on about how "rotation about an external axis" has to occur in a circle, even when Ftop_t has just demonstrated that it can also occur in an ellipse, and that when it does libration also occurs, what we need to remember is that this all comes down to what "orbital motion without axial rotation" is. Is it motion like the "moon on the left", or motion like the "moon on the right"? There are no other possible motions that it could be, so it is a true dichotomy.
The "Non-Spinners" have made various arguments as to why it’s like the "moon on the left", and the "Spinners" have made various arguments as to why it’s like the "moon on the right". As far as I’m concerned, the case is closed. The "Non-Spinners" are correct.
“It is not rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis, for instance.”
Amen! I am glad we can agree that far.
“Now, whilst Tim dribbles on about how “rotation about an external axis” has to occur in a circle, even when Ftop_t has just demonstrated that it can also occur in an ellipse, “
And this is where you go off the rails — yet again. Ftop has draw pretty pictures with math. His ‘rotation” simulations are always circles. His ellipses are not “rotations”.
But you can’t judge this, because you can’t mathematically define what you even mean by “rotation”. Just once, tell us how *you* define a “rotation” using math.
Do you agree with, say, this definition? https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Rotation.html
Or many you want to define it in terms of a rotation matrix operating on a vector?
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/RotationMatrix.html
Once you have a mathematical definition, explain how ftop’s simulations agree (or disagree) with the definition.
Both of your “b’s” are incorrect, Folkerts.
You continue making the same mistakes. You don’t understand the motions involved. And, you can’t learn.
That makes you a braindead cult idiot.
DREMPTY,
So not arguing with you anymore, but just one question.
How do you define a rotation on an internal axis?
Do that and we can test objectively if something is rotating on an internal axis.
But you have not done so.
“So not arguing with you anymore…”
Of course you’re not, bob. You have been shown to be wrong. You have argued for three years on the basis that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the “moon on the right”, erroneously. Both my stalker and Tim have now confirmed that it is motion like the “moon on the left”, as I have tried to explain to you repeatedly from the beginning, but you refused to accept. You, Willard, RLH and Ball4 are all wrong and you all owe me a huge apology.
When I get those apologies from all of you, I will answer questions.
Sorry DREMT, but you are still confused about your own statements.
I said that the ‘moon on the left’ (and hence balls on strings and MGR horses) can be described equally well by ‘rotation about an external axis’ or by ‘translation + rotation about internal axis.
You said “I have said exactly what he has just written there” … and yet you also said:
“The axis of rotation is external to the ball. No matter how you want to dress it up.”
“There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string.”
This can’t all be true. Either you don’t agree with what I just said above about two different ways to describe the motion, or you don’t agree with your own statements about only one way to describe the motion.
“I said that the ‘moon on the left’ (and hence balls on strings and MGR horses) can be described equally well by ‘rotation about an external axis’ or by ‘translation + rotation about internal axis.”
Yes…and first of all, bob et al do not agree with you and I. bob describes the “moon on the right” as “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, which you agree is wrong. Ball4 thinks that the “moon on the left” can only be described as “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” as observed from the “moon on the left”. So you should agree that Ball4 is also wrong.
Secondly, I agree that the “moon on the left” can be described as a translation (motion like the “moon on the right”) plus a rotation about an internal axis. Can be. But should it be? No. Because as those notes from Brown confirm, you should not class as a general plane motion that which can be classed as simply a rotation or a translation.
“..as observed from the “moon on the left”” is in an accelerated frame.
Tim is correct, it is DREMT that is confused about inertial and non-inertial accelerated ref. frames.
In the inertial frame, our moon rotates once on its own axis per earthen orbit.
“Tim is correct…”
So you agree that you are wrong. Good.
Axial rotation is easily identified by the fact that all points of the body will move in concentric circles around the axis.
If a rotating body is also orbiting, then an observer will see all sides of the body from inside the orbit, as in the case of Earth.
If an orbiting body is not rotating, then an observer will NOT see all sides of the body from inside the orbit, as in the case of Moon.
These are easy concepts to understand, but the braindead cult idiots can’t understand them.
“If the moon were rotating about both the Earth/moon barycenter and on its own axis, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.”
Ah — we are back to an old discussion of the ambiguous “and” in this sentence. This is where [[gasp]] careful descriptions of reference frames are important.
If a MGR rotates once every 6 seconds CCW in the x-y plane (relative to the local NSEW directions), the angular velocity is 10 rev/min (relative to the local NSEW directions) in the +z direction about the center of the MGR. The angular velocity is ALSO 10 rev/min (relative to the local NSEW directions) in the +z direction about horse’s COM. The angular velocity is ALSO 10 rev/min (relative to the local NSEW directions) in the +z direction about any vertical axis drawn upward through any point on the MGR platform.
So is it perfectly legit to say the horse is rotating about the center of the MGR AND is rotating about its own COM.
Much like I could say a bus us moving east @ 3 mph and a passenger on the bus is moving east @ 3 mph. Without clarification, it would be perfectly possible to interpret this as either:
1) The passenger is seated and moving 3 mph relative to the ground with the bus.
2) the passenger is walking forward and moving 6 mph relative to the ground.
So more precise statements would be:
“If the moon were rotating about both the Earth/moon barycenter (relative to ‘galactic coordinates’) and on its own axis (relative to the rotating coordinates defined by moon’s position relative to the earth), we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.”
Or …
“If the moon were rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter (relative to ‘galactic coordinates’), then it would also be rotating on its own axis (relative to ‘galactic coordinates’). We would see one side of the moon from Earth.”
DREMPTY demands an apology for being wrong for years.
Piss off.
You haven’t defined rotation about an internal axis.
The Moon on the left is rotating about an axis through the Moon because it meets the requirements for rotation around an internal axis as defined by Mahdavi and others.
Sorry for your loss.
In the inertial frame, our moon rotates once on its own axis per earthen orbit.
Tim has decided to start quoting things I said some time ago rather than what I am currently writing, in order to avoid having to deal with the points I am currently making.
"So is it perfectly legit to say the horse is rotating about the center of the MGR AND is rotating about its own COM."
Wrong, because that is not physically possible. You are getting lost in reference frames, and moving further away from physical reality. When you say, "The angular velocity is ALSO 10 rev/min (relative to the local NSEW directions) in the +z direction about horse’s COM" you are describing rotation about the horse’s COM. As I already said, the only way you can describe the horse as rotating about its own COM is if you describe the overall motion of the horse as a translation of the horse in a circle (by which I mean, motion like the "moon on the right") plus rotation about an internal axis.
Plus, you are contradicting yourself. Earlier, you quoted me saying, of the "moon on the left":
“It is not rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis, for instance.”
And replied:
"Amen! I am glad we can agree that far."
Now you are going back on that.
In the inertial frame, the hobby horse rotates once on its own axis per MGR center orbit.
Just like our moon keeping the same face to center.
"DREMPTY demands an apology for being wrong for years"
Yes, bob, you have been wrong for years. You have repeatedly said that "rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis", is motion as per the "moon on the right", when it is actually motion as per the "moon on the left". It would be nice if you could apologize for all the grief you have given me for being correct.
“Wrong, because that is not physically possible. “
I can simultaneously walk at 1 m/s east as measured from a coordinate system with the x-axis along the north edge of my office AND as measured from a coordinate system with the x-axis along the south edge of my office. There is nothing physically impossible about this.
A MGR horse can simultaneously turn at 1 rad/s as measured from a coordinate system with the z-axis at the center of the MGR AND as measured from a coordinate system with the z-axis at the center of the horse. There is nothing physically impossible about this.
You are not listening, Tim.
When you say that the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis "as measured from a coordinate system with the z-axis at the center of the horse", or "from the inertial reference frame", you are immediately in reality saying that the wooden horse is translating in a circle (motion as per the "moon on the right") plus rotating on its own axis. Because that is the only way that you can describe the horse as rotating on its own axis.
“Tim has decided to start quoting things I said some time ago”
I quoted things you said a few days ago, upthread.
…plus rotating on its own axis inertially. WRT the mgr accelerated frame the hobby horse isn’t rotating on its own axis because it is fixed to the mgr; DREMT is not listening.
Ball4, when you say that the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis "inertially", you are immediately in reality saying that the wooden horse is translating in a circle (motion as per the "moon on the right") plus rotating on its own axis. Because that is the only way that you can describe the horse as rotating on its own axis.
Here’s another way if DREMT will listen: in the inertial frame, the hobby horse rotates once on its own axis per mgr center orbit.
WRT the mgr accelerated frame, the hobby horse isn’t rotating on its own axis because it is fixed to the mgr; DREMT is not listening.
Good grief DREMPTY,
“It would be nice if you could apologize for all the grief you have given me for being correct.”
Either you are wrong or Cassini and Newton are wrong.
I put my quatloos on Cassini, who has a spacecraft named after him, and Newton, well we know who Newton is, if we studied physics at an accredited institution.
You still haven’t defined rotation about an internal axis.
bob, Cassini was an astrologer. He was wrong about Moon. Newton figured it out. Cassini was wrong, Newton got it right.
And you can’t understand axial rotation because you’re a braindead cult idiot.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-950808
Clint R, that’s wrong since rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation such as the moon on the right.
bob, can you really not understand that this is bigger than simply “does the moon rotate on its own axis?”
I could even be wrong about that (don’t think I am, but for the sake of argument) whilst still being correct about what we (me and you, personally) have argued about for so long. “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the “moon on the left”, not the “moon on the right”. OK? Just accept it. You were wrong. I was right.
Ball4: “in the inertial frame, the hobby horse rotates once on its own axis per mgr center orbit.”
…and then by “orbit” you automatically must mean, translation of the object in a circle, motion like the “moon on the right”. However, the “Non-Spinners” argument is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the left”.
As I said, Ball4, when you say that the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis "in the inertial frame", you are immediately in reality saying that the wooden horse is translating in a circle (motion as per the "moon on the right") plus rotating on its own axis. Because that is the only way that you can describe the horse as rotating on its own axis.
No, DREMT, I don’t mean what you write, I mean what I write.
Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.
"Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation"
I couldn’t agree more. Many "Spinners" do indeed make the mistake of confusing the two.
I haven’t read any do that. All the non-spinners do trip over that though and get CT wrong such as yourself.
In the inertial frame, our moon rotates once on its own axis per earthen orbit.
DREMPTY,
““Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the “moon on the left”, not the “moon on the right”. OK? Just accept it. You were wrong. I was right.”
You have to do more than declare you are right, you need to define your terms, that is, what is rotation?
Then you have to support your argument with observations.
You have done neither of these.
I could argue that most of the Moon is made of cream cheese and go on and declare I am right, that’s what you are doing.
Not buying it.
Ah, you’re just trolling again. Gotcha.
C’mon, Kiddo. Should be easy. Here’s a hint:
https://www.clear.rice.edu/comp360/lectures/old/AffineTransText.pdf
There are many other PDFs around. I picked this one because of the quote at the end of the document.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
> at the end of the document
I mean at the beginning. Here it is:
Where’s Tim gone? I felt like we were getting somewhere yesterday…then today he suddenly started with false accusations, changing the subject, and finally confusing himself completely with reference frames! Let’s get back to this:
“So the “moon on the left” can equally well be described as
a) rotating about a stationary external axis (you are correct)
b) translating about a circle and rotating about its own axis (another correct description.)
Likewise. the ‘moon on the right’ can equally well be described as
a) rotating about a stationary external axis while rotating *backwards* about its own axis.
b) translating in a circle (with no rotation about any axis).”
So, MOTL a) is rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. MOTL b) is an example of general plane motion (translation in a circle and rotation about an internal axis). However, you should not class as a general plane motion that which can be classed as simply a rotation or a translation, so MOTL a) is the correct description to use. Also, for a wooden horse on a MGR and a ball on a string, a) is even more obviously the correct description, since it is not physically possible for them to rotate on their own internal axes.
“Likewise. the ‘moon on the right’ can equally well be described as a) rotating about a stationary external axis while rotating *backwards* about its own axis.”
No, rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation (CT). Moon on the right is only in CT.
Where has Flop gone?
Once he’s been shown that his favorite pet trick fails isometry, he ran away. We can’t blame him: that failure spells doom on Kiddo’s special pleading about pure rotations!
Ball4 quotes Tim, and disagrees with him! Will we finally get to see two “Spinners” argue?
“Because as those notes from Brown confirm” DREMT lectures people.
But the Brown notes confirm thst DREMT is completeley wrong to call an elliptical orbit a Rotation about an external axis. Yet he keeps doing it.
Hypocrite, thoroughly dishonest are words that seem appropriate here.
No, of course we won’t. "Spinners" never argue amongst themselves.
DREMT: “Will we finally get to see two ‘Spinners’ argue?”
The ‘spinners’ have had 400 years to work things out. There is not much to argue about.
OTOH, the ‘non-spinners’ still can’t decide which way the the real moon ought to face. But they never argue — not sure if they don’t see the contradictions, or if they
Ball4: “No, rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation (CT). Moon on the right is only in CT.”
I’ll make basically the same point I made to DREMT earlier. There are multiple ways to mathematically describe the same motion.
For “the moon on the left”, a simple rotation about the center is ‘simplest’ — but a translation about the horse COM + a rotation about the COM also works.
For “the moon on the right”, a simple translation (as you suggest) is ‘simplest’ — but a rotation about the center + reverse rotation about the COM (measured relative to the rotating coordinates) also works.
And … for “the actual moon orbiting the earth”, the ‘simplest’ description is a translation about an ellipse + rotation about the COM. In this case a simple rotation (like DREMT always seems to suggest) simply fails because the real moon does not travel in a circle around the earth. There *are* other ways we COULD mathematically describe the motion (for example with various epicycles) but that a) works poorly and b) has no basis in any laws of physics.
"In this case a simple rotation (like DREMT always seems to suggest) simply fails because the real moon does not travel in a circle around the earth."
Doesn’t have to travel in a circle. The same sources that are well aware that orbits are generally elliptical describe "revolution/orbit" as a rotation about an external axis. You are in complete denial about that fact. You are also in denial of Ftop_t’s earlier demonstration.
"Lines 18, 19, 20 have the formulas for an ellipse"
Explain what you believe is wrong with lines 18, 19, and 20.
“(measured relative to the rotating coordinates)”
Meaning an accelerated frame. In the inertial frame, moon on right is only CT.
The a) and b) descriptions transcend reference frames, as explained.
Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation (CT).
…by which Madhavi meant, do not confuse motion as per Fig. 2(a) with motion as per Fig. 2(b).
Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation (CT). “Fig. 2(b) is in rotation” per Madhavi like the moon on the left. “The plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation” just like the moon on the right.
He is definitely starting to get it…
“it” being as Madhavis quotes & Fig.s show, our moon rotates once on its own internal axis r per earthen orbit on an external axis R.
…or maybe not.
“by which Madhavi meant…”
Yeah … no. DREMT, you have never taken, much less taught such a course. You are in DEEP denial if you think you can interpret what this prof meant. You are also in denial of oyu think any of the people who wrote the pages you keep referring to would think our moon is not rotating.
Tim lashes out in frustration, unable to respond to my previous comment to him.
Madhavi: Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation (CT).
Yes, very good, Ball4.
So be sure to write comments in accord with Madhavi, you will show improvement. In accord with what Madhavi demonstrates: Our moon rotates once on its own internal axis r per earthen orbit on an external axis R.
In accord with Madhavi, the motion of the MOTL should not be confused with the motion of the MOTR. They are similar motions, but the orientation of each remains different throughout.
@Tim,
Here is an example of Kepler’s 2nd Law implemented in DESMOS:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/knrtwdzz6y
There is no attribution, but I will use this as a baseline for exploring orbital and axial rotation further…
Building on the Kepler DESMOS, I have added features to be able to start and stop axial rotation and orbital motion
Orbital Motion Only
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fgwe7dsr1m
Axial rotation only
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3n9zga5syt
Orbital and axial rotation
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fgq3nx0pdg
An animation with Kepler’s 2nd Law presents some interesting challenges to rationalize
1. An orbit has varying tangential velocity
2. An axial rotation must have uniform rotational velocity to adhere to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
This makes it impossible to keep a spherical rotation (with constant rotational velocity aligned with an elliptical orbit where orbital velocity varies under Kepler’s 2nd Law
How does a variable velocity and a uniform velocity stay synchronized?
Additionally, although not depicted in this DESMOS example, the entire orbital path changes its angle relative to the central object due to apsidal procession. An independently rotating sphere will have to accommodate this changing angle to maintain the appropriate orientation.
These factors make it highly improbable that a sphere can maintain the same face towards an internal object by rotating independently at a uniform velocity on its internal axis when the orbital velocity is changing and the orientation of the orbital path is also changing
“This makes it impossible to keep a spherical rotation (with constant rotational velocity aligned with an elliptical orbit where orbital velocity varies under Keplers 2nd Law”
Exactly ftop. Nice work.
Explains why our Moon has longitudinal libration.
“hese factors make it highly improbable that a sphere can maintain the same face towards an internal object by rotating independently at a uniform velocity on its internal axis when the orbital velocity is changing and the orientation of the orbital path is also changing”
True. And our Moon in fact doesnt. It librates. Your program denonstrates it nicely.
And orbital precession and axial precession are linked and have the same precession period…so it all is explained.
ftop,
That looks like a pretty good animation. Kudos.
I don’t care to verify all the exact details, but it at a minimum gets the gist of the motion. Faster near the planet and slower farther away.
You made a key observation when you said:
“2. An axial rotation must have uniform rotational velocity to adhere to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum”
This is a key point that most “non-spinners” can’t seem to get. If they understood the physics, then they would know the rotation about the axis is constant, as you drew it. (of course, if they know this much physics, they would not be non-spinners to begin with.)
One overall comment. Your moon rotates on its axis almost (but not exactly) 2x for each orbit. it would be nice if you could change that to just 1 rotation on its axis each orbit. Then it would match our own moon better and show libration, always keeping one side (mostly) toward the earth,
“If they understood the physics, then they would know the rotation about the axis is constant, as you drew it”
It’s “orbital motion only”, Tim. No axial rotation.
Orbital Motion Only
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fgwe7dsr1m
… in the accelerated frame.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT, please start getting basic physics right. Open your mind. Pass a college course on the subject!
It does not come down to reference frames. No matter how many times you want to argue by assertion that it does…and wow, you have really repeated the exact same point literally hundreds of times now.
Yes, I would have thought DREMT would have gotten it after the 1st time.
Once DREMT gets it by passing a course in the subject, DREMT can write better physics & won’t need to be corrected so often.
“It’s ‘orbital motion only’, Tim. No axial rotation.”
You keep repeating your mantra, but what does “orbital motion” mean mathematically? What does “axial rotation mean”? What are the physical laws that cause “orbital motion” and “axial rotation”? You never answer — presumably because the math and the physics are beyond you.
The “orbital motion” is the ellipse. The center of the moon travels around the ellipse at varying speeds (both linear speed forward and angular speed around the planet). This is caused by gravity.
The “rotation about its axis” is the line across the moon. It is changing at constant angular speed, as required by conservation of angular momentum.
The fact that these two motions have different angular speeds is a clear indication that there are two *different* motions. The fact that there are sperate physical explanations for the two is a clear indication that there are two *different* motions.
Calm down, Tim. I am just trying to point out that Ftop_t has labelled his first demo “Orbital Motion Only”. You should notice that in this demo, where the axial rotation is not programmed to occur, the object moves as per our moon. He has even captured libration correctly. So it seems as though only one motion was necessary after all.
Take a deep breath, Kiddo, and read this:
until you get it.
There is no conceptual problem.
It’s just your obduracy.
*Automatic Response*
Willard is still on ignore.
“You should notice that in this demo, where the axial rotation is not programmed to occur, the object moves as per our moon.”
The first one with JUST orbital motion has no rotation internal or external.
“http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-955293
DREMT has it exactly backwards.
TO get the match to our Moon, and its libration, an extra internal rotation is added on!
So, for no particular reason I am just going to repeat and clarify this comment:
Calm down, Tim. I am just trying to point out that Ftop_t has labelled his first demo “Orbital Motion Only”. That’s the first of the three in his second comment. This one:
Orbital Motion Only
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fgwe7dsr1m
You should notice that in this demo, where the axial rotation is not programmed to occur, the object moves as per our moon. He has even captured libration correctly. So it seems as though only one motion was necessary after all.
“You should notice that in this demo, where the axial rotation is not programmed to occur”
Where would that be?
Anyone not part of the cult can clearly see that the two blue dots are rotating around the local circle!
And they give rise to libration.
That is axial rotation, and it is is programmed, but DREMT doesnt know where.
Hilarious.
So, just to reiterate, Ftop_t has shown that an object orbiting with no axial rotation moves as per our moon, libration and all. That, as they say, is that.
To assign the position of the blue dots he ADDS or SUBTRACTS cos(a +s) and sin(a+s) to the x, y positions of the red dot (plus an offset, which can be removed).
These extra terms causes them to rotate around their center (internal rotation) at a rate a + s.
Thus even with the so-called internal rotation rate, s =0, there is still an internal rotation of a!
But this is simply OBFUSCATION or self deception by ftop. Since it is just labeling.
a is not labelled an internal rotation, but it still is one because it is in the equation as an internal rotation!!
@Nate says,
“To assign the position of the blue dots he ADDS or SUBTRACTS cos(a +s) and sin(a+s) to the x, y positions of the red dot (plus an offset, which can be removed).
These extra terms causes them to rotate around their center (internal rotation) at a rate a + s.
Thus even with the so-called internal rotation rate, s =0, there is still an internal rotation of a!”
Ftop_t response:
The formula for locating a point “p” on a sphere rotating around a central axis is derived EXPLICITLY from the proof found here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid#/media/File:Epizykloide_herleitung.svg
The formula is provided here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid
which states at the bottom of the page:
“We see position of point “p” on the small circle clearly
x = (R + r) * cos(theta) – r * (cos (theta + alpha)
y = (R + r) * cos(theta) – r * (sin (theta + alpha)”
This is why I built a specific Epicycloid model to validate the proof.
In this example, both the center circle and the orbiting circle are the same circumference (2*pi)
If the outside sphere does 1 full axial rotation on its internal axis during one full circumference of the internal circle (orbit) the following must be true:
The distance a point “p” rotates around the axis is equal to the distance of the orbit.
It would look like this:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/i93ab9mjku
In this case
R for the center circle = r for the outside circle
Changing this to the easier to visualize format with triangles in a circle, we see
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/khbmitiina
Now if R r, in other words the internal circle (orbit) is larger than the orbiting circle, the only difference would be the radians traveled around the internal circle would be larger because R > r.
So if I make R = 6 but still have 1 axial rotation, it would look like this:
1 orbit with R = 6
1 axial rotation with r = 1
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bprq6di9ax
This is completely consistent with the proof referenced above.
Note:
For the Epicycloid proof where R = r, either use this link above and move the slider in Line 2 all the way to the left so that “a1 = 1”
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/i93ab9mjku
Or use this updated link
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/1a4ssdeiue
“This is why I built a specific Epicycloid model to validate the proof.”
Ok. But it really doesnt matter what its called. It matters what motion the eqn is producing. Yes?
The equation for the orbital motion, the x, y positions of the red dot are o and p, which are a function of angle a, which is linearly increasing in time.
The the red dot is orbiting.
The equation for blue dots x,y positions are m, n and m1, n1, which have the same orbital terms as o, p, but also added (subtracted) terms, cos(a+s) or sin(a+s).
These terms produce INTERNAL ROTATION @ rate a+s.
If we make s = 0, there is still internal rotation @ rate a.
We can verify that by replacing a with 0 in the orbital terms of the equations for m,n and m1,n1.
The blue dots stop orbiting, but still exhibit INTERNAL ROTATION around their common center…
Here is that visualized.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hjzoykybgg
The red dot continues to orbit.
There ‘rotation rate’ is paused.
The Blue dots have stopped orbiting but still have internal rotation at orbital rate (da/dt).
What say you, FTOP?
TEST
@Nate,
Since my post keeps disappearing, I will try and break it up
Part I
The argument after 3-years has come full circle (pun intended)
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329311
The original tool to differentiate between an internal and external axis of rotation was posted in that comment
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
Fast forward to now and the same inability to differentiate is still at the center (pun again) of the problem.
The DESMOS you posted encapsulates this problem. You have taken the orbital angular motion (alpha = a) and are trying to describe it as the axial rotation (theta = s)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hjzoykybgg
This is obvious, because the red dot is orbiting, but the circle and the connected dots are NOT orbiting the green shaded circle.
Part II
The best way to illustrate the flaw in your example is to take what you have done and remove the circle and the lines connecting them so we can analyze the motion of the individual dots.
In this starting point, I have simply taken your changes and hidden the circle and the line that connects the dots. I have also made the dots larger and different colors so it is easier to differentiate.
Green dot is closest
Red dot is the same
Black dot is the furthest
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ocnftkqx3e
The green dot and the black dot are no longer orbiting like the red dot, they are only spinning around a meaningless location because the red dot is following an orbital path
All three dots should be orbiting the larger shaded green
Part III
If I correct the formula for the green dot, it now behaves appropriately and orbits like the red dot while the black dot just spins meaninglessly. What is the black dot (which contains your modified formula) doing?
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/pskezk4frg
Clearly the change you made to the formulas for the green and black dots are not correct for an orbiting object
I will post an additional comment to extend this analysis
Part IV
So lets change the visual to make the model clearer.
Here the orbiting circle is larger to encompass the dots and this visual could be any scenario
The gravitational field of a planet (the red dot) with two satellites orbiting
A Merry-Go-Round with a green and black horse traveling on a train track
A vinyl record on a turntable with a green and black dot label being carried around a track
Comparing the models
This is what axial rotation would look with each model
FTOP – https://www.desmos.com/calculator/sm2nxwzpd3 – ACCURATE
Nate – https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9u2fazxu58 – ACCURATE
This is what orbital rotation would look like with each model
FTOP – https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ksupqmfaqt – ACCURATE
Nate – https://www.desmos.com/calculator/poqtcudqua – INCORRECT
The red dot is now disconnected from the rest of the objects (circle, green and black dots) because the orbital motion is no longer applied to these components and was used as an axial rotation
This is what axial and orbital rotation would look like
FTOP – https://www.desmos.com/calculator/c6oo1gueys – ACCURATE
Nate – https://www.desmos.com/calculator/r4xfjrzw6t – INCORRECT
The rotation of the green and black dots has increased in speed and now turns twice for every orbit of the red dot, but the satellites are completely disconnected and the gravitational field does not follow the red dot.
The CORRECT model matches the geometric proof and accurately reflects all scenarios. I contend that it is correct and using orbital motion as a substitute for axial rotation leads to inaccurate results
“Clearly the change you made to the formulas for the green and black dots are not correct for an orbiting object”
You havent made that case, ftop.
What does ‘not correct’ even mean here. You cannot really say.
I simply took your equation for Orbiting red dot, and turned off its orbiting by replacing ‘a’ with 0. It stops orbiting.
I apply the same to the identical orbiting term for your green and black dots. They stop orbiting.
But they continue to rotate around their COM. Because they have an internal rotation term in their equation.
That term has ‘a’ in it. Thus they rotate at the orbital rate ‘a’. But it could just as well have been ‘s’ in that equation. Then they would have internal rotation at rate ‘s’ and you call ‘s’ the internal rotation rate.
But that is just labelling.
You dont like this result. But you dont explain why it is incorrect.
In this one, “https://www.desmos.com/calculator/pskezk4frg
you have simply added orbital motion back to one of the dots.
And sure enough it behaves as expected like one side of our Moon!
@Nate
I am encouraged that you spent some time with the DESMOS tool.
One last demonstration to heIp you understand why the modifications you made were not correct.
You perceived the expression
m = l*cos(a)/w + cos(a) + cos (a + s)
as somehow “hiding” a rotation within the portion of the expression [cos (a + s)]
The purpose of the ‘a’ in the cos (a + s) is to provide varying radius from the center of the orbital rotation
This is a simple bar rotating around a point (0,0) with three (3) points at varying radii
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fwgypwtubj
Black = 1
Blue = 5
Red = 10
The red dot is defined as (u, v)
Using u and v in an expression, add a dot on the bar at 9 units from the origin and 12 units from the origin
Thus, add a line
(u +/- {expression], v +/- [expression] placing a dot 9 units from the origin
and a line
(u +/- {expression], v +/- [expression] placing a dot 12 units from the origin
What you will find is that the additional cos(a) in the expression is not an obfuscated rotation, but a positional value from the external center of rotation. Now if we wanted to make the dot at 12 units rotate around (u,v); (an axial rotation) we need another rotation value like ‘s’ in the expression.
I am confident you can figure that out from the prior examples
@Nate,
Just to put a bow on why setting the values to zero (0) in the equation does not demonstrate an obfuscated rotation, I put together this simple example to illustrate
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/6oez9v0e2i
You asserted that by changing the equation from
l*cos(a)/2+cos(a)+cos(a+s)
into
l*cos(0)/2+cos(0)+cos(a+s)
that there was an axial rotation obfuscated in the formula.
What you actually did, was move the rotational axis from within the elliptical path to a location at point (5,0)
In the illustration, I have created dots at varying distance from the center of rotation using formulas
cos(a), sin(a)
cos(a) + cos(a), sin(a)+sin(a)
cos(a) + cos(a)+cos(a), sin(a)+sin(a)+sin(a)
4cos(a), 4sin(a)
In each case, there is one (1) rotation and the rotational rate is the same. This directly refutes your assertion
Further, by placing zero in the formula, what you created is a constant, that moved the axis of rotation to a different location.
In Line (7), I have used
-7cos(0)
This resolves to -7 and the black dot, instead of rotating around (0,0) is rotating around (7,0). This is not a new rotation, it is moving the external axis of rotation from (0,0) to (-7,0)
Similarly, the equation
l*cos(o)/w+cos(0) where l =15 and w = 2 resolves to 5
sin(0) is zero
Through this modification, you moved the axis of rotation to point (5,0)
In the illustration, the purple dot is rotation around point (5,0)
Similarly, in the Kepler example, you made the black and green dots rotate around an arbitrary fixed point like (-7,0) in the example.
The angular movement from radian “a” is for the orbital motion. As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-947403
“You really have to grasp the concept of an internal vs and external axis of rotation”
The first step is finding it!!
FTOP.
You have a prior belief and are now obviously working hard to rationalize it, regardless of what is actually happening.
What is actually happening in your original demo is the red dot is simply orbiting on the ellipse, while the blue dots are orbiting AND rotating around an axis thru their common COM.
I proved this by ONLY turning off the orbiting motion of the blue dots. This is the term in their equations of motion that is exactly the same term as in the equation of motion of the red dot.
With orbiting turned off, the blue dots CONTINUE to rotate around their common center.
This is undeniably happening.
And logically and mathematically, it makes perfect sense. Because the blue dots are both orbiting and must also go AROUND their COM.
FTOP,
‘Further, by placing zero in the formula, what you created is a constant, that moved the axis of rotation to a different location.’
Zero in the equation fixes the position of the red dot, or fixes the COM position of the blue dots, ON the orbital path.
That stops the orbital motion at a location that it normally passes thru on its orbit. Thats the whole point!
There is no axis shift.
The remaining unfixed terms clearly cause the blue dots to rotate around the now-fixed orbital position.
This is unequivocal.
If we put ‘a’ back into the equation, the blue dots now rotate around the moving COM position, which is travelling on the orbital path.
@Nate
What a sad reply. I’d hoped you would realize your mistake by actually entering the values yourself
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-977701
I have put two placeholders for you at lines 10 & 12
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/oyolq0oc8u
You have chosen not to do this because it highlights that adding multiple cos(x) expressions are not additional rotations but strictly aggregate to determine the distance from the axis of rotation
(15cos(a), 15sin(a))
(10cos(a) + cos(a) + cos(a) + cos(a) + cos(a) + cos(a), 10sin(a) + sin(a) + sin(a) + sin(a) + sin(a) + sin(a))
return the same positional results
whereas
(15+cos(a), 15+sin(a)) – Line 13
(15cos(a), 15sin(a)) – Line 14
See lines 13 and 14
You moved the orbital axis of rotation with a constant and then kept the “+cos(a +s)” making the orbital rotation rotate with a unit length of 1 around the location (5,0)
within this expression
l*cos(a)/w + cos(a) + cos (a + s)
[l*cos(a)/w + cos(a) + cos (a] this portion determines the size of the orbit, it does not represent multiple rotations. The example I attached demonstrates this.
If you don’t understand how a constant works to transform a location in an (x,y)coordinate system, than the DESMOS tool is above your skill level…
“You moved the orbital axis of rotation with a constant and then kept the ‘+cos(a +s)’ making the orbital rotation rotate with a unit length of 1 around the location (5,0)”
The ‘+cos(a +s)’ that makes rotation was ALWAYS present in YOUR equation. It was always a rotation of unit length of 1!
No movement of an axis away from where your equation put it!
Your original equation for blue dots has TWO terms in it. One of them can clearly be identified as causing the elliptical orbit that passes thru position 5,0, because it is the SAME ONE that causes the red dot to orbit.
The second term x = cos(a+s) y =sin(a+s) causes rotation with a radius of 1.
Since the TWO TERMS ARE ADDED, the rotation of 1 is happening AROUND THE elliptical ORBITAL x,y positions given by the first term.
How can we separate out these two motions? By freezing one of the motions.
That’s what I did by freezing the orbital term and stopping the advance thru the orbit. It happened to be at 5,0, but it could be any other position on the orbit.
Then only the second term can advance with time.
We then can clearly see that it produces a rotation with radius 1 around the frozen orbital position.
I don’t understand how you can interpret this SIMPLE MATH any other way?
“You have chosen not to do this because it highlights that adding multiple cos(x) expressions are not additional rotations but strictly aggregate to determine the distance from the axis of rotation”
No. The reason this is not an accurate description of what adding cos(a) and sin(a) terms does, is they are being added to elliptical orbital motion (the red dot) that speeds up and slows down, IOW not a pure rotation.
The blue dots are not simply shifted from the axis, they actual lag or lead the red dot as it orbits.
That is because their angular velocity (da/dt) is constant while the red dot’s angular velocity is NOT CONSTANT.
That is the whole point, it explains libration, the lagging and leading of the near side of the Moon, relative to its orbital motion, that is actually observed.
BTW FTOP,
You keep quoting the wrong equation even used it in your example program.
“l*cos(a)/w + cos(a) + cos (a + s)
[l*cos(a)/w + cos(a) + cos (a] this portion determines the size of the orbit, it does not represent multiple rotations. The example I attached demonstrates this.”
the corrected 2nd equation is
l*cos(a)/(w + cos(a)) + cos (a)
The parentheses really matter. This was the actual equation in the Kepler demo.
Without the parentheses, leads you to believe (or claim to) that the equation was just a sum of cos(a).
It is not!
And this error led you to claim erroneously that
“this portion determines the size of the orbit, it does not represent multiple rotations. The example I attached demonstrates this.”
Whereas the corrected equation one can see that the first term is not a simple rotation but an elliptical orbit.
We add a simple rotation to that elliptical orbit and we get libration, as I explained above.
@Nate,
There are too many components to unravel and your responses show some basic misunderstandings making response in this embedded thread to challenging. I have moved the topic here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-993881
Your comment is responding to Kiddo’s, Flop.
You really need to understand something very simple:
A rotation about any axis is equivalent to a rotation through the same angle about any axis parallel to it, together with a simple translation in a direction perpendicular to the axis.
Simple, really.
Elementary in fact.
Axial rotation is rotation about the CoG axis.
Not really, Pup: A rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point, as thy Wiki stipulates.
See? No gravity involved!
That other note is intriguing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation#Fixed_axis_vs._fixed_point
My emphasis.
Axial rotation is rotation about the CoG axis. That’s why we know Moon is NOT rotating. We would see all sides of it from Earth.
> Axial rotation is rotation about the CoG axis
Nope.
Try again, this time with more feeling.
Wandering Wee Willy,
So axial rotation is not around a rotational axis?
This is climatological “physics”, is it?
Or just another one of your “silly semantic games” that you keep losing.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Measured Formularization,
Let me spell it out fyeo —
Rotation is a concept that comes from mathematics.
Mathematics does not deal with physic concepts like gravity.
So no, rotation does not imply a center of gravity.
Simple, isn’t it?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
“Thats why we know Moon is NOT rotating. We would see all sides of it from Earth”
The Moon must be rotating, once per orbit of the Earth. Otherwise we would see all sides of it from Earth”.
Wrong again, RLH.
Orbital motion is demonstrated by the ball-on-a-string. One side always faces the inside of the orbit, like Moon. The ball is not rotating, nor is Moon.
You reject the simple model of orbital motion because it destroys your cult beliefs. When you have to reject reality to support your beliefs, it’s time to get some new beliefs. But, that won’t happen because you’re braindead.
A ball-on-a-string demonstrates things that happen to a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.
Now RLH, is that true?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Yes. A ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.
Kiddo sees a contradiction where there is none.
Flop, disgusted by Kiddo’s lack of understanding of basic geometry and, seeing that his trick has been spelled out, has left the building.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
“Ftop_t has labelled his first demo “Orbital Motion Only”. ”
He mislabeled it then. That is “Orbital Motion With 1 Rotation”
For “Orbital Motion Only” he should have that “bar” across the circle maintaining a constant orientation on the screen (eg always pointing up and down”.
At this point you will repeat your mantra, working backwards in your thinking. You take the answer you WANT and uncritically accept anything that agrees — a computer simulation that you don’t understand, a web site that says “orbits are sometimes called revolutions” called, etc, etc.
This is exactly where you should apply that quote from Feynman: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Until you are willing to question the experts — especially the ones that agree with you — you are not thinking scientifically.
He did not mislabel it, Tim. That is how it is programmed. There is even a line there where you can start axial rotation if you wish, but it is not occurring when you open the Desmos link. He has a separate Desmos link showing axial rotation only, no orbital motion, and then the third and final link shows orbital motion combined with one axial rotation per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
(Well, not exactly one axial rotation per orbit, but close)
“That is how it is programmed. ”
Exactly. And it is programmed incorrectly. It is labeled incorrectly. It is an ingenious exercise in curve-fitting to produce some clever animations. But pretty animations are not equal to dorrect physics/
I strongly suspect you don’t understand the calculations in the simulation. I strongly suspect you don’t understand the physics that leads to ellipses or ‘equal area in equal time.” I strongly suspect you have never integrated to get the moment of inertia of a sphere nor solved anything but the most basic problems involving angular momentum.
* ftop labels it one way
* I label it another way.
You accept his label not because you have any deep understanding, but merely because that is the answer you *want*. WHY — based on physics and mathematics — do you think his label is correct and mine is not? Show your work.
“And it is programmed incorrectly”
So, Tim, what is wrong with the programming? Show your work.
It is programmed to obfuscate.
The one labelled Orbital Motion Only has an internal rotation programmed in it, but not labelled as such.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-960198
And where is FTOP to explain this away?
No response from Tim-bo.
And no response from DREMT.
Internal rotation is present.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-966107
Still no response from Tim…
Does DREMT understand the programming? Apparently not.
Still nothing. Unless I can hear from someone I am responding to, my hands are tied. Shame.
Ftops demo made the spinner case crystal clear! How bout that.
Still nada…oh well.
“Further, by placing zero in the formula, what you created is a constant, that moved the axis of rotation to a different location.”
Zero in the equation fixes the position of the red dot, or fixes the COM position of the blue dots, ON the orbital path. That stops the orbital motion. It doesnt shift it.
Tim gets it wrong, “The moon *does* do that about its [sic] own axis.”
That’s wrong. If Moon rotated about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth. It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string. Moon has no axial rotation, it only orbits.
> If Moon rotated about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
Prepare to be mesmerized, Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
I’m mesmerized by how many people want to be cult idiots.
“Tidal locking” is just more nonsense to support the Moon rotation nonsense.
Gravity can NOT produce a torque on Moon.
> Gravity can NOT produce a torque on Moon.
Are you REALLY that dumb, Pup?
It’s NOT gravity that makes it spin.
Besides, if gravity can’t produce a torque, it can’t stop the Moon from spinning either!
Dud stumbles onto reality: “Besides, if gravity can’t produce a torque, it can’t stop the Moon from spinning either!”
Correct Dud. If Moon had ever been spinning, it would still be spinning. Gravity can neither start axial rotation, nor stop it.
> If Moon had ever been spinning
That’s an easy if, Pup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxrM5tv_RNI&t=103s
A spin-orbit lock synchronizes spins and orbits. That’s, like, in the name.
A harder if to prove is if you’re right about gravity not inducing torques.
Finding that video reminds me that you don’t understand any of this, Dud. You couldn’t solve the simple barbell problem. And like several others, you can’t even understand the solution.
I thoroughly enjoy your ineffective and immature flak, Pup.
Thanks.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment. Report.
Dud, I appreciate you copying my words, but it’s always better to mention the source.
But I’m glad you finally learned to spell “pole”. That was a long, on-going effort. Those learning disabilities can make things so difficult, huh?
When you’ll source the cafeteria bully you’re trying to mimic, Pup, I’ll reconsider.
Do the Poll Dance Experiment. Report.
Dud, your grade school remembrances reveal your troubled childhood. People that are weak often turn to cults.
Have you considered therapy?
Indeed I did, Pup. How about you? It should do you good.
Meanwhile, do the Pole Dance Experiment. Report.
entropic…” Convection carries heat up to the tropopause, at which point convection stops and the heat . dissipates.
You dont say what form the heat takes after it dissipates or where it goes. You just expect it to disappear”.
***
You presume energy must change form to disappear. That myth is based on a misunderstanding of thermal energy.
Heat is a property of atoms, it is the kinetic energy of atoms. The Ideal Gas Law tells us in mathematical form that:
PV = nRT.
Transposing, we get, T = PV/nR.
Presuming the atmosphere from the surface to the point where it becomes undefined is a constant volume, we could rewrite that as:
T = (V/R).P/n …where V/R is a constant.
n = number of molecules of air and P is directly proportional to n.
As n -> 0, P -> 0, therefore, T -> 0.
There you have it, the dissipation of heat without changing to another form of energy.
****
You might be able to claim the same for electromagnetic energy. Suppose you have a single star emitting EM into an infinite void. The intensity of the EM decreases with the square of the distance. You might be able to claim there is a point where intensity -> 0, therefore EM disappears.
You could claim the same for a gravitational field and a magnetic field.
***
I have already pointed out a flaw in Newton II, and I am sure Isaac was aware of it. f = ma applies only when f is large enough to move m.
The ROT that energy can neither be created nor destroyed needs to be questioned. In fact, a whole lot of science needs to be questioned.
Note that I did not claim heat has to disappear, only that it dissipates naturally with altitude.
If heat reaching the tropopause does not go anywhere, does not change to some thing else and does not disappear, it must accumulate.
By your own theory the tropopause must get hotter over time. Since it does not, your hypothesis must be wrong.
EM,
Heat is not a “thing”. Heat does not “accumulate”. This is a fantasy held by climate crackpots and their ratbag followers.
Go on – try and find a definition of heat that allows “accumulation”!
The caloric theory of heat was not finally abandoned until the mid 19th century.
What we call heat, is merely the result of basic matter/light interaction.
No GHE. Just basic physics.
entropic…”If heat reaching the tropopause does not go anywhere, does not change to some thing else and does not disappear, it must accumulate”.
***
Did you read anything I wrote? If you have a gas in a container at STP, and you apply heat to the container, the pressure increases in the gas.
Why???
PV = nRT
V, n, and R are constants. Therefore P varies directly with temperature. What is temperature, it is a relative measure of heat developed by humans and based on the measurement on a thermometer of the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water. In other words, with a mercury thermometer, temperature is the physical distance through which the mercury expands when heated by thermal energy.
Temperature is an artificial entity, it is measuring the effect of thermal energy. Therefore the T in PV = nRT represents the heat contained in the gas.
Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. That applies both internally and externally. Internally, as a gas is heated, the electrons in the atoms jump to higher orbital energy levels, representing an increase of their internal kinetic energy. Externally, as a gas is heated, the molecules of gas move more rapidly, increasing KE = 1/2mv^2.
IF THERE ARE NO ATOMS OR MOLECULES, (which are defined as two or more atoms bonded together by electrons), THERE CAN BE NO HEAT. An absence of atoms is a vacuum, and heat cannot exist in a vacuum.
Obviously, heat is a property of atoms and the less atoms there are in a constant volume, the less pressure there can be, and the less heat there can be. As n -> 0, P -> 0 and T -> 0.
PV = nRT.
What happens as a gas rises in altitude? It moves into a region of lower gas pressure. Therefore, the molecules of the rising gas (air) spread out, and the number (n) of molecules/unit volume and the pressure decreases. As the pressure decreases, the temperature decreases.
Since T is a measure of heat, the heat decreases.
Remember, alarmists bray that nitrogen and oxygen cannot emit EM in a terrestrial environment. If that is true, and I don’t think it is true, then any heat contained in N2 and O2 must be dissipated by another means. I have just described the means.
Has it never occurred to you why both pressure and temperature decrease with altitude? If the stratosphere was not heated by UV radiation, the cooling would continue to decrease to the interface of the atmosphere with cold space at -273C.
“heat cannot exist in a vacuum”
Therefore the Sun cannot heat us. Sure.
> As n -> 0, P -> 0
C’mon, Gordo. Think.
That’s your denominator.
C’mon, Wee Willy,
At least try to appear intelligent.
Mike Flynn,
Mock Filibusterer.
C’mon Wee Willy Idiot,
At least make an attempt!
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd cheers*.
That ought to be enough.
willard…”> As n -> 0, P -> 0
Cmon, Gordo. Think.
Thats your denominator”.
***
PV = nRT
When is n or P in the denominator?
Even if one of them was in the denominator, that is a common situation in calculus and would normally be written as ‘the limit as n -> 0’. Big difference between dividing by 0 and approaching a value as a limit.
C’mon, Gordo.
Do you read yourself? Here:
If you can’t think, at least read yourself.
“You presume energy must change form to disappear.”
Energy can never disappear!
That would be an LOT violation.
Energy reaches the troposphere mainly via convection and then leaves the troposphere from radiative heat transfer. GHE is insignificant.
EM,
Meaning no offense, it might be preferable to say that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
If energy has fled to deepest space, it has effectively “disappeared” to any person attempting to detect or use it.
For example, the energy which kept the Earth molten, even that which slower the cooling of the Earth, has “disappeared”. Gone. Vanished. Lost. Not destroyed – it has just disappeared.
You might care to let your audience know if you are giving the same meaning to “disappeared” and “destroyed”. It might be a semantic quibble, but generally, things can disappear without being destroyed. Wallets, car keys, loose change – all can disappear, and magically reappear, without being destroyed and recreated. I hope so, anyway.
No offense intended, of course. Just a bit of personal commentary.
entropic…” Energy can never disappear!
That would be an LOT violation”.
***
We have no idea what energy is. All we can observe or measure is the effect a mysterious energy has on matter. Therefore, we have to take the word of whoever created the maxim that energy can neither be created, nor destroyed.
I gave you several examples of how energy might disappear but you did not address my examples, rather, you regurgitated a maxim which you obviously believe. I don’t believe anything.
How would the disappearance of energy be a LOT violation? For one, the LOT are related only to heat and heat equivalent of mechanical energy as work. If you have a container with gas at a certain temperature, the temperature tells you the relative level of heat compared to 0K. If you remove all atoms from the container at STP, there is no heat inside the container but it won’t measure absolute zero because the thermometer will get radiation from the container walls, which receive heat through the walls from the environment.
Suppose that container is in space with a surrounding temperature of 0K? Suppose the container has walls that won’t allow heat to enter or leave. Then, you suddenly release every atom of gas, by opening a container wall and allow the gas to escape instantly to space.
What happened to the heat? It obviously escaped with atoms/molecules of gas, which proves heat is a property of mass (atoms). As each molecule escapes into the absolute zero of space, it will certainly emit EM, therefore you can argue that the heat was converted to EM.
A little too cute. In the container, heat is directly proportional to the number of molecules of gas, hence the pressure of the gas. As the gas escapes from the container, it enters an immense vacuum at 0K where it will expand immediately. As it expands into that huge volume of space, it’s pressure drops instantly and the number of molecules per unit volume -> 0.
Under those conditions, I suggest that heat vanishes.
Remember, I did not claim that the heat in air molecules rising to higher altitudes vanished, I claimed it dissipated. You have to remember as well that a basic tenet of AGW is that nitrogen and oxygen cannot radiate EM, therefore heat cannot be dissipated via M radiation. So, where does the heat go?
Anyone who claims it is transferred to trace gases that radiate it to space are not dealing with a full deck.
Gordon, you seem to be conflating several ideas!
“Presuming the atmosphere from the surface to the point where it becomes undefined is a constant volume … ”
Here you seem to be describing something like “to an altitude of ~ 100 km, where the atmosphere has thinned to basically nothing.”
If that is the case, then “n” would be the total moles in the atmosphere, and would also be (approximately) a constant.
Making an assumption like n -> 0 would mean removing all the gas. Yes, pressure would also go to 0, but not temperature.
I think you are actually thinking about something like the adiabatic lapse rate, where gas that expands as it rises also cools. If you let the gas expand indefinitely, the pressure would go to zero, as would the temperature.
But this is not a case of “dissipation of heat without changing to another form of energy”. The KE of the gas molecules does work as the gas expands, ‘dissipating’ the energy to the surrounding gas. There will also be changes in potential energy as gas moves up and down. Conservation of energy says the energy of the gas molecules has to go SOMEWHERE!
Tim,
You wrote –
“Conservation of energy says the energy of the gas molecules has to go SOMEWHERE!”
True, but if it disappears into the vast universe surrounding us, then it is no longer available for measurement or anything else. It hasn’t been destroyed, it has just disappeared! Gone. Vanished.
If you want to talk about background radiation, my point is that you cannot separate out the contribution of the energy that the Earth lost as it cooled (for example) from the radiation you can detect. It has disappeared, never to be seen again as a distinct entity.
No contradiction to the conservation laws.
Energy which is radiated from the Earth’s surface disappears. That’s why the temperature falls at night. Whether there is an atmosphere or not. Regardless of GHGs. More slowly or more quickly – the eventual outcome is the same.
I await your attempt to pervert reality. Try an irrelevant and pointless analogy, or a thoughtless “thought experiment”, invoking sciency words.
Go for it.
TIM ❭❭ Conservation of energy says the energy of the gas molecules has to go SOMEWHERE!”
SWENSON ❭ True
And that was exactly my point. Gordon DOESN’T seem to think that that is true. He suggests “The ROT that energy can neither be created nor destroyed needs to be questioned.”
So your issue is with him, not me.
“I have already pointed out a flaw in Newton II, and I am sure Isaac was aware of it. f = ma applies only when f is large enough to move m.”
So pray tell, what is the minimum force that must be applied to a 1000 kg object cause it to move. What is the actual equation that we should be using instead of a = f/m
Tim,
Newton’s Laws are only an approximation, but generally close enough for government work, as they say.
So your question is possibly poorly phrased, as massless photons can exert a force, but may not necessarily do so. Photons can posses momentum bounded by zero and infinity, so pick a figure.
Even so, interactions between light and matter are probabilistic in nature, and further complicated by the uncertainty principle (to which no exceptions have been found, to my knowledge).
I suppose what I”m trying to say is that you need to think more before posing stupid gotchas.
Swenson,
Certainly classical mechanics is an approximation that fails for very small and/or very fast objects. None of that pertains to the question of small accelerations of large objects. We are discussing classical mechanics.
The ‘gotcha’ (as you called) it served its purpose. It got Gordon to clarify. It revealed that Gordon was not properly understanding N2; not properly addressing NET force vs individual forces.
I suppose what I am saying is that we don’t need to wander off into relativity and quantum mechanics when the misunderstanding deals with simple, fundamental classical physics.
tim…”So pray tell, what is the minimum force that must be applied to a 1000 kg object cause it to move. What is the actual equation that we should be using instead of a = f/m”
***
Let’s make it easier. If you applied a force, using only muscle power, to a 1000 kg mass sitting on the ground, would it accelerate?
Until the mass moves, this is a problem for static equilibrium. Newton claimed the resistance to movement is inertia and he even claimed it to be an internal force resisting the external force. Of course, he presumed the external force to be the sum of all forces acting on the mass.
When you lean your shoulder against that 1000 kg mass, and start pumping your leg muscles, you have to overcome not only the mass inertia, but the friction between the mass and the ground. So, until the force you apply is great enough to overcome that friction force, the mass is going nowhere.
So, calculate the friction force for a 1000 kg steel mass on concrete. The coefficient of friction between steel and concrete is roughly 0.57.
F = mu.N
Where F = friction force in Newtons
N = normal force in Newtons
mu = friction constant (dimensionless)
You specified a 1000 Kg mass but you have to convert that to Newtons by multiplying by 9.8 m/s^2 to get the normal force. So 1000 Kg (9.8m/s^2) = 9800 Kg-m/s^2 = 9800 Newtons.
Therefore F = .57(9800 newtons) = 5586 Newtons
You’d have to apply 5586 Newtons of force to get the mass moving which is about 1256 pound-force. That’s a bit over half a ton of force you’d need to apply to make f = ma apply. Even at that, we don’t know if the mass would accelerate or simply maintain a constant velocity.
Until you apply enough force to overcome friction, that block is in static equilibrium and is going nowhere.
Might be different is space. If you had the 1000 kg mass floating in space and you pushed on it, the force required would be less. But, where would you anchor your feet to push off?
Make the mass a 1000 Kg boat. Even simple human muscles can make that move from rest quite easily. Does take some time but it happens for sure.
Gordon,
When you said you were using “Newton’s Second Law”, I assumed that “f=ma” was just a lazy shortcut because typing a “Sigma” to indicate net force takes a bit more effort.
Of course, “f=ma” is wrong if you are not talking about *net* force. And yes, Newton did know that “f=ma” is wrong. That is why he wrote his law to deal with net force.
F(net) = ΣF = ma.
Newton’s actual 2nd Law is fine (ignoring relativity, etc). You just need to apply the WHOLE law, not just part of it.
He’s referring to the cooling period from late 1940s – late 1970s [“the cooling earth”] which was erased through revisionist record keeping. The tail end of that coincided with the peak of the Arctic Sea Ice Maximum too, but they didn’t alter the record they just cut off everything before 1978 and pretended like we didn’t have the technology or inclination to observe ice extent.
Indeed. If you conclude that there was drop before 1980 (or thereabouts) and likewise a bigger drop to the little ice age (say 1800), then the situation as stated becomes a lot less clear.
” … which was erased through revisionist record keeping. ”
Typical peseudoskeptic, somewhat paranoid nonsense.
Take GISS data (considered worst)
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1975/trend
or Had-CRUT
https://tinyurl.com/7kcu6rda
You see clearly that nothing has been ever erased.
binny…”Take GISS…”
***
Please do, and dump it in the ocean.
The very best would be to dump you it.
That would result in this blog appearing less dumb.
” The tail end of that coincided with the peak of the Arctic Sea Ice Maximum too, but they didnt alter the record they just cut off everything before 1978 and pretended like we didnt have the technology or inclination to observe ice extent. ”
Some source for this interesting allegation?
Here is HadISST1 ICE from 1950-2021:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L25Mub9gZiHgL-TTY5tR_Fu6KFRWpEQE/view
A peak in the Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 1970’s?
Is that your invention too?
Even a successful COP26 will be too !ittle , too late.
We’re committed to climate change in the same way that a man who’s jumped off the Empire State Building is committed to hitting the sidewalk.
The worst damage has not happened yet, but there is no longer any way to avoid it.
Ent must have just come from his cult meeting. He’s always so fired-up after an indoctrination.
I can just picture him walkin around with a sign “End Is Nigh” like Homer Simpson
King Canute felt the same way about the tide.
‘The tide is going to rise no matter what I say or do’.
‘We got to the beach too late’.
Fools that delude themselves into thinking they can influence natural cycles are a bane to us all.
King Canute was meant as a lesson of humility, Kennui. He was big and strong, just like the authoritarians you adore. Scratching my own itch, I note that he might have made his prognostication on Thorney Island:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/next-big-step-for-thorney-islands-flood-defences
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Read your history, you ignorant fool. Ken is correct. Maybe climate crackpots should admit that they cannot direct the future by shrieking and bellowing about “climate change”.
Carry on denying reality if you wish. As Feynman noted in relation to some delusional NASA employees – ” . . . reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
If you don’t agree, go your hardest! Let me know how you get on.
Mike Flynn,
Model of Fatheadedness,
King Canute ruled on Thorney Island, and EM’s realization isn’t fatalism.
Even if there’s nothing to do about sea level, we can still wall ourselves from its devastation.
Same with the possibility that 2C is already in the pipeline.
As Dick is wont to say —
“Never confuse education with intelligence, you can have a PhD and still be an idiot.”
The same applies to chemical engineers.
Witless Wee Willy,
Gavin Schmidt PhD, Michael Mann PhD, Josh Halpern (Eli Rabbett) PhD.
Idiots or just delusional? Or are you truly stupid enough to believe everything they say?
Grow up, laddie. Use your brain, even if it hurts!
Mike Flynn,
Metamathematical Fanatic,
Don’t forget this wonderful wisdom from your favorite guru–
“I learned from her that every woman is worried about her looks, no matter how beautiful she is.”
Oh! Oh! Oh!
–The summit is expected to attract 25,000 delegates, 125 world leaders and up to 100,000 protestors to Glasgow next month. Pictured: Supporters march in Brussels ahead of Cop26
The RMT union also plans to stage a rail strike over pay from 1 November to 12 November, causing potentially more disruption to those wanting to travel to Glasgow by public transport for Cop26.
In-person appointments will continue for cancer referrals and urgent care.
But Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labours health and Covid recovery spokeswoman, said hundreds of patients who have waited months to see their GP in-person because of the pandemic would be disappointed by the move and called it a recipe for disaster.–
https://www.independenteagle.com/hundreds-of-face-to-face-gp-appointments-cancelled-or-rescheduled-in-glasgow-to-slash-cop26-traffic/
“COP26 has been described as the last best hope for the world to get its act together on climate change but Chinas President Xi Jinping and Russias President Vladimir Putin will not attend, delivering a blow to hopes of substantial progress.
The Queen is also expected to join Prince Charles and Prince William at a banquet for delegates on 1 November. ”
Probably best described as a riot.
gbaikie…”…and up to 100,000 protestors to Glasgow next month…”
***
I’m envious, they get to have a real pint of McEwan’s. Also, there’s a great wee deli in Queen’s Street Station that makes a terrific sub. And, don’t forget the fish and chips.
The same people crying about the last chance to save humanity are the same crowd who swallowed the propaganda about covid, based on an unvalidated computer model prediction. Normally I’d ignore them but we have reached a point where we need to round them up and send them off on a one-way trip to Pakistan. There, they can convert to Muslim and live in their peculiar form of Nirvanna.
I think Muslims will convert them to Islam.
These people are “dying to believe in anything”.
entropic…”Were committed to climate change…”
***
The phrase, climate change is an appeal to emotion. There is no such thing in the context in which it is delivered. That’s what the movement is about, a load of eco-wannabees braying with emotion aimed at getting their own misguided way.
> climate change is an appeal to emotion
C’mon, Gordo. “Climate change” comes from Frank’s memo:
https://bigthink.com/guest-thinkers/the-luntz-memo-and-the-framing-of-climate-change/
Before that it was “global warming.”
Troglodytes always find a way to whine about wording.
It’s as if they had little else.
Wiki:
“Earth’s rotation or Earth’s spin is the rotation of planet Earth around its own axis, as well as changes in the orientation of the rotation axis in space. Earth rotates eastward, in prograde motion. As viewed from the north pole star Polaris, Earth turns counterclockwise.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation
” Earth’s rotation is slowing slightly with time; thus, a day was shorter in the past. This is due to the tidal effects the Moon has on Earth’s rotation. Atomic clocks show that a modern-day is longer by about 1.7 milliseconds than a century ago, slowly increasing the rate at which UTC is adjusted by leap seconds. Analysis of historical astronomical records shows a slowing trend; the length of a day increased about 2.3 milliseconds per century since the 8th century BCE.
Scientists reported that in 2020 Earth has started spinning faster, after consistently slowing down in the decades before.”
So, Earth’s spin may or may not be slowing down at moment. But generally, has Earth spin slowed down?
Or, over billions of years has Earth’s gone from less than about 12 hours to the current 24 hours
Or as depicted here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1OreyX0-fw
If a planet that slows down gets cooler and the temps rose because of AGW, does it mean that AGW might be bigger than we thought?
Tune in tomorrow for this new episode of Climateball!
It’s raining. Hundreds of little birds are constantly squawking.
It’s 61 F – and I am not wet, yet.
It’s suppose to clear up tomorrow.
Now, just few are chirping.
Must been some weird celebration or something.
Witless Wee Willy,
The Earth has slowed since its creation.
It has cooled to its present temperature.
What on Earth are you babbling about?
>If a planet that slows down gets cooler…
Wiltard doesn’t believe in science, only advancing the agenda.
Every day a Troglodyte faints on his couch and dies.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Every day your comments show less connection to reality.
Just like climate cranks repeating over and over “Doom! Doom! It’s worse than we thought!”
Have you won any “silly semantic games” recently?
Mike Flynn,
Majestic Fetish,
You ask about semantic games —
Have you noticed how Flop’s trick has been dispelled by reminding that rotation implied isometry?
A pity you can’t contribute to the Moon Dragon Cranks Master Argument.
Aw Diddums!
Wee Willy Wanker,
No. I asked specifically if you had won any “silly semantic games” recently?
As usual, you can’t accept reality, and attempt to fly off at a tangent and dribble nonsense.
Demonstrating once again that you live in a world of your own.
Mike Flynn,
Manageable Futurelessness,
FYI–
An isometry is a distance-preserving transformation.
That means that no stretching is allowed.
So Flop has been cheating a bit.
Hope this helps!
Dud, isometry is irrelevant to Moon’s orbit. You don’t understand any of this.
You’re an uneducated, braindead cult idiot.
Isometry has everything to do with rotation, Pup.
The Moon Dragon Cranks hold that the Moon only rotates about the Earth. In their Master Argument, we can find many claims involving rotation:
**Proposition**. The Moon does not spin, i.e. it does not rotate on its axis. It only orbits around the Earth. *Footnote: Mathematical model pending.*
(SHORT) The Moon cannot spin because I do not see it spinning.
(REVOLUTION!) Revolution can be defined as a rotation about an external axis. In that motion the same face remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout. Orbit and revolution are synonyms.
(LIKE A BOS) The ball-on-a-string (or BOS) illustrates orbit without spin. It implies rotation but not translation. But it is only an illustration.
(CANNONBALL) The cannon and ball are not rotating on their own axes whilst sitting there, they are rotating about the Earth’s axis, same as every other part of the Earth.
(TORQUE) Since there is nothing to apply a torque about the internal axis, there will be no spin.
(LOCK) The Moon is tidally locked, hence why it no longer spins.
(IMPOSSIBLE) If the Moon spun while in orbit it would rotate 360 degrees and all sides would be observable from the Earth.
(GIF) In the Wiki GIF on tidal locking, orbit without spin looks like the moon on the left, not the moon on the right. Orbit with spin looks like the moon on the right.
(TRANSLATION) It is not possible for the Moon to orbit and spin without a translation.
(PURE) One should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation. *Shows an engineer handout*.
(FLOP’S TRICK) Flop showed how to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse.
(IF-BY-WHISKEY) It would not be possible to define revolution by rotation or to program a rotation in an ellipse if rotation was only around a circle.
(SO WHAT) If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
(SIMPLES) Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
(LRO) I have already explained why the LRO does not provide evidence of lunar axial rotation. *Gestures at the infinite*.
(FRAMES) Inertial reference frame confuses orbiting with rotating.
(NAME DROPS) Tesla. Henry Perical. That csaitruth guy. Aleksandar S. Tomic.
(DUDEISM) Well, that’s, like, my opinion. I have every right to think differently, and will continue to do so.
(IGNORE) Ignore.
Sorry Dud, isometry is irrelevant to Moon’s orbit. You don’t understand any of this.
You’re an uneducated, braindead cult idiot.
Don’t be sorry, Pup.
Be relevant.
Isometry has everything to do with Flop’s trick.
Dud, you’re trying to claim an elliptical orbit can’t exist because of isostasy. You don’t understand any of this.
You’re an uneducated, braindead cult idiot.
You are not very good at this, Pup.
I am only claiming that a rotation implies an isometry.
If Kiddo and Flop want to play the geometry gurus, they need to play the rules of the geometry game.
Please visit the “Earth / Europa (Jupiter’s moon) satellite measured mean surface temperatures 288 K and 102 K comparison” :
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445498727
You made some webpage upgrades. They look good.
Thank you Stephen.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The dismal state of Sun cycles forecasting
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/community/topic/2124-important-terminator-update/
Hey guys, the UN says we now have 50years to save the planet. You propagandists need to regroup.
Entropic man at 6:36 AM
Even a successful COP26 will be too little , too late.
We’re committed to climate change in the same way that a man who’s jumped off the Empire State Building is committed to hitting the sidewalk.
The worst damage has not happened yet, but there is no longer any way to avoid it.
I’m sure you’ve seen Hausfather & Peters https://ibb.co/M2VDY3G. The Grantham Institute’s Future Pathways paints a reasonable picture of the magnitude of the task ahead just to stay within 2.5-3.0.
Your thoughts?
TM, your first link indicates about 35 billion tonnes CO2 from fossil fuels, currently.
Current CO2 from fossil fuels = 35,000,000,000 tonnes/annually.
Exxon-Mobil plant to recover CO2 = 7,000,000 tonnes/annually.
Let’s remove some zeroes so it won’t be so confusing for the braindead cult idiots:
Current CO2 from fossil fuels = 35,000
Exxon-Mobil plant to recover CO2 = 7
See why the E-M plant won’t harm any forests?
Clint R at 6:48 AM
You should have your head examined; I think you’re retarded!
Was it still too confusing for you, TM?
Clint R at 7:47 AM
Yes, since you asked; were you born this way or were you dropped on your head as a baby?
Thanks for verifying how anti-science and immature you are, TM.
Now, when I point out how braindead you are, it’s easy to prove. I have example, after example.
Clint R at 10:21 AM
So that’s a 10-4 to were you born this way? Thx
The CO2 spectrum is saturated. Even if the CO2 in the atmosphere were doubled from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, the temperature increase would be minimal, probably less than 0.5C.
The 2.5 – 3.0 is climate model projection is alarmism that has no basis in science.
Most of the warming observed in the climate since 1840 (about 0.5C) has been due to natural climate cycles.
COP26 is nothing but a gathering of power hungry people who want to take your rights and freedoms away by denying access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels.
Ken at 7:58 AM
The CO2 spectrum is saturated.
2009 phoned, they want their CO2 spectrum is saturated myth back. Read a book!
Even the “model” is bogus. It’s based on “curve-fitting”. There is no scientific basis for the Arrhenius CO2 equation.
Higher global temperatures result in more CO2, NOT the other way around.
Clint R at 10:24 AM
So you have a problem with the Arrhenius equation? Please elaborate; and show your work.
You’re like Wiltard. A little leftist lapdog who throws stuff around and hopes it sticks.
This is another perfect example of how braindead the cult idiots are. I mentioned that the Arrhenius CO2 equation, which started the AGW nonsense, was bogus. So TYSON, links to one of Arrhenius’ chemical reaction equations1
Poor TYSON doesn’t have a clue about the nonsense he fervently believes in. He’s just another braindead cult idiot.
Clint R at 11:30 AM
So show this Arrhenius CO2 equation you have so much trouble with!
You should know that I aced all my PCHEM classes in college and this is the only Arrhenius equation I ever heard of.
TM, you’ve just admitted you’re a braindead cult idiot.
I can’t teach physics to braindead cult idiots.
Clint R at 12:58 PM
So no Arrhenius CO2 equation is forthcoming from you. Are you lying about its existence then?
Clint R at 12:58 PM
Lying about an Arrhenius CO2 equation is not cool!
Where I come from we don’t lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do, because, you know, Leviticus 19:11 and all.
Have a nice day you hear!
TM, just because you don’t know the basics of what your cult preaches, you believe you get to accuse me of lying?
That’s one of the reasons you’re a braindead cult idiot.
Guff,
Why don’t you explain to us how the Arrhenius equation was derived?
stephen p anderson at 8:10 PM
I could but you (yourself) would not understand. Besides, the Arrhenius equation has nothing to do with global warming.
TM has never heard of the Arrhenius CO2 equation. He doesn’t understand science, and he doesn’t even understand his own cult’s nonsense.
He’s braindead.
Kiddo uses “Arrhenius equation” oblivious to what Pup hinted. Pup lulzes because it does not refer to what he misconstrues as a law of nature. Which wasn’t the spirit of Vaughan’s comment anyway.
We definitely need better Dragon cranks.
Ken
“The CO2 spectrum is saturated. ”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
That turns out not to be the case. You can tell saturation. Half the outgoing radiation is abso*rbed.
You can see this at wavenumber 1000 for ozone.
For CO2 the spot frequency at wavenumber 700 is saturated but the band either side is not, and the band widens with increased CO2. CO2 absor*btion will not saturate at any concentration we are likely to reach.
Ent, are you aware that graph is only an “artist’s conception”? It is NOT an actual measurement at TOA.
Yes. It was modelled.
Look at the observed OLR and you’ll find the same pattern, which validates the model.
This graph has the advantage that it passes the site’s radiative physics filter while my observed OLR graphs do not.
The key point is that Ken is pushing an obsolete climate change denial meme, easily falsified by the data.
The problem is the OLR is also modeled.
It’s worse than that, EM. Kennui pushes the “but saturated” meme while poasting Bill’s article:
It’s as if he did not grasp what this metaphor implied.
Here is William Happer’s article ‘Radiation Transfer’. https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/
He shows a similar diagram to you. The overlay is based on Schwarzschild equation and indicate 3Wm-2 for doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm.
The spectrum is saturated. Yes, there will be some warming but the effect is logarithmic.
Keep in mind too that water vapor shares the spectrum with CO2. So if there were actually much more warming it would already be apparent whenever there is a humid atmosphere. The maximum effect is already happening.
I guess this is the point where you think there will be more warming than do I. No way to know except to be around two hundred years from now to see the result of CO2 doubling. It’d bore me to hang around that long.
Interesting stuff:
I wonder where I saw that -14F before.
Ken
This a really deprecated view of what happens.
H2O and CO2 indeed share the IR emission spectrum, but not the lines within it.
And while H2O completely precipitates at the Tropopause, and hence is absent above it, CO2 is well present above that level, namely up to 50 km altitude.
Here is a comparison of the two at 15 km:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I53h9NLc-5mFZroYg2BrOp3AagWyRQiJ/view
Put in relation with the situation at surface, CO2’s effect might appear negligible:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I32co5V0Zjp4I-kU-cuW3ayTE-iIFWkW/view
because the absor-ptivity/emissivity is, at 15 km altitude, lower by a factor of 100.
One might thus remain skeptic about CO2’s effect, but keeping skeptic without being able to contradict: that is not worth much.
I’m peesimistic.
3C minimum, even if we keep it together. We’ll be behind the curve until something drastic happens, something like the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet and the rapid 3m sea rise which would follow.
I’m getting more concerned whether we can keep a complex civilization together that long. I’ve been seeing too many single point failures creating knock on effect throughout the system. The resilience to cope with the ropadope of high population, resource depletion and climate change just isn’t there.
Cool typo — “peesimistic”.
Pessimism is typical at the end of a cult’s life. Typically there is so much pessimism that suicide is common. It’s not pretty.
As opposed to your foolish optimism, Pangloss.
We must cultivate our garden.
“Don’t ever become a pessimist… a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events.’ ~R.A. Heinlein
Clint R
You remind me of a cartoon character I once watched.
He stood under a falling piano saying “What piano?” and was duly crushed.
Yeah, I used to watch cartoons when I was a kid.
The UN disagrees with you Eman. They’re already backtracking.
Eartb Nullschool shows Antarctic temperature today is -51C. 3C warming isn’t going to melt any ice in Antarctic.
Ken
If you were right, the blue line would not show any ups, let alone downs:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l97i–7Y_ZQXgROnNCeC6vlwQbEHTEWi/view
The extreme drop in 2016 was a very seldom anomaly, but… even these happen sometimes.
You understand that ice under pressure flows like water? That’s not due to temperature rise.
I should have looked at the diagram first. Sea ice extent and Antarctic ice cap are not the same thing. There is this matter of ocean currents that cause sea ice to float elsewhere and melt in warmer waters.
” There is this matter of ocean currents… ”
That, Ken, might hold for the ocean currents around the Arctic ice pack.
But I emit a tiny doubt about this happening below 50 S.
Well, when looking at links to info produced by a search for
” sun cycles terminator event ”
I am not excessively surprised to see for example:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/12/08/our-sun-could-be-on-the-verge-of-its-strongest-cycle-since-records-began-say-scientists/?sh=7b6d43b253ac
and, transitively
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-020-01723-y/
” Given this relationship and our prediction of a terminator event in 2020, we deduce that sunspot Solar Cycle 25 could have a magnitude that rivals the top few since records began. This outcome would be in stark contrast to the community consensus estimate of sunspot Solar Cycle 25 magnitude. ”
Thus, one more time: wait and see – until the boys all agree :- )
Ooops, misplaced comment…
Manifestly, the authors wanted to anticipate reactions due to pseudoknowledge wrt smoothing techniques:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-020-01723-y/figures/6
Once again Bindontknowdong demonstrates he has no understanding what he is reading and how anything works.
Posting a year old links to short cycle 24 predictions based on a termination event that was supposed have happened but didn’t, and by observations still nowhere near in sight, as such the actual length of the cycle 24 is stretching longer and longer and is yet to be determined,
That’s what I have been pointing out and it completely flies over his head.
Drawing straight lines through snippets of numbers was easier – no brains required.
Relating the Start Of Solar Cycle 25 to the Terminator of Solar Cycle 24
Patrick Geryl 2021
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353120822_Relating_the_Start_Of_Solar_Cycle_25_to_the_Terminator_of_Solar_Cycle_24
” Once we understand the signal for the start of Solar Cycle 25, we can deduce the time frame when the ‘Terminator’ from Solar Cycle 24 will be reached. This is the moment when Cycle 25 will be ‘fired up’.
Two recent articles made headlines using complex mathematics to predict the ‘Terminator Event’. However, at the time they didn’t know the start of Solar Cycle 25 and therefore failed in their effort.
The reason for this is that the low point between cycles is currently considered unimportant. We strongly disagree and point out that we can calculate the ‘Terminator’ more accurately if the low is considered a crucial starting point.
A possible significant solar flare event in excess of >x10.0 is to be expected in 2021-early 2022. ”
*
The problem with people like you, Eben, is that
– you are a gullible believer of what GSM ignoramuses tell you
and hence that
– the links they present automatically show the TRUTH, e.g. Geryl’s paper
– you consider anything else wrong
and therefore that
– anybody differing from your belief ia an idiot.
Geryl IS ONE VOICE AMONG MANY, Eben.
It seems that you that you couldn’t even imagine that Geryl could have failed in his effort as well.
Your thoughts?
Tell him just jump already
Stick to your threads, Eboy.
You first Willtard
You haven’t been paying attention much, Eboy.
Solar Cycle update preliminary part two
The Sun was quiet till the end of the month when it lit up like a Christmas tree, at last something to talk about but still no evidence of terminator event
https://youtu.be/XWkiq4VeZYY
test 54321
rlh…”“heat cannot exist in a vacuum”
Therefore the Sun cannot heat us. Sure”.
***
Richard, you need to think about this stuff a lot. Quick answers drop you in doo doo.
1)The space between Earth and Sun is not a vacuum, it is full of solar plasma, which is the solar wind. The plasma consists of electrons and protons ejected from the Sun. Although the theory of neutrinos is still immature, it has been projected that so-called emp.ty space is teaming with neutrinos.
Fortunately, we have a magnetic field around Earth which diverts most of the electrons and protons around the Earth.
2)Heat does not travel through space between the Sun and the Earth. Heat at the Sun is converted to electromagnetic energy and the EM moves through so-called emp.ty space till it impacts atoms on the Earth’s surface, where it is converted back to heat. The warmth you feel on your skin from sunlight is a local action that occurs in your skin. Your skin is not intercep.ting heat from the Sun.
On the other hand, if you are standing near a campfire and your skin detects the warmth, it is being heated by heated air particles like nitrogen and oxygen as well as EM radiation.
I know the Sun is very hot but you cannot feel heat from it directly over 93 million miles.
“Your skin is not intercepting heat from the Sun”
Sure. My skin tells me otherwise.
Feeling sunlight on your skin is due to “radiative heat transfer”. Radiative heat transfer works fine in a vacuum.
A campfire also warms by radiative heat transfer.
“The space between Earth and Sun is not a vacuum”
No-where is truly a vacuum as such, but it may well be 0.000001% of Earth’s standard air pressure. Its ability to convey energy via anything other than radiation will be very, very small.
tim…I used F(net) in my example and even f(net)= ma won’t work till f is great enough to move a mass. There has to be enough force to overcome the inertia of the mass and all opposing forces like friction.
That is, f = ma only applies after the mass starts moving and if there is an acceleration. We were presented Newton II at university as if it applied universally to any force applied to any mass.
So a boat weighting some tones in mass cannot be moved by human muscles alone. Wrong.
Lets all go to the parking lot and watch RLH push a concrete around.
… boat …
I’ve pushed BOATS of all sorts around. Some weighing in at a few tones. None made of concrete that I know of. But they would have moved just the same too.
More cargo cult science from Robertson.
It is well known, by those who know it well, that Newton’s second law f=ma reverts to the first law when f=ma=0. This is because in Newtonian physics f=0 implies that a=0 because m cannot equal zero.
So when a = 0 and mass = some largeish value, no f applied can make a greater than 0? I rather think not.
Your question is unintelligible. Perhaps Newton’s statement of his first law will answer it nevertheless:
I was pointing out that even if a mass is at rest, any force applied would accelerate it from 0 (relative) in that case.
So F= ma even if the mass is at rest, relatively speaking.
Newton’s first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This tendency to resist changes in a state of motion is inertia. There is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out). Then the object will maintain a constant velocity. If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest. If an external force acts on an object, the velocity will change because of the force.
“even f(net)= ma won’t work till f is great enough to move a mass. ”
Yes, F(net) = ma works. Always. (well, ignoring quantum mechanics and relativity.)
A net force of 1 N will accelerate a 10,000 kg truck. That acceleration will be exceeding small, but it is not zero. In fact it is a = 1N/10,000 kg = 0.0001 m/s^2.
Any net force accelerates any mass.
“There has to be enough force to overcome the inertia of the mass and all opposing forces like friction.”
Ah! There is your misunderstanding! ‘Opposing forces’ are part of F(net). If ‘opposing forces’ match the applied forces, then F(net) = 0. And Newton’s Law works exactly as expected and a = 0.
“We were presented Newton II at university as if it applied universally to any force applied to any mass.”
I suspect you were presented Newton II at university as if it applied universally to any *NET* force applied to any mass. I suspect over the years, you simply forgot some of those details — like the word “net”.
tim…”A net force of 1 N will accelerate a 10,000 kg truck. That acceleration will be exceeding small, but it is not zero. In fact it is a = 1N/10,000 kg = 0.0001 m/s^2″.
***
Gimme a break, Tim. Acceleration is the 2nd derivative of position. If the position does not change, acceleration = 0.
Give me a break, Gordon. If acceleration is 0.0001 m/s^2, the object will move 0.00005 m in 1 second. It will move 0.18 m in 1 min. It will move 648 m in an hour.
Position changes. Acceleration is not 0. N2 works.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
The planet mean surface temperature equation
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…Te…Te.correct..Tmean..Tsat.mean
Mercury..439,6K…364K….325,83K…340K
Earth….255K…..210K….287,74….288K
Moon…..270,4Κ…224K….223,35Κ…220Κ
Mars…..209,91K..174K….213,21K…210K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The 288 K – 255 K = 33K difference does exist in the real world, Christos, as it has been instrumentally measured on the real earthen system. To be real, you need to align your analysis by dropping factor phi et. al. and correctly adding the earthen atm. opacity – which can be found in a basic meteorology text.
Ball4, you’re blowing smoke again. As usual, you know nothing about this. You can’t identify a 255K surface that means anything. Or how it was “instrumentally measured”.
You’re just vomiting your braindead cult nonsense.
Sure I can identify a surface where 255K is instrumentally measured, however Clint R demonstrates no understanding as that surface is so obvious.
Now the “Ball4 spin” begins!
The “33K” is nonsense because it compares Earth’s temperature to an imaginary sphere. Ball4 claims the imaginary sphere is “real”, and its temperature has been measured at 255K. But Ball4 can’t produce this “real” surface, or any measurements of it.
But, he spins really well.
He’s just another braindead cult idiot.
Ad. homs again Clint R? I thought so.
Rather than spoon feeding Clint R, it is better for Clint R to discover the real 255K surface by Clint R actually reading up on the basic meteorology involved. I doubt Clint R has the pre-req.s required to do so and won’t do the work.
As predicted, Ball4 spins really well. He’s got NOTHING, so he has to.
Just another braindead cult idiot. (And, that’s not an ad nom. I just predict Ball4’s behavior and let his actions speak for themselves.)
Φ – is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor. It is a New and very important concept for the correct estimation of planetary “energy in” (not reflected) SW EM energy estimation. I have proposed to the scientific community… because Φ is a key parameter in the planetary Radiative Energy Budget.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Phi is just Christos’ fudge factor to get the right answer for well-known median near-surface temperature easily calculated from 1LOT from real earthen 1bar atm. opacity in a basic meteorology text.
Clint R also demonstrates little understanding of the basic physics.
Where’s your surface, braindead Ball4?
The 255K surface is so obvious, figure it out yourself Clint.
Right behind you, Pup:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190784
Braindead Dud, what do you suppose the “a” represents in Christos’ equation?
Read the link, Pup. It leads to an exchange. The guy you’re bootlicking right now had to be told that he wasn’t using the correct concept of albedo for his astrophysics. Otherwise:
2. Pinned down, Just Ask Questions.
Sorry Dud, I don’t do links to braindead, by braindead.
[PUP] GIMME A SAMMICH.
[ALSO PUP] LALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU.
And that’s why I don’t do links to braindead, by braindead.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment, Pup.
Report.
Lets continue now with this mathematical abstraction: The planet blackbody Te equation
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴
the Φ -factor for planet Earth is Φ=0,47
The Planet Corrected effective temperature (which still remains a mathematical abstraction) Te.correct for Earth is:
Te = [ Φ(1-a) Sο /4σ ]∕ ⁴
When substituting values
The corrected mathematical abstraction Te for planet Earth is
Te = 210 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So now Christos writes 288 K 210 K = 78K.
From earthen GHE 0K to 78K, like a battleship blasting away, Christos has straddled the text book target.
Where’s your surface, braindead Ball4?
Here’s a hint for Clueless Clint R to figure out the measured 255K surface & in Clint R’s own words:
“Radiative heat transfer works fine in a vacuum. A campfire also warms by radiative heat transfer.”
Where’s your 255K surface, braindead Ball4?
Profic ad. hom generator Clint R doesn’t even know where the surface Clint R criticizes is located. Maybe it’s the bogeyman under your bed Clint, happy Halloween.
Good, Ball4 has been unmasked and is the babbling teenie troll we all know and laugh at.
I’m made my point, Ball4 doesn’t have his 255K surface. So, on to the next anti-science idiot.
ad. hom expert Clint R admits hasn’t reliably read up on the GHE science Clint criticizes. Figures.
Heat is a transfer of molecular kinetic energy.
Since almost the entire incident solar flux’s EM energy on the instant is “sent” out (in form of reflection – SW EM specular and diffuse- and in form of IR EM emission) there is only a very small portion left to be transferred in the inner layers as molecular kinetic energy.
That is why we cannot average solar flux over the whole planet surface area. Flux is not heat.
Conclusion:
There is not any 240 W/m² outgoing IR EM emission.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Flux is not heat.”
Thank you Clint R!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Heat is a transfer of molecular kinetic energy.”
Heat is a measure of the total molecular kinetic energy in an object since the days of Clausius.
Thus EMR is not heat.
“There is not any 240 W/m^2 outgoing IR EM emission.”
Actually it’s more broad band.
Even Clint R has pointed Christos in a better science direction with a couple of clues:
“Radiative heat transfer works fine in a vacuum. A campfire also warms by radiative heat transfer.”
Where’s that 240 measured, braindead Ball4?
Clint would know if had read up on the reliable GHE science. It’s plain to see Clint R hasn’t done so.
“The 288 K – 255 K = 33C difference does not exist in the real world.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.”
*ahem* Yes it does exist in the real world. Yeah, its not measured, but it is calculated according to broadly accepted quantum mechanics , specifically black body theory.
So unless you have some proof that Stephan-Boltzmann law is all wrong, you’re spouting nonsense.
Ken, the bogus “33K” is the result of comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere.
If you believe that’s science, there’s a cult ready to have you as a member….
Sky Dragon Cranks like you only have a hemispheric model, Pup.
Talk about flat Earth!
Whacky Wee Willy,
“SkyDragons” are numpties who believe that increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in higher surface temperatures, and that we are all going to be boiled, roasted, fried or toasted by the mythical dragon’s fiery breath!
Idiots all. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, all by itself.
Carry on believing you can fool Nature. You can’t, but you are too delusional to accept reality.
Off you go now, play some games, and hope someone thinks you are clever, not deluded.
Mike Flynn,
Macer Fraud,
Sky Dragon Cranks are those who believe they are slaying something they don’t understand with a theory that does not exist, and in fact they slay nothing!
Aw diddums!
Winsome Wee Willy,
As usual, you have it ass-backwards.
Any lurkers might wish to look at “Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”, and see reality, rather the dribbling of Wee Willy’s fantasies.
There is a minor problem with the book’s title – possibly poetic licence- in that it refers to “Greenhouse Gas Theory”. Of course, no such theory exists – just delusional speculation by a group of climate nutters.
And their grovelling dim-witted worshippers like you, of course!
[sniggers at dimwit]
Mike Flynn,
Miserable Fragility,
Any lurker ought to realize by now that Dragon Cranks slayed nothing:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-ii/#comment-38102
Doom certainly has not heard of the greatly ingrate Mike Flynn!
Whacky Wee Willy just can’t help himself. Invents “Dragon Cranks” as strawmen, then claims they “slayed” nothing. Might have gained a bit of credibility by knowing that the past participle of “slay” is “slew”, but nutters like Wee Willy just make up their own reality as they tread their erratic path.
But hey, ho!, Wee Willy is only trying to create a diversion, seeking to avoid actually saying what it is that he believes!
As is the general rule with gullible cultists, who are not terribly bright. They just parrot cult slogans, such as “Stop Climate Change”, without realising how stupid a slogan like that is!
Stop the statistics of weather from changing? Wee Willy really needs to find another cult to join.
Mike Flynn,
Monospace Font,
Denying physics is the most expedient way to deny reality.
Therefore we all should bow to Dragon Cranks like you!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
If you cannot obtain a measurement (such as surface of the sun or an imaginary earth that does not have greenhouse gases) and you have a theory that works in applications of all sorts then using the theory on an imaginary sphere is science.
Until you have proof that the theory is wrong then you have nothing that proves you right.
> Until you have proof that the theory is wrong then you have nothing that proves you right.
You might need to rethink that aphorism, Kennui.
Perhaps this would be empirical enough for you:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190565
The GHE theory doesn’t use an imaginary sphere Ken, it uses a real oblate spheroid as does the instrumentally measured ~33K earthen GHE.
Where’s that 255K surface, braindead Ball4?
You seem to be avoiding addressing the issue, for some reason….
Ken, you are, maybe unintentionally, perverting science. The S/B Law is established physics. There’s no problem with it. But, you have to know how to apply it. To claim that an imaginary sphere proves Earth is too hot ain’t science. It’s perverting science.
In science, a theory cannot violate a law of physics. If it does, it must be thrown out and replaced with a theory that does not.
The AGW nonsense violates numerous laws of physics. It should have been tossed decades ago.
Clint R seems to be avoiding addressing the 255K surface location issue, for some reason… even given clues.
Probably because Clint R admits Clint has not studied the science.
Ken,
Wee Willy is an idiot, just like the rest of the “SkyDragons”.
Ask them to come up with a testable hypothesis involving the Sun, CO2, and increased temperatures. All you get is – evasion and obfuscation.
The idiots can’t even coherently tell you what it is that they are defending!
Religious fanatics all!
Kennui,
Mike Flynn is being Mike Flynn.
As Dick would say–
“Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that’s not why we do it.”
Oh! Oh! Oh!
And, of course, the usual diversionary and witless nonsense from the grovelling numpty!
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The gladiator’s gate opens and Mike Flynn appears, with his redoubtable red nose.*
“To claim that an imaginary sphere proves Earth is too hot ain’t science.’
We have no way to measure the surface of the sun.
We have no way to measure temperature on the surface of the earth as if there were no greenhouse effect.
We have measured the surface temperature on Earth at 288K.
We do have S/B. The law seems to be tried tested and true.
I submit that using S/B is an appropriate way to determine the surface temperature of the Sun and, subsequently, that the surface temperature of the earth should be 255K.
It is reasonable to assume that the difference between the calculated value of 255K and the observed value of 288K is due to Greenhouse effect. I am not aware of any other widely accepted hypothesis.
I do agree that there is nothing in the calculations and observations that suggest the earth is too hot or that it will get much warmer as it is now. More likely it will get cooler if interpretations of the geological reconstructions are correct.
S/B does not explain how temperatures vary or how GHE works. If S/B were the solution to AGW hypothesis we wouldn’t be discussing
why the climate model projections are so profoundly wrong.
I suggest that some of the problems with the AGW hypothesis is that no one knows what the ideal temperature of the earth should be, that there is natural variation and how much natural variation is present in our modest warming observed since the start of records.
Until there are other demonstrable science to explain why the S/B calculations are wrong, I would suggest we stick with the notion that S/B is correct.
“We have no way to measure temperature on the surface of the earth as if there were no greenhouse effect.”
There is Ken. Watch Clint R try to learn how to do so when Clint writes the starting basic clues:
“Radiative heat transfer works fine in a vacuum. A campfire also warms by radiative heat transfer.”
Ken believes: “I submit that using S/B is an appropriate way to determine the surface temperature of the Sun and, subsequently, that the surface temperature of the earth should be 255K.”
Ken, do you see how you are perverting science? You use the S/B Law to incorrectly support your beliefs. That ain’t science.
The S/B Law tells us the temperature of an imaginary sphere is 255K, so you automatically claim that “should be” Earth’s temperature. That ain’t science.
> The S/B Law tells us the temperature of an imaginary sphere
Incorrect, Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#History
You should take Kennui’s “But Predictions,” “But Modulz,” and “unless we know everything we know nothing” Bingo cards.
“The S/B Law tells us the temperature of an imaginary sphere is 255K, so you automatically claim that should be Earths temperature. That aint science.”
Are you claiming that S/B doesn’t result in calculation that earth should be 255K?
Do you have some hypothesis where S/B doesn’t apply to earth?
Without a working hypothesis and a way to test check and replicate your hypothesis you’re going to have to accept the S/B calculation that is widely considered to be the case; earth without greenhouse gas is 255K.
If you don’t accept the GHE is causing the climate to be 33K warmer than calculated, you’re going to have to explain why the surface temperature is observed to be 288K.
S/B 255K and GHE 33K is the state of the science. It will remain the state of the science until someone proves the hypothesis are wrong; that is how science works.
Simply stating widely accepted hypothesis, such as S/B 255K calculation is wrong isn’t enough; you have to prove its wrong. Fill your boots.
I agree the AGW is nonsense; there is no evidence to support the hysteria. Yes, additional CO2 should cause some warming. The question is by how much. Meanwhile the AGW projections are profoundly wrong when compared to empirical data.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-940676
Are you claiming that S/B doesn’t result in calculation that earth should be 255K?
It’s not just a “claim”, it’s FACT. The “255K” is for an imaginary sphere.
Do you have some hypothesis where S/B doesn’t apply to earth?
“Properly applied” is the key.
Without a working hypothesis and a way to test check and replicate your hypothesis youre going to have to accept the S/B calculation that is widely considered to be the case; earth without greenhouse gas is 255K.
What “hypothesis”? Are you building straw men, again?
If you dont accept the GHE is causing the climate to be 33K warmer than calculated, youre going to have to explain why the surface temperature is observed to be 288K.
288K is reality. It’s Earth observed average temp. That’s the “null hypothesis”. If you don’t like it, you have to come up with a workable theory otherwise. And, your theory can NOT violate the laws of physics.
S/B 255K and GHE 33K is the state of the science. It will remain the state of the science until someone proves the hypothesis are wrong; that is how science works.
It’s “anti-science”. Those values are for an imaginary sphere. That ain’t science.
Simply stating widely accepted hypothesis, such as S/B 255K calculation is wrong isnt enough; you have to prove its wrong. Fill your boots.
Earth is NOT an imaginary sphere. QED.
Yes, additional CO2 should cause some warming.
Nope. You’ve still got your boots filled with cult nonsense.
Kennui,
On the one hand, you accept that to simply state that a widely accepted hypothesis is wrong isn’t enough. One has to prove it wrong. On the other, you simply state that AGW is nonsense.
Time to fill your boots. Prove it wrong. And no, saying that there’s no evidence does not count: from an absence of evidence we can’t infer much.
As per the reason in my linked comment, the value could be closer to 275 K than 255 K. See the calculations and reasoning in the top answer here:
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/825/what-would-be-the-temperature-of-earth-if-there-was-no-atmosphere/828#828
…and that is just the start of the problems with 255 K.
Good find, Kiddo:
Note that 274.5 K is above 0 C.
[VLAD] According to Wikipedia an approximate average surface temperature for a bare earth is 274.5 K.
[ESTR] According to your wikipedia link, the temp is 254-255 K. But you’ve reported it as saying 274.5 K. Any idea where that discrepancy comes from?
Note that the Wiki entry does not contain the string “274.”
Three cheers for more realism!
Basically, if anyone is interested, the 255 K figure is arrived at by incorporating into the calculations an albedo of 0.3…but the main reason the albedo is this figure is due to cloud cover. Obviously, an Earth without an atmosphere would not have clouds, hence the albedo used in the calculations should be lower. The lower the albedo, the higher the temperature. Just read the top answer though, it explains it thoroughly there.
Basically, Kiddo does not understand Flop’s demos, can’t read Joe’s hemispheric model of the Earth, can’t grok Christos mathurbation, and picks and chooses the numbers he pleases without really understanding any of it.
Here are the revised calculations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation#Effective_temperature_of_Earth
So −18.8 °C it remains, however hard Christos or any other would like to fudge any factor they’d wish.
"If we wish to estimate what the temperature of the Earth would be if it had no atmosphere, then we could take the albedo and emissivity of the Moon as a good estimate. The albedo and emissivity of the Moon are about 0.1054[49] and 0.95[50] respectively, yielding an estimated temperature of about 1.36 °C."
The 1.36 C is of course the 274.5 K.
Here’s the bit Kiddo missed:
The only way to see what happens when you remove the atmosphere is to remove the atmosphere and nothing else.
"…current values on average range from 0.3-0.4, largely contributed to by clouds."
As I said, the 255 K figure is arrived at by incorporating into the calculations an albedo of 0.3…but the main reason the albedo is this figure is due to cloud cover. Obviously, an Earth without an atmosphere would not have clouds, hence the albedo used in the calculations should be lower. Or, if you want to keep an atmosphere but get rid of GHGs, the effect is the same. With no water vapor, no clouds can form, hence the albedo is still not going to be 0.3.
Oh, I almost forgot to add:
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
Kiddo’s new guru conflates Bare Earth with an Earth without an atmosphere, which should look more like Snowball Earth than Bare Earth since there’s no magic process that makes everything disappear from the Earth out of a sudden. However, if he’s to educamate himself through thy Wiki, he might profit from reading about airless bodies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperature#Airless_bodies
"I have put Willard on ignore"…
…for obvious reasons. As he will no doubt demonstrate in his response to this comment…
Ball4 wrote earlier –
“Clint would know if had read up on the reliable GHE science. Its plain to see Clint R hasnt done so.”
There is no “GHE science”. Anybody who thinks they have “read up” on it, is seriously delusional.
These dimwits flat out refuse to believe that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Their stupidity extends to implying that the Earths average temperature dropped to 33 K below its present temperature, and then miraculously heated up again to its present 288 K or so.
Science? Complete and utter nonsense. About as stupid as believing that “climate change” can be “stopped”!
It takes all kinds, I guess.
Nope, all that is only what Swenson writes. Swenson admits also has not read up on the earthen GHE reliable science.
B,
You witless fool. Go and put words in someone else’s mouth.
In any case, there is no ” . . . earthen GHE reliable science.”, is there?
If there was you would produce it. If you knew how to write English, you would probably do that, too.
” . . . earthen GHE reliable science.” What is that, precisely?
Try harder next time.
The reliable GHE measured science is actually easy to read up on Swenson, you don’t need ad. homs either, your local college librarian will help you find reading selections for free. You criticize what you do not know just like Clint R.
B,
Nope. You are just confusing fantasy with reality again.
Can’t find a librarian who knows anything about “reliable GHE measured science”, or “earthen GHE measured science”.
Your IQ must use the same units as your shoe size. Measuring either one is unlikely to result in a large number. You do realise that “GHE” not a real English word, do you?
Maybe you have confused the oxymoronic “climate science” fantasy with real science. Can you name someone who claims to be a “climate scientist”, who doesn’t suffer from delusions?
Run away and play with your crayons. Draw some meaningless brightly coloured scribbles, and give all the rational people a laugh by calling them “scientific climate models”, or “scientific data”.
Have fun.
Ad. homs are definitely easier to write than doing the work to understand how the real GHE is measured. Swenson’s choice of course.
B,
You dimwit. Don’t you realise that if you claim the mythical GHE can be measured, someone is likely to ask you to define the GHE, and ask you for the “measurement”?
Didn’t think of that, did you?
What’s the measurement? Cubic Watts per Kelvin? You really can’t say, can you?
Go away and moan about being asked to show your “science”.
Or complain about me not believing that your fantasies reflect reality.
Even the GHE cultists can’t agree on the definition of the GHE! How sad is that?
Swenson chooses the ad. hom.s course of action instead of learning the subject with some work. Typical. Swenson criticizes a subject not understood just like Clint R.
Braindead4 can’t get me out of his head.
That’s good. Maybe he will learn something.
The definition of GHE is ‘decrease in direct thermal radiation to space’.
The unit of measurement is Watts per Square Meter (Wm-2)
Actually, it goes further than that, Ken. They believe less emission to space translates to higher temperatures.
The AGW Hoax explained (in 20 words or less):
Adding more CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere results in less emission to space (“heat is trapped”), thereby raising surface temperatures.
Pure anti-science!
Less than 20 words to convince a public ignorant of the relevant physics.
Then Clint R is a so defined member of the public.
Adding more CO2 to Earths atmosphere results in a decrease of direct thermal radiation to space.
The only question is how much warming results.
Well that’s what the cult believes, Ken. But it you ask for the evidence, all you get is computer models from modelers that share the cult believes.
That ain’t science.
If you ask for the computer evidence, then you get the computer evidence. If you ask for the instrumental evidence, then you get the measured data. That’s the way science works.
Okay Braindead4, where’s your 255K surface?
I am not a librarian, go find one as they like to be able to ply their trade – there is plenty of research you admit you avoid. Spend some time in the stacks, gain some enlightenment. Ask for the instrumental evidence, so then you get the measured data.
“Until there are other demonstrable science to explain why the S/B calculations are wrong, I would suggest we stick with the notion that S/B is correct.”
What you referring to is Ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere model, which at 1 AU distance from the sun would absorb the disk area {cross section} of the sphere. or 1360 watts per square divided
4 = 340 watts emitted from blackbody surface of the sphere.
Or if blackbody is about 5 C it emits about 340 watts.
What is warmer, an ideal thermally conductive blackbody or Earth?
It depends upon how you measure Earth and depends upon how measure the Ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere model.
You could pick easiest answer say the Ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere is warmer as emits more energy than Earth.
One could say the average surface air temperature of Earth is 15 C and 15 C is warmer than 5 C.
But one could ask how you measuring this temperature. In which answer is highest daytime air temperature and night time temperature?
So you measuring a transparent substance.
Well, I add a transparent substance to the to ideal thermally conductive blackbody model. Put glass in front of it.
Now, at noon and when sun at zenith the glass will heat up to about 120 C and would not affect how much energy my model absorbs and I get a daytime high temperature.
And if measuring the glass, I get higher average temperature and higher uniform temperature.
gbaikie…”What you referring to is Ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere model…”
***
Don’t know where the idea came from that S-B is related to a black body. The original equation by Stefan was developed based on Tyndall’s experiment where he electrical heat a platinum filament wire till it glowed red. As he continued to increase the current, he noted the colours radiated by the wire changed. He did that between about 700C and 1500C. In essence, such temperatures are close to blackbody radiation but no BB was used to find the S-B relationship.
Someone else converted the colours to EM frequencies/wavelengths and Stefan noted the T^4 relationship between the EM intensity and the heat, in a range from 700C to about 1500C. The intensity is related to the colour.
The S-B constant is based on emissions in that range of temperatures and does not apply outside that range.
Some proofs here…
http://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html
He reckons that without an atmosphere, the Earth’s surface temperature would be around 50C, not -19C.
According to Gerlich and Tscheuschner, you can adapt the constant to other temperature ranges but it is incorrect to use the 700C – 1500C constant for terrestrial temperatures.
> Don’t know where the idea came from that S-B is related to a black body.
C’mon, Gordo. Read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#History
willard…”A derivation of the law from theoretical considerations was presented by Ludwig Boltzmann (18441906) in 1884, drawing upon the work of Adolfo Bartoli”.
***
Boltzmann was a student of Stefan and it was Stefan who developed the T^4 relationship between heat and EM intensity. I don’t care what Boltzmann tried to do statistically, the S-B equation came from Stefan’s deduction based on the PHYSICAL experiment by Tyndall, which you mentioned earlier, after I had posted the info about a dozen times.
All Boltzmann did was take Stefan’s Law and work it out statistically, for reason’s unknown.
S-B is based on an electrically-heated platinum filament wire in which the temperature varied between about 700C and 1500C.
> I don’t care what Boltzmann tried to do statistically
C’mon, Gordo.
You said you did not know where the idea came from that S-B is related to a black body. Now you intimate that you don’t care about where it comes from.
Make up your mind.
“An ideal thermally conductive blackbody at the same distance from the Sun as Earth would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C (41.5 °F). ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
But Wiki is wrong, It has uniform temperature of about 5 C.
Or there is no high and low temperature of the spherical surface- the idea measuring earth temperature with high and low temperature and averaging and imagining this some how equal to uniform temperature of ideal thermally conductive blackbody is dumb.
To prove it was dumb, I added a pane of glass and thereby gave it a high temperature.
Otherwise the ideal thermally conductive blackbody would have a temperature of 5 C when sun was at zenith and 5 C when it was at midnight.
Or only thing remotely acting ideal thermally conductive blackbody is the Earth ocean- it can be 5 C on clear day and the sun is at zenith. Another thing like it, is 10 meter solid cube of copper.
Or other material which is close to a ideal thermally conductive material. A block of granite is not like it. Any rock, sand or dirt is not like it. Lunar regolith is even further from it- as it’s a highly insulative surface. Or why average temperature of Moon is about 200 K {minus 70 C}>
Or the uniform temperature of Earth surface is average temperature of it’s ocean, about 3.5 C. Though Earth has had uniform temperature of about 20 C, but we in an ice age, and 20 C average temperature of the entire ocean would definitely be a greenhouse global climate.
Or earth is only known planet that is similar to thermally conductive blackbody. And Earth absorbs a lot of the energy of the sun, compared to any known planet. And ideal thermally conductive blackbody model absorbs the most that spherical body, can absorb.
But if planet was completely covered with an ocean it could absorb more sunlight than “ideal” model predicts. We can make our ocean absorb more than model predicts. And is how, we could get out of freezing ice house climate.
ball4…”Heat is a measure of the total molecular kinetic energy in an object since the days of Clausius.
Thus EMR is not heat”.
***
I am glad you finally understand that EM is not heat. Now, can we work on the fact that heat is energy and not a measure of energy?
Since a molecule is a definition for two or more atoms bonded by electrons, can we do away with that term and address the reality of the atoms themselves? Molecules are comprised of atoms, which are comprised at the macro atomic level of protons, electrons and neutrons. The electron is the only particle capable of changing its kinetic energy state and it is the only particle in any molecule that can absorb and emit energy.
So, heat is not a measure of kinetic energy, it is the kinetic energy in question. A measure of that kinetic energy and heat, is temperature.
See, it’s not so hard.
For about the 12th time, kinetic energy is a reference to ***ANY*** energy in motion. It’s opposite is potential energy. If you have a dam filled with water, that water represent potential mechanical energy. When you open the sluice gates and let the water rip, it becomes kinetic mechanical energy and can do work.
In the case of atoms in a solid, the atoms vibrate at a level dependent on the level of heat in the solid. Add heat and they vibrate harder, remove heat and they vibrate less.
Clausius pointed that out a long time ago. Internal energy = internal work + internal heat. He defined internal energy, U, and his definition was adopted. It applies today no matter how many modern wannabees want to claim heat is not energy, but a measure of energy.
“…heat is energy and not a measure of energy?”
Clausius p. 39: “heat is the measure of their kinetic energy.”
ball4…”Clausius p. 39: heat is the measure of their kinetic energy.
***
It’s actually on p.35 of the 1879 version, you lying troll, and as usual, you cherry picked the statement.
The full statement is:
“…the heat found in bodies and determining their temperature is treated as being a motion of their ponderable atoms…We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and of ether, and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva of this motion”.
So, what is that motion, if not energy? Having established that heat is energy, we want to know how much energy, and Clausius tells us the ‘quantity of heat’ is a measure of the kinetic energy of the motion.
As I have been trying to teach you, kinetic energy means energy in motion. Which energy is in motion? Clausius told us the energy is heat.
Of course, being the lying troll that you are, you reduced the ‘quantity of heat’ to just ‘heat’, misquoting Clausius intentionally, and offering the lie that heat is a measure, rather than the ‘quantity of heat’ being a measure.
It seems you have a lot of numptys out there with you, who cannot comprehend a simple statement.
Good job Gordon now you have proven you have learned how to properly use the term heat as a quantity, a measure (where previously you wrote “heat is energy and NOT a measure of energy”) and not an entity that can transfer (be poured) between objects. Thus, after Clausius and Joule there is no heat in an object. And yes, different editions can have different page numbers.
You now should be able continue to make the effort to properly align your comments on heat with Clausius writings on the subject & sport a grin at those that do not. Maybe you can conquer correctly using heat vs the 2LOT someday too.
Heat is a quantity, a measure, of the total KE of the object’s particles.
Temperature is a measure of the average local KE of the object’s particles.
Gordo, Perhaps you should think about the term in physics and engineering for the material property known as “heat capacity”. For us old timers who don’t think metric, remember that the British Thermal Unit (“BTU”) is defined as the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water by 1 deg Fahrenheit and also represents the amount of energy released when the temperature decreases.
swannie…” For us old timers who dont think metric, remember that the British Thermal Unit (BTU) is defined as the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water by 1 deg Fahrenheit…”
***
No, Swannie, not the amount of energy…the amount of heat. A BTU is a British ‘Thermal’ Unit, meaning it is a quantity of heat.
It’s metric counterpart, the calorie, is defined as the amount of heat required to raise 1cc of water by 1C. Note that 1C is a temperature, which is a relative measure of heat.
When you speak of energy in particular, you must define the type of energy and refrain from hiding behind a generic energy.
“No, Swannie, not the amount of energythe amount of heat.”
You mean an electrical heater supplied with electrical energy cannot do the job?
James Joule determined that 778 foot-pounds of work (mechanical energy) can heat water just as much as 1 BTU of heat from a fire. He also determined that electricity can provide the work.
Similarly 4.2 J of work can heat water as much as 1 calorie of heat.
Energy = work = heat, that was the whole point of thermodynamics!
rlh…and tim…and maguff…”I was pointing out that even if a mass is at rest, any force applied would accelerate it from 0 (relative) in that case.
So F= ma even if the mass is at rest, relatively speaking”.
***
Do any of guys understand that acceleration is the 2nd derivative of position?
S = vt
v = ds/dt …meaning velocity = an instantaneous change in distance (s) wrt time.
Note: distance must change in order for velocity to be other than 0.
a = dv/dt = d2s/dt2… meaning distance must change in order for velocity or acceleration to be other than 0.
If you have a mass, as in f = ma, and the mass does not move a distance, there can be no velocity or acceleration. S = 0, therefore ds/dt = v = 0, and d2s/dt2 = a = 0.
If you put your shoulder into a 1 kg mass lying on concrete, the only thing that will move is the flesh on your shoulder or the slippage on your feet.
If the Moon is to accelerate toward the Earth, it must move a distance in the direction of the Earth, therefore it’s orbit must be reduced.
Gordon Robertson at 2:40 AM
“I was pointing out that even if a mass is at rest, any force applied would accelerate it from 0 (relative) in that case.”
No, that is not what you said here:“That is, f = ma only applies after the mass starts moving and if there is an acceleration. We were presented Newton II at university as if it applied universally to any force applied to any mass.”
f=ma always applies in an inertial frame. Note that the reason they are called inertial frames is because they are a requirement established by the Law of Inertia.
maguff…”f=ma always applies in an inertial frame. Note that the reason they are called inertial frames is because they are a requirement established by the Law of Inertia”.
***
Typical alarmist red-herring argument. Unless there is relative motion present, only the needy and the daft sue reference frames.
You failed to address my point that a mass that does not move has zero acceleration. Conversely, for there to be acceleration, a mass must move.
Newton’s first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This tendency to resist changes in a state of motion is inertia. There is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out). Then the object will maintain a constant velocity. If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest. If an external force acts on an object, the velocity will change because of the force.
You are so boring.
“If you put your shoulder into a 1 kg mass” floating in water then it will move quite fine thank if it is floating.
“Do any of guys understand that acceleration is the 2nd derivative of position?”
Do you understand that things will accelerate from 0 if ANY force is applied if the friction is near 0 as it is when things are floating.
rlh…”Do you understand that things will accelerate from 0 if ANY force is applied if the friction is near 0 as it is when things are floating”.
***
One problem, we are talking about a 1000 Kg mass, not a 1 Kg mass.
I have personally pushed boats weighing several tones around with my arms and legs.
Acceleration is the second time derivative of the position vector.
Yeah… Gary Nowak.
You know, the genius who compares the energy flux emitted by ice (about 300 W/m^2) with the power of three 100 Watt bulbs.
Nowak is one of the dumbest Pseudoskeptics.
Braindead-idon, you didn’t understand anything about that article.
That’s no surprise….
Of course I did!
You didn’t understand what I wrote, no wonder.
Wrong Braindead-idon. He was pointing out how ridiculous it is to compare ice to 3-100W light bulbs. That’s what your cult does. They believe all flux is the same. They believe all flux can be added/subtracted/averaged/divided.
Your cult doesn’t have a clue about the relevant physics, and neither do you.
Swenson at 11:49 PM
B,
Nope. You are just confusing fantasy with reality again.
Can’t find a librarian who knows anything about “reliable GHE measured science”, or “earthen GHE measured science”.
Your insane asylum must have very poor librarians. I asked the librarian at my local public library for reference material on the GHE and here’s the first title she was able to locate:
Atomic and Molecular Radiative Processes With Applications to Modern Spectroscopy and the Greenhouse Effect.
TM, was your librarian able to show you the Arrhenius CO2 equation?
When you find it, you will have to admit you don’t know squat about your own cult’s beliefs. Or, IOW, you’re a braindead cult idiot.
Try this, Pup:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-iii-discussion/#comment-40704
Or else do the Poll Dance Experiment.
In both cases report.
Let me add that only the dumbest, most stubborn ignoramuses discredit and denigrate people like Vaughan Pratt.
They all didn’t even understand till now why Wood’s experiment was wrong.
Vaughan is the Maurice Richard of Climateball:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/vaughanpratt
Poor Dud misspells “pole”, again. The braindead just can’t learn.
Look how they now claim the Arrhenius nonsense is a “law”!
That’s how they pervert science — one small increment at a time. Then BAM, it’s “established”!
The cult idiots can’t wait to gulp it down.
Pup often misses when I use “Pole,” e.g. :
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-948179
Pup is a sad pup.
Clint R at 9:38 AM
I always appreciate the incompetent flak from braindead cult idiots. It provides extra validation for my comments.
Thanks for quoting me, TM.
You can’t go wrong quoting me exactly.
You observe Moon by observing Moon.
Did your librarian find the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation for you, TM?
Clint R at 1:20 PM
I can’t help you if you won’t tell me what you find wrong with the Arrhenius equation.
So until you tell me I’ll assume you’re just trolling.
That’s the wrong equation, TM.
You need to find the bogus CO2 equation that egregiously relates CO2 to temperature.
Ask your librarian to help you, if your keyboard training hasn’t covered “search” yet.
Clint R at 2:37 PM
Ha, ha, ha! You’re funny.
You’re on your own on this one.
Please find paper Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098
See figure 4.
The paper Clint R admits Clint doesn’t understand but chooses to criticize anyway is here:
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
See eqn. 3 and beta = 0.80 on p. 259.
Yeah Ken, you’ll see that graph often. It’s from a computer model.
In reality, CO2 emits in all directions. If CO2 is increased, then there is more emission to space.
…and toward earthen surface.
Ken, the issue is very important.
Let’s see what we have till now:
The Earth’s distance from the center of sun: Ro = 1AU (150,000,000 km)
The sun’s diameter: 1.39 million km (the sun’s radius Rsun = 0.695 million km)
The solar flux (measured) at TOA (also called Solar constant So) So = 1,362 W/m
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
The distance reverse square law So/Ro = S/R
The Stefan-Boltzmann law
Jemit = σT⁴ W/m
By using what we have we estimate sun’s Photosphere (effective) temperature: 5,772 K. (from Wikipedia)
At Earth’s orbit distance from the sun an imaginary sphere emits:
Jemit = So = 1,362 W/m
When substituting in Stefan-Boltzmann emission law equation
Jemit = σT⁴ W/m
1362 W/m = σT⁴ W/m and solving for T we shall have
T = 393,68K it is the temperature of the imaginary sphere with radius R = 1 AU
T=394K or almost 110C
It is the temperature of the “touch” of this sphere to Earth’s surface on a cloudless midday in Equatorial zone.
Let’s continue about effective temperature:
Sun’s Photosphere (effective) temperature: 5,772 K
How Sun’s Photosphere (effective) temperature: 5,772 K is calculated?
Here is how:
So = 1,362 W/m
By using the distance reverse square law So/Ro = Ssun/Rsun
and substituting the values of R = 1AU (150,000,000 km) and
Rsun = 0.695 million km = 695,000 km/150,000,000 km =
Rsun = 695,000 /150,000,000 = 0.00463 AU
Ssun = So /Rsun = 1,362 W/m /(0.00463) = 1,362 W/m*46,581 = 63,443,921 W/m
Sun’s photosphere emission intensity
Jsun = 63,443,921 W/m = σTsun⁴
solving for Tsun we obtain
Tsun = 5,783.64 K the Sun’s effective temperature at the Photosphere.
…………………
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
“The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. It is a nearly perfect ball of hot plasma,[18][19] heated to incandescence by nuclear fusion reactions in its core, radiating the energy mainly as visible light, ultraviolet light, and infrared radiation. It is by far the most important source of energy for life on Earth. Its diameter is about 1.39 million kilometres (864,000 miles)”
“Temperature Center (modeled): 1.57107 K[5]
Photosphere (effective): 5,772 K[5]”.
“At the photosphere, the temperature has dropped to 5,700 K and the density to only 0.2 g/m3 (about 1/6,000 the density of air at sea level).[70]”
……………………….
Let’s continue
“At the photosphere, the temperature has dropped to 5,700 K and the density to only 0.2 g/m3(about 1/6,000 the density of air at sea level).[70]”
An important, very important Notice:
Is it possible to measure with some kind of thermometer the temperature of gas at density 0.2 g/m3 ???
No, it is not possible.
Still we estimate sun’s photosphere effective temperature.
Effective temperature of sphere is the S/B radiative temperature of the same radius sphere EM energy emission. We have not a solid surface here, but we have a uniform for the imaginary surface emission intensity – and thus we calculate the photosphere’s effective temperature.
Photosphere’s effective temperature is not the gas’ of the any measurements escaping density of 0.2 g/m3 measured temperature. No.
A gas of 0.2 g/m3 density cannot emit
Sun’s photosphere emission intensity of
Jsun = 63,443,921 W/m
The Sun’s photosphere emission intensity
Jsun = 63,443,921 W/m at photosphere’s radius of Rsun =695,000 km is the weakening with distance but still very powerful EM energy FLUX coming thru from the inner sun’s nuclear fusion process.
We have calculated the Jsun = 63,443,921 W/m by the use of the distance square inverse law… we do not have measured it.
Planets do not meet with this condition. Planets do not have uniform EM outgoing emission energy, so planets do not have uniform surface temperature.
The Stefan-Boltzmann planet blackbody emission equation, and, therefore, the planet effective temperature is only a mathematical abstraction, and that is why the planet effective temperature cannot be compared with the actual planetary mean surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In the above comment the “W/m” should be read as “W/m^2”.
Christos
“A gas of 0.2 g/m3 density cannot emit Sun’s photosphere emission intensity of Jsun = 63,443,921 W/m”
Sure it can! And in fact, it does! You seem to forget that the photosphere is 100’s of km thick. While any 1 m^3 would not emit 64 MJ/m^2, the combined radiation from 100’s of km of photosphere can and does emit 64 MJ/m^2 out into space.
“the planet effective temperature is only a mathematical abstraction”
True.
“and that is why the planet effective temperature cannot be compared with the actual planetary mean surface temperature.”
Well, of course, it *can* be compared. The effective temperature is an interesting ‘mathematical abstraction’ that gives the theoretical maximum average temperature for the surface of a planet that absorbs based on its albedo and emits based on blackbody radiation. This is a simply, convenient starting point for understanding a planet’s temperature.
Me: “A gas of 0.2 g/m3 density cannot emit Sun’s photosphere emission intensity of Jsun = 63,443,921 W/m2”
YOU:”Sure it can! And in fact, it does! You seem to forget that the photosphere is 100’s of km thick. While any 1 m^3 would not emit 64 MJ/m^2, the combined radiation from 100’s of km of photosphere can and does emit 64 MJ/m^2 out into space.”
No, it is not true. It is the inner solar core’s nuclear fusion energy what gets thru…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No! The energy from the sun’s core takes 100,000+ years to convect, conduct, and/or radiate from the core to the surface. The radiation comes from the ~ 5800 K gas in the photosphere. The radiation does NOT come from (directly) 10,000,000 K core.
Speaking of which:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190815
Dud, where do find such idiots?
Oh, I see it’s from your cult. Never mind.
He’s another one that wouldn’t understand a rotisserie.
Flux alone won’t give you a rotisserie, Pup, and gator designed a refrigerator that operates at mili-Kelvin:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-951656
How about you?
Your cult doesn’t understand rotisseries, Dud.
You’re missing a very basic point, Pup:
Source: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190565
Being a Sky Dragon crank must suck.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote (no doubt in a fit of fantasy) –
“Physically, the earth absorbs a certain power, and radiates the same power in equilibrium.”
Nope. Otherwise it could not have cooled to its present temperature from the molten state, could it?
Try to drag something backed up by reality out of your dreambag. Obviously physics and reality is beyond you.
Next!.
Mike Flynn,
Monochromatic Folksinger,
You said about absolutely nothing.
Nothing! I tell you.
Is it because you have NOTHING?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
> Monochromatic Folksinger
Scratch “Monochromatic” — I already used it.
Let’s say Monochord.
Wee Willy Wanker wrote –
“Being a Sky Dragon crank must suck.”
He should know. “SkyDragons” is a perjorative name applied applied to seriously delusional types who believe that CO2 in the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter!
Oh, but only in direct sunlight, apparently. Even peer reviewed papers by cult members claim that in Polar regions, the mythical GHE makes thermometers colder!
Due to a lack of direct sunlight, perhaps?
What a pack of bumbling buffoons!
Mike Flynn,
Monopropellant Floatplane,
You keep playing dumb about something very simple:
Sky Dragon Cranks are the cranks are the ones who pretend to have slayed something. Yet they slayed NOTHING.
Cranks like you!
Aw diddums!
Actual is measured at 288K
Mathematical Abstraction results in 255K
What is your explanation of the difference?
S/B is wrong?
I’m currently favoring GHE explanation because the result is plausible given the state of the science at this date. Any observations of radiation spectra in the atmosphere appear to corroborate the hypothesis that S/B and GHE assumptions are at least mostly correct.
Ken, we’re not making any progress here. At some point you have to ask yourself why you can’t learn.
You’re trying to compare two different things. You’re trying to compare an orange with a bowling ball and claiming you can eat the bowling ball because you can eat the orange.
You need to LEARN, and quit repeating the same nonsense. Earth is NOT an imaginary sphere.
Tsat-earth is approximately 288K give or take a couple of degrees.
There’s no physical evidence that the atmosphere is 255K without greenhouse gases.
There’s no scientific observation that the Earth is 255K without greenhouse gases.
There is a scientific measurement of the earthen global multiannual 255K Stephen, apparently some commenters here aren’t versed well enough in the subject matter to understand.
What is your source for the claim that there is 255k measurement of earth?
Everything I’m finding says its a calculation based on S/B.
Again, its all in the local college library, Ken. If you are only looking for the calculation, that’s only what you find. You will have to do the research on your own to truly understand the 255K measured data. The raw data is continuously cataloged here:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
True.
But no one can even imagine what a 255 K Earth would look like.
It seems few can imagine what 5 C added to the 15 C Earth looks like.
Nor can anyone say what 1 C added to Earth over last 100 years has “done”.
No one can say how much warming has resulted from measured CO2 levels going from about 280 to 410 ppm has done.
I think most people would agree that if Earth cooled by .5 C, it would be “bad news”.
And most people know more people die from cold conditions than warm conditions.
Everyone knows we are in Ice Age.
And that more than 90% of global warming has warmed the ocean, and are ocean is cold, and we in an ice age because are ocean is cold.
Everyone knows warming buildings use a lot energy.
And people who worried about warming, are spending a lot energy making their homes, warm.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“There is a scientific measurement of the earthen global multiannual 255K . . .”
Only in your pea-brained fantasy, you delusional dimwit.
Linking to delusional NASA fellow-travellers is about as stupid as asking the Pope if he believes in God!
Calculate the final temperature of molten lava in sunlight. Now tell me, oh pea-brained one, why you think it is hotter than it should be! Bear in mind that the Earth is just a big lava cake.
You really take the lava cake!
Carry on regardless. Toss a few ad-homs my way if you can’t find any facts.
The internet allows access to much more information than any college library you might care to mention.
There is no search result that supports claiming 255K is measured.
If you haven’t got a source, including title and ISBN, then you have no credibility. If you haven’t got any credibility then perhaps you should stop posting unsubstantiated nonsense here.
The internet wastes time, going straight to the reports showing the instrumentally measured earthen 255K data is much more efficient at your college library, Ken.
The librarian will assist you to find any/all title(s) and ISBN(s) you need, I am not a librarian.
Ball4 you have zero credibility.
“There is no search result that supports claiming 255K is measured.”
Yet I showed you a link to the 255K measured data! So there is, and your expert librarian can hook you up to read the reports that use that data.
Ken says: “Ball4 you have zero credibility.”
Ken, this idiot has been here well over a year. He’s a troll, with nothing of value to add. Like the other trolls, he often gets tangled up in his own web, as he’s done this time.
Based on his long term record, he would need dozens of positives to even get up to “zero”.
“There is a scientific measurement of the earthen global multiannual 255K”
Great, so Earth (as a whole) is the temperature it is calculated to be. Earth is the temperature it should be. No GHE required. After all, who said the calculated temperature of 255 K is meant to apply to Earth’s surface, rather than an average of Earth as a whole? The calculations to get 255 K use an albedo of 0.3, after all, which includes taking cloud cover into consideration. Last I was aware clouds are not at the Earth’s surface.
“What is your source for the claim that there is 255k measurement of earth?
Everything Im finding says its a calculation based on S/B.”
Arent all measurements of temperature based on a calculation?
If I point my IR thermometer at something it reads out temperature. Obviously there is a calculation going on, but it works.
If I use a platinum resistor, its resistance relates to temperature through a calculation.
A mercury thermometer, the Mercury’s volume expands, and we calculate temperature from that.
Same thing.
Nate doesn’t even understand the issue. His comments are so stupid, there’s no way to respond, without getting “stupid” all over you.
People accuse me of being “arrogant”. I’m not arrogant. I just don’t know how to handle “stupid”. Gen. Honore would say Nate is “stuck on stupid”.
Ken
“Actual is measured at 288K
Mathematical Abstraction results in 255K
What is your explanation of the difference?
S/B is wrong?”
S/B is wrongly used. It should be used on every infinitesimal spot at every instant and then integrate over the sphere’s surface.
Thus the New equation has emerged.
The New equation takes in consideration three major new concepts:
1). Planet does not absorb the not reflected portion of the incident solar SW EM energy.
What planet does is to instantly transform the not reflected portion from SW into IR outgoing emission.
Only a very small fraction is accumulated in the inner layers.
2).Planet reflects as a sphere (Φ -factor).
3). Planet rotates (Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon).
………………………..
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
gives wonderful results Tmean.earth = 287,74 K, Tmean.moon = 223,35 K, Tmean.mars = 213,21 K and
Tmean.mercury = 325,83 K
Using the new equation, the new estimate closely matches the estimate surface temperatures from satellite observations:
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
Planet…Te.incompl….Tmean….Tsat.mean
……….equation….equation…measured
Mercury….439,6 K…325,83 K….340 K
It is time to abandon the old
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ incomplete equation.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s incomplete because you leave out the earthen atm. opacity from the textbook formula. Oh, and:
“S/B is wrongly used. It should be used on every infinitesimal spot at every instant and then integrate over the sphere’s surface.”
You forgot to mention doing that you need to use Holders Inequality in the integration process – this is not needed if you use the measured input data. It is you wrongly using the math not the experts.
Ball4, so you agree:
It is time to abandon the old
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ incomplete equation…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It was originally time at the get go for planets/moons with atmospheres.
You can find the properly complete first principle formula (without need for fudge factors like phi) in the text book ref. I gave you some time ago. It has proven to work reasonably well for all the solar system celestial objects. Venus is a bit tricky, you will need to use more than one layer there and iterate to the observed solution.
“I gave you some time ago.”
Please give it again, I cannot spot it now.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Be careful Christos, leftists lie and lead you down a hole of darkness.
Thank you Stephen.
I would like you post a short comment in my site please.
Christos.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
PT Barnum was right. Now more than ever.
Braindead Bindidon states: “Let me add that only the dumbest, most stubborn ignoramuses discredit and denigrate people like Vaughan Pratt.”
Pratt does not know much about science, except how to pervert it.
There Bindidon! It looks like I’m not much worried about your slurs or attempted censorship, huh?
Let me add that only the dumbest, most stubborn ignoramuses discredit and denigrate people like Vaughan Pratt.
Yeah, Clint R: you belong to these dumb ignoramuses.
You don’t even know WHY you discredit and denigrate Vaughan Pratt, let alone would you be able to contradict him.
Pratt has no knowledge of the relevant physics. He’s a programmer. He makes up his own “laws”.
That ain’t science.
> He’s a programmer.
C’mon, Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughan_Pratt
Please leave that kind of blunder to Gordo.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Modelling? Algorithms?
Sounds like the sort of buffoonery masquerading as science that climate crackpots worship.
Ask Vaughan why he admitted he couldn’t replicate his “findings”.
You really are a gullible wee chappie, aren’t you?
Mike Flynn,
You say–
“Sounds like”
To you perhaps, but you have two left feet!
Aw! Diddums!
willard…”Vaughan Pratt (born April 12, 1944) is a Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, who was an early pioneer in the field of computer science”.
***
Sorry, Pratt is a retired programmer.
“Today Pratt has a wide influence. In addition to his Stanford professorship, he holds membership in at least seven professional organizations. He is a fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery and is on the editorial board of three major mathematics journals”
RLH, even you could probably join all those organizations, if you were willing to pay the fees.
And like Robertson, you also belong to those ignoramuses who insult the most (‘braindead cult idiot’, ‘cheating SOB’, etc).
Wrong!
When I point out you’re a braindead cult idiot, that’s not an insult. That’s reality.
Bindi is worse than any Nazi you could imagine. He would lock you up for your views if he could.
When people get their false beliefs shattered, they respond irrationally.
Sure, by calling the physically correct commenter “braindead”.
Nice irrational response, Braindead4.
It’s fun shattering your false beliefs Clint R. If you keep posting them (staying out of the college library as you do) & responding irrationally when you get so thoroughly shot down, then the laughs are free.
B,
You wrote –
“It’s fun shattering your false beliefs Clint R.”
Unfortunately, you haven’t actually managed to state what those “false beliefs” are, have you?
Try naming one, and then produce some facts that “shatter” it!
Blathering about iibrarians is not producing facts. Linking to delusional cultists at NASA is not producing facts.
Keep dribbling. It suits you.
Clint R won’t ever bother to learn the basic science. That’s why this is so much fun.
B,
Basic science? What are you blathering about?
Give us an example!
You can!t can you?
Flimsy Mike Flynn makes a demand!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Basic measured science 255K data for Mike (oops, I mean Swenson) and Clint R:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
Looks like I can meet some demands after all but a college librarian probably pointed me at it some time ago. Now it’s their turn to learn to use it reliably by actually doing the work to read up on the subject matter they don’t understand and routinely criticize.
Braindead4 continues with his spin.
He first claimed he could “identify a surface where 255K is instrumentally measured”.
Now he’s spun it to “a scientific measurement of the earthen global multiannual 255K”. And he links to CERES! He’s grasping at straws.
“CERES” stands for “Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System”. The system is composed of satellites (I think the current one is “Terra”.) that measure infrared leaving Earth. Terra orbits at about 400 miles, so the measurements are of surface, atmosphere, and clouds. Earth’s average surface is 288K.
Braindead4 owes us a”255K surface”.
Don’t hold your breath….
B4,
You keep posting these sites that don’t support your point. Who has false beliefs? There is no data there that supports 255K, or GHE.
Clint R 6:08 AM
Pup owes us an “Arrhenius CO2 equation.”
Braindead TM, I don’t owe you anything. It’s not my fault you’re an idiot. It’s not my fault you don’t know your own cult’s nonsense. Go to your cult leaders.
Most of “us” are already aware of it, Tyson. It is basically the same as the equation from Myrhe et al 1998.
Clint R at 7:04 AM
Thanks for agreeing that there is no such thing as aa Arrhenius CO2 equation.
Ball4 at 1:06 AM
I find this visualization of the data useful too.
Clint R at 7:04 AM
Go to your cult leaders.
Svante Arrhenius is one of the leaders of what you call the “cult of science”. He says that’s a 10-10 on the “Arrhenius CO2 equation” thing.
pups shows it’s true self once again:
What is the probability that two different people could post with the same time stamp producing successive comment numbers?
Conclusion: Clint R and DRsEMT are the same person, i.e., a sock puppet. Don’t feed the trolls…
E. Swanson, the answer is “Great minds think alike”.
Tyson and Swanson posted within a minute of each other. They must be the same person, according to Swanson’s logic…
Anyone mentioning ‘Arrhenius’ also needs to temper their statement with ‘Angstrom’.
Ken at 9:08 AM
Angstrom is but a speed bump on the road to understanding AGW.
Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1824)
John Tyndall (1861)
Svante Arrhenius (1896)
Knut Angstrom (1901)
G. N. Plass (1956)
Have a look at the Wikipedia page on Arrhenius, Tyson. There you will find mention of his written “rule” regarding CO2 forcing, and an equation that is still in use today that relates to it. That is what is meant by the “Arrhenius CO2 equation”. When you are man enough to admit you were wrong, and that Clint R was right, you can come back and apologize.
Tyson,
Please beware that when you say something like:
“Thanks for agreeing that there is no such thing as a[n] Arrhenius CO2 equation.”
Kiddo might not understand what you mean by that.
He has problem with everything but an egocentric perspective.
Could be a spectrum thing.
TM appears to be in denial about the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation. He claims it doesn’t exist.
He should be ashamed of it. It’s pure anti-science nonsense.
Pup can’t bring himself to quote thy Wiki, as indirectly requested by Tyson.
Pup got NOTHING once again.
Not even a report on his Poll Dance Experiment.
Willard at 9:45 AM
Pup can’t bring himself to quote thy Wiki, as indirectly requested by Tyson.
That is because there is no such thing as an Arrhenius CO2 equation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
“Arrhenius wanted to determine whether greenhouse gases could contribute to the explanation of the temperature variation between glacial and inter-glacial periods.[29] Arrhenius used infrared observations of the moon – by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh – to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water (H2O) vapour in Earth’s atmosphere. Using ‘Stefan’s law’ (better known as the Stefan–Boltzmann law), he formulated what he referred to as a ‘rule’. In its original form, Arrhenius’s rule reads as follows:
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression. Here, Arrhenius refers to CO2 as carbonic acid (which refers only to the aqueous form H2CO3 in modern usage). The following formulation of Arrhenius’s rule is still in use today:[30]
Δ F = α ln ( C / C 0 ) \Delta F=\alpha \ln(C/C_{0}) where C 0 C_{0} is the concentration of CO2 at the beginning (time-zero) of the period being studied (if the same concentration unit is used for both C C and C 0 C_{0}, then it doesn’t matter which concentration unit is used); C C is the CO2 concentration at end of the period being studied; ln is the natural logarithm (= log base e (loge)); and Δ F \Delta F is the augmentation of the temperature, in other words the change in the rate of heating Earth’s surface (radiative forcing), which is measured in Watts per square meter.[30] Derivations from atmospheric radiative transfer models have found that α \alpha (alpha) for CO2 is 5.35 (± 10%) W/m2 for Earth’s atmosphere.[31]”
“he formulated what he referred to as a ‘rule'”
Kiddo thus proves Pup wrong.
Sad Pup.
Tyson is correct, “the following formulation” is not found in Arrhenius’ paper on CO2 so there is no such thing as an Arrhenius CO2 equation in the form shown:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-953345
“The following formulation” in the form shown by DREMT’s clip of Arrhenius’ rule still in use today is a modern form due the IPCC and Jim Hansen 1988, a form later used by Myhre 1998.
Arrhenius wrote “We now possess all the necessary data for an estimation of the effect on the earth’s temperature which would be the result of a given variation of aerial carbonic acid.” He then used a very different form of discussion to estimate the effect under certain scenarios as I noted earlier.
There is an equation that comes directly from Arrhenius’ work on CO2 and anyone aware of that work would have known what is meant by the “Arrhenius CO2 equation”. Tyson is incorrect, Clint R is correct. As usual.
Ball4 at 8:51 PM
Yes, you are correct Ball4. Wiki references the MARTIN E. WALTER paper: “WEATHERQUAKES, EARTHQUAKES, MATHEMATICS AND
CLIMATE CHANGE” – where he says “But as for his major thesis, which he was the first to articulate, namely: increasing emissions of CO2 leads to global warming – Arrhenius’s work remains intact” before saying that a paper published 102 years after Arrhenius’ first introduced the equation listed in the Wiki page.
Long story short, there is no Arrhenius CO2 equation.
Apparently the trolls don’t understand that The following formulation of Arrhenius’s rule is still in use today:[30] means to see reference [30].
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-959870
So, go ahead, DREMT, write out the Arrhenius CO2 equation with eqn. number from Arrhenius’ 1896 paper “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”.
And be sure not to mistakenly write out the 1988 IPCC/Hansen CO2 doubling eqn.
I never said there was such an equation in that paper, Ball4. What I said was:
“Have a look at the Wikipedia page on Arrhenius, Tyson. There you will find mention of his written “rule” regarding CO2 forcing, and an equation that is still in use today that relates to it. That is what is meant by the “Arrhenius CO2 equation”. When you are man enough to admit you were wrong, and that Clint R was right, you can come back and apologize.”
Then Tyson has successfully taught DREMT (and maybe Clint R) that there is a difference between such a CO2 eqn. in Arrhenius’ work and the CO2 forcing eqn. in use today from 1988.
Tyson was incorrect, Clint R was correct. As usual.
“When you are man enough to admit you were wrong”
Yet another ‘Do what I say, not what I do’ lecture from our resident hypocrite, DREMT.
willard…”Vaughan Pratt (born April 12, 1944) is a Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, who was an early pioneer in the field of computer science”.
***
Sorry, Pratt is a retired programmer.
“Today Pratt has a wide influence. In addition to his Stanford professorship, he holds membership in at least seven professional organizations. He is a fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery and is on the editorial board of three major mathematics journals”
Don’t be sorry, Gordo. Think:
Computer scientist. Programmer. Two different beasts. As Dijkstra once said, computer science is to computers what are telescopes to astronomy.
The same applies to programming language. Vaughan is first and foremost a logician. He helped develop that thing:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049237X0970196X
> computer science is to computers what are telescopes to astronomy
Or rather what computers are to computer science, at least until we build artificial computer scientists!
I also misremembered the quote:
“Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.”
Robertson the dumb ass is again discrediting and denigrating anybody whose education and experience differs from his empty life.
Vaughan Pratt obtained a PhD from not less than… Donald Knuth. His dissertation was based on own thoughts concerning the use of medians for the optimization of search algorithms.
*
Robertson isn’t even a simple, little engineer.
One day he tells on this blog to be or to have been a ‘mechanical’ engineer; but one year before, we were told he is/was an ‘electrical’ engineer.
Such ‘mistakes’ happen only to professional liars, whos engineering vita was entirely constructed out of Wikipedia pages.
And it is this absence of real experience which leads him to permanently distort, dissimulate, discredit, denigrate and lie.
Yes braindead Bindidon, he’s a programmer. He doesn’t understand science or physics.
He’s pretty much like you, if you knew how to program….
Hey Sorry to keep the “moon spinning on it’s axis” discussion going. However, I do have a couple questions…which might clear things up for me.
Firstly, I am of the rather simple belief that the moon does not rotate on it’s axis – simply because the there is no spin of the moon when point of view is from the earth alone. (as proven by the conceptual exercise of connecting the two bodies at their centers with an imaginary stretchy string – only the earth would be wrapped up in said string).
So we all agree on the moon not spinning on it’s axis in relation to the earth…as proven conceptually and visually.
Now for the questions to expand the point of view beyond just the earth.
Starting with the earth:
-does the earth have a constant (lets not count the milliseconds drift )spin rate? With the Point of View POV from the sun and then the POV from Mars, and then the POV from Venus – does the earth the same rate of spin no matter where the measurement is coming from?
Now for the moon:
-for those in the moon spins on it’s axis camp – does the moon’s spin have a constant spin rate?…if measured from the same POVs that were made for measuring the Earth’s spin?
Martin your question relates to the whole history of astronomy, since Copernicus at least, when they were seeking to determine the motion of the planets relative to the rest frame, the stars, rather than from the POV of the moving Earth.
Copernicus realized that what we observe the planets doing is partly due to the Earths motion. So Mars, at times, appears to go backward in its orbit. But that is just a result of observing from Earth as it ‘passes’ Mars in its orbit.
So by now Astronomy uses the stars as the reference frame for all planetary motion. Standing on the Moon’s N. Pole, one will see the stars slowing moving in circles around you. Same as on the Earth. The Moon and Earth are actually both rotating with respect to the stars.
But of course looking from the POV of Earth, the Moon appears to be not rotating.
-does the earth have a constant (lets not count the milliseconds drift )spin rate? No
From the Sun? No
From Mars? No
From Venus? No
No matter where the measurement is coming from? No
does the moon’s spin have a constant spin rate? No
if measured from the same POVs that were made for measuring the Earth’s spin? No
Both the axial spin rate of the Earth and Moon are slowing down, therefore both not zero, therefore the Moon is rotating on its own axis.
“(as proven by the conceptual exercise of connecting the two bodies at their centers with an imaginary stretchy string – only the earth would be wrapped up in said string).”
If you could drill holes to the centers of the Earth and Moon so you could attach said stretchy string, it would immediately start wrapping around both bodies, unless you made yo-yos out of both bodies.
“Both the axial spin rate of the Earth and Moon are slowing down, therefore both not zero, therefore the Moon is rotating on its own axis.”
The moon is moving further away from the Earth, so it is taking longer to complete an orbit. The “Spinners” think this means the moon’s axial rotation rate is slowing down, because they are unable to correctly separate “orbital motion” from “axial rotation”.
Yeah thanks for that clarification of “orbital motion” and ‘axial rotation” there is factually a difference between the two. I understand that yes the moon is indeed ‘drifting’ further and that the Earth’s spin is ever so slightly changing.
It is just that from my current, and changeable, understanding is that the moon is not spinning upon an axis like the Earth is.
I can absolutely see that the moon could be spinning upon many multiple axis… at varying rates depending upon where the POV is taken – but that is not really the same thing as the earth actually spinning on a single axis at the same rate – day in day out (sans any of the purely minute millisecond differences).
So – if one can show that bodies that have true axil spin do so at a semi-constant rate no matter what POV the measurement is taken from – is different from bodies that do not have a true axil spin, but rather they have a rotational component that mimics several axil spins on various axis with varying rates. (yes i grasp that the Earth also has a rotational component)
> is different from bodies that do not have a true axil spin
How many bodies like that do you know, Martin?
Bob, actually the moon would NOT get any string wrapped around it… it is not spinning on an axis in reference to the earth. So we already have established that the moon is NOT spinning in relation to the earth -regardless of if it gets sun on all sides of it. in relation to the EARTH there is no spin as proven by the string ‘exercise’
Martin, as I wrote elsewhere you are observing from an accelerated frame when you write “in reference to the earth.” All non-spinners observe from an accelerated frame; spinners observe from the inertial frame.
False.
“in reference to the Earth” is a valid comment and valid reference point…. you have nothing that can disprove this…without trying to inject rotational movement. Nothing you stated refers to axil spin. Please stick to the concepts discussed and focus on the two reference points. ..One of which is proven to always face the Earth the last many years I checked and likely will the next many.
Yes “in reference to earth” is a valid comment, it’s then just not defining a valid inertial frame. And yes our moon rotates on its own axis in order to keep the man in the moon facing Earth.
The only way, regardless of reference frames, that you can argue that the moon rotates on its own axis is if you claim “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion as per the “moon on the right”.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
The correct answer based on known physics depends on the physics involved, and it’s possible to imagine a lot of them. An infinity or two in fact.
Your naive physics is broken, and your argument module is stuck at trolling by pure contradiction.
Get one of the fixed and come back.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
“in reference to the Earth” is a valid comment and valid reference point…”
Martin. I don’t know why you keep looking to the Earth POV to determine if the Moon is rotating on its axis?
Astronomers from another planet looking at our Moon want to determine its rotation rate. That rate will not be in reference to the Earth in any way. It will not be a determination of ‘What do Earthlings see’, because they wouldnt care about that.
It will simply be determining what is the Moon’s rotation rate wrt the universe.
Same goes for Astronomers here looking at other planets in other solar systems.
Well the string exercise has not been performed, so we have learned nothing from it.
The Moon is spinning in relation to an inertial reference frame, your friends don’t seem to understand what that means.
Sorry, that’s all I have to say, don’t need to discuss eight grade science with those that perpetually get things wrong.
An inertial reference frame cannot distinguish between “orbiting” and “rotating”.
‘
Clint R,
That is true, only because an inertial reference frame is not sentient.
A well trained human could use an inertial reference frame to determine how fast the Moon is rotating, and how fast the Moon is revolving, and although the answer is the same the motions of rotating and revolving are different.
The lunacy about the discussion regarding the moon and whether it rotates or not is a matter of consideration of the moon’s trajectory around the sun. It is a solar system after all, so the moon’s motion must be considered in relation to the sun as well as the earth.
If you look at moon’s trajectory and consider how it reaches the four major points in its orbit around the earth, its pretty clear the moon must rotate around its axis in order to maintain its aspect facing the earth.
See Moon’s trajectory here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg
…it’s clear the moon orbits the Earth/moon barycenter whilst the barycenter orbits the Sun.
Ken, this has been explained to you before. If Moon was making that exact movement, it would have to instaneously turn 180 degrees to remain facing Earth. That “trajectory” is an example of “perverting reality”.
> If Moon was making that exact movement, it would have to instaneously turn 180 degrees to remain facing Earth.
That’s what you always fail to explain, Pup.
One has to wonder why.
Your failure to understand is NOT my failure to explain, Dud.
It’s really easy to understand that you got NOTHING, Pup.
You wrote “If Moon,” BTW.
> as proven by the conceptual exercise of connecting the two bodies at their centers with an imaginary stretchy string
That you can only see the Man on the Moon from Earth does not require any kind of sleight of hand, Martin.
Thank you for your “stretchy” – that concession is good enough to refute Kiddo’s PURE:
(PURE) One should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation. *Shows an engineer handout*.
A pure rotation does not stretch.
Moon’s orbit is NOT a pure rotation, Dud.
You’re so confused, and bringing up nonsense so fast, that there’s a chance you might get something right some day.
But, it hasn’t happened yet….
> Moon’s orbit is NOT a pure rotation
I ain’t the one who claims that it’s the bestest model around, Pup. In fact it’s obvious that it sucks eggs.
You got to sort that one out with Kiddo.
"Moon’s orbit is NOT a pure rotation, Dud."
An orbit in general is a rotation about an external axis. For example, there is this from the Wikipedia article on "Rotation", in the "Mathematics" section:
"A rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That common point lies within the axis of that motion. The axis is 90 degrees perpendicular to the plane of the motion. If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. There is no fundamental difference between a “rotation” and an “orbit” and or "spin". The key distinction is simply where the axis of the rotation lies, either within or outside of a body in question. This distinction can be demonstrated for both “rigid” and “non rigid” bodies."
and from the intro:
"If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles."
The problem with saying an orbit is a rotation about an external axis is that it opens up opportunities for the idiots to keep this issue going. They can then talk about something that is NOT rotating is rotating.
It’s best to use “orbiting” for orbital motion, and “rotating” for center-of-mass spin.
The cult idiots will still try to mess that up, but it will be more obvious. The braindead will never be convinced their cult is wrong. Our goal is to reveal how dedicated to their false religion they are. They’re fanatics.
Fair enough. The main thing to get across is, “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion as per the “moon on the left”, not the “moon on the right”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Axial rotation is then separate to that motion.
Exactly, DREMT.
> “rotating” for center-of-mass spin.
“Spin” works even better for that, Pup.
Spin. Orbit. Just like in my Master Argument.
The main thing to get across is, “orbital motion without axial rotation more or less than once per orbit” is motion as per the “moon on the left”, not the “moon on the right”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Axial rotation is of course then always separate to that motion. Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.
Yes, Ball4, your mind is completely closed. That is understood.
Yes, thank you for agreeing! Not closed mind; non-spinners simply write from an accelerated frame; spinners write from the inertial frame. The important thing to understand is both need to account for all the accelerations.
Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.
> both need to account for all the accelerations
See, Kiddo?
Just as I told you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-943482
Hence why it’s so much fun.
No, Ball4, there is a difference between the MOTL and the MOTR regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames.
If one were to attach gyros to the MOTL and the MOTR, which would show rotation wrt the gyro?
Acceleration transcends ref. frames; you can get either moon to be observed spinning or not spinning depending on frame, but the moon’s inertial acceleration does not change with each arb. frame chosen.
The "Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as motion like the "moon on the right". The "Non-Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as motion like the "moon on the left". There is a difference between the MOTL and the MOTR regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames.
That is as simple as I can make it. If you still don’t get why reference frames don’t settle the issue, then I don’t know what more I can possibly do, or say, to explain it.
They do not settle the issue. End of story.
“There is a difference between the MOTL and the MOTR regardless of reference frame”
I can easily invent a frame to observe no spin for the MOTL just like there is no observed spin for the MOTR. DREMT has a closed mind to this possibility.
Not what I’m talking about, Ball4. When I say, "there is a difference between the MOTL and the MOTR regardless of reference frame" I mean that no matter what reference frame you choose to observe the motion of the MOTL and the MOTR, the two motions are always different.
What is ‘orbital movement without axial rotation’ wrt to the gyros though.
> If you still don’t get why reference frames don’t settle the issue, then I don’t know what more I can possibly do, or say, to explain it.
How to reverse the burden of proof in one single step.
Every time Kiddo needs to explain his MOTL thing, trickery happens.
One has to wonder why.
I mean that no matter what reference frame you choose to observe the motion of the MOTL and the MOTR, the two inertial accelerations are always different. Choosing a ref. frame places no force on either moon.
And I mean that always a reference frame exists to observe the motion of the MOTL and the MOTR being the same.
Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.
God you are full of shit, Ball4.
Like Clint R observes 4:53pm, when DREMT gets a false belief shattered, DREMT responds irrationally.
The "Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as motion like the "moon on the right". The "Non-Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as motion like the "moon on the left". There is a difference between the MOTL and the MOTR regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames.
There is no difference between the MOTL and the MOTR observed motion depending on reference frame, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position doesn’t transcend reference frames.
Non-spinners observe from an accelerated frame; spinners observe from the inertial frame.
Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.
“There is no difference between the MOTL and the MOTR observed motion depending on reference frame”
Completely false, and hence your entire rebuttal fails. The motion of the MOTL and the MOTR is fundamentally different in terms of the way the object remains oriented throughout. Reference frames cannot change that.
Reference frames do change that. Pass a reliable college course on the subject, report back.
No, they do not. Are you drunk, by any chance?
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
It’s relative to a reference frame that you can tell the orientation of an object, thus how to describe its motion. Change the reference frame, change the motion.
Simples, really.
Your problem lies in the fact that you look at the two motion using the same reference frame, in fact using your own eyes as the center of the universe.
The Moon Dragon Cranks suffer from egocentrism.
Ball4, let me explain it another way. The motion of the MOTL and the MOTR is absolute. Changing reference frames just changes the way you perceive that motion. It does not change the motion itself.
Ball,
Tell Kiddo that there’s no such thing as a “motion itself.”
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
Willard 9:13pm, you just did. Now we have DREMT bringing back the aether concept 8:49pm to be now defined in the form of absolute motion of MOTL and MOTR.
But DREMT does get this right: “Changing reference frames just changes the way you perceive that motion. It does not change the motion itself.”
Non-spinners perceive (i.e. observe) our moon does not rotate on its own axis from their chosen frame of reference; changing frames to spinners perceive (i.e. observe) our moon does rotate on its own axis once per orbit from their chosen inertial frame of reference.
Neither observation is absolute as the aether does not really exist despite DREMT’s attempt to revive the concept. All…ALL motion is relative – this is the basis of relativity that rightly did away with the concept of the aether’s defining absolute motion.
Sure, all motion is relative. What is absolute is that there is always a difference between the MOTL and MOTR, regardless of which reference frame you choose to observe them from. That is all I mean by “the motion of the MOTL and MOTR is absolute”. So there is always a difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” idea of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, regardless of reference frames. What I am saying is not even remotely controversial or even that difficult to understand if you just open your mind a little.
[KIDDO] Changing reference frames just changes the way you perceive that motion. It does not change the motion itself.
[ALSO KIDDO] Sure, all motion is relative.
“But DREMT does get this right: “Changing reference frames just changes the way you perceive that motion. It does not change the motion itself.””
Thanks for agreeing, anyway, Ball4.
> Neither observation is absolute as the aether does not really exist despite [Kiddo]’s attempt to revive the concept.
Kiddo might not realize that aether is kinda controversial, Ball.
Now that he accepted that how he perceives motion may induce error, do you think he will be able to salvage SHORT:
(SHORT) The Moon cannot spin because I do not see it spinning.
That might make Martin sad, but so be it.
No, not Martin SHORT.
Thanks for agreeing, anyway, Ball4.
“Now we have DREMT bringing back the aether concept 8:49pm to be now defined in the form of absolute motion of MOTL and MOTR.”
Words of wisdom, Ball.
Words of wisdom.
Ball4 constructs and attacks a huge straw man and Willard laps it up, even after I clarified. That is the sort of thing that has led to Willard being placed on ignore. He will now demonstrate more reasons why he is on ignore.
[NARRATOR] Here’s what happened in this subthread:
– Kiddo tried to pull the Wiki definition of rotation;
– Pup tried to correct Kiddo’s mishandling of the concept;
– Kiddo handwaved to GIF in his Master Argument;
– Willard reminded that “spin” and “orbit” are short and sweet;
– Ball reminded that the physical interpretation of mathematical concepts depended on physics
– Kiddo went ad hom;
– Ball then reminded that the type of frame mattered;
– Willard cited the last time when he showed that this destroyed GIF
– Kiddo repeated GIF;
– Richard drove by;
– Ball reminded Kiddo that the type of frame mattered;
– Kiddo repeated GIF;
– Ball then offered something that went past Kiddo’s head: the possibility to imagine alternative physical worlds;
– Kiddo repeated GIF;
– Willard reminded that GIF is a mere argument by assertion void of any explanation force;
– Kiddo repeated GIF;
– Ball then offered something that went past Kiddo’s head: the possibility to imagine alternative physical worlds;
– Kiddo repeated GIF;
Skipping the bit about aether (Kiddo really does not get that the type of reference frame matters in physics), the last bit of the exchanges repeated a few more times.
It will still repeat.
See what I mean?
[NARRATOR] Yet another thing confirms what Kiddo knew all along.
See?
Ok… so both are good answers and helpful considerations, however
Bob’s response seems to point to the earth either speeding up or slowing down day in and day out…(from my assumption of ‘no…no…no’ answers.
Bob can you expand on why a day on earth is not 24hrs when viewed from the POV of the Sun?
Isn’t a day on Earth still the same if measured from Mars than it is from the Sun or Venus? I.e starting the measurement from the exact same point and concluding the measurement when that exact same ‘spot’ is back in-line. (for simplicity assume all POVs are lined up )… the Earth’s axis spinning does not slow nor speed up (from what I understand ) just because I am on Mars or Venus?
So just to be more clear than I was in my post above – the rate of axis spin as measured at the equator is xxxxxkph…. that same KPH should also register as the same from the differing POVs correct?
if incorrect then can anyone show the difference in KPH from the differing POVs without injecting milliseconds differences due to any minute light or measurement differences?
A day on Earth “relative to the stars” is 23 hours and 56 minutes long.
Thank you DREMT – that was what I was also thinking as i just could not cypher out how it would change from Point of View/measurement to POV/m
If you measure one moving object from another moving object, you wont get the same answer as you would from a third moving object.
“Bob can you expand on why a day on earth is not 24hrs when viewed from the POV of the Sun?”
Did I say it wasn’t?
“that same KPH should also register as the same from the differing POVs correct?”
What about the POV of an airliner going 800 kph either with or against spin at the equator.
Both the rate of spin of the Earth and the Moon are slowing down due to tidal forces acting on both bodies.
Do some research, a basic astronomy text can be found at your local library.
“What about a POV of an airliner going”… xxx kph… you miss the point entirely. you try to inject irrelevant information and you can’t even support your injection.
-Please just try to stick to the facts we know;
the moon does NOT rotate on it’s axis in relation to the Earth- no matter how many try to claim it does. they simply don’t understand logic, reason nor math – and much of what they say after that is to be ignored as just unsupported opinion.
– a full day as measured in hours, minutes and seconds is the same no matter what POV one uses. that is because the spin of the Earths axis is the same no matter what. Rotation is a different thing and that is what you seem to be missing here.
I originally came up with the ‘super stretchy string’ example to prove to all willing to lend a bit of logic and reason here that that moon does NOT rotate on it’s axis in relation to the moon. This we all know as fact but why some simply deny it is quite funny to see….and expose each time they try.
So taking things one step further – I tried to offer up (and now I see a poorly constructed exercise of POV). I should of just started off simple and offered two POVs. 1-the Earth and 2- a satellite over both the Earth and the Earths moon (the moon)….call it POV-2 which in in synchronous orbit about our sun but 1Km above the Earth and the moon. (now I only use the term ‘above’ as a reference to say..the North Pole for all to keep a common frame… I know there is no real ‘above’ or ‘below’ in space)
For example:
Person A standing on the Earths north pole with arms stretched out in opposite 180degree stationary fashion….and person B standing in similar fashion on the moon’s north pole (yes there is a north pole on the moon).
In one month person A will have pointed their right hand towards the sun… approx 30 times (give or take depending on the length of the month)…. however person B will have only pointed their right hand to our suns direction a fraction of that. this is because the moon is ‘rotating’ and not spinning that the there is such a massive difference in the count.
pick any celestial body in our sky to point to and the same occurs…an object that is spinning and orbiting will far ‘out count’ any body that is simply just orbiting.
Correction/edit –
“I originally came up with the super stretchy string example to prove to all willing to lend a bit of logic and reason here that that moon does NOT rotate on its axis in relation to the Earth. This we all know as fact but why some simply deny it is quite funny to see.and expose each time they try.”
A gentle strawman is always very funny, Martin!
Unless you can quote somebody who denies that the Man in Moon does not seem to be looking at us all the time?
Martin,
“yes there is a north pole on the moon).”
If the Moon has a north pole, that means it is rotating on its axis.
Thanks for playing.
You lose.
Next sock puppet.
Speaking of sock puppets, where’s our Manifestly Funny Mike Flynn?
When last heard from, Swenson wanted an example of the 255K surface data. I gave it to him. I druther imagine he is busy downloading the data and plotting up the result to prove he can duplicate your visual link.
Martin,
“– a full day as measured in hours, minutes and seconds is the same no matter what POV one uses. that is because the spin of the Earths axis is the same no matter what. Rotation is a different thing and that is what you seem to be missing here.”
That is just not true.
You are not entitled to your own facts
“Rotation period 1.0 d
(24h 00m 00s) average synodic rotation period (solar day)
Sidereal rotation period 0.99726968 d[19]
(23h 56m 4.100s)
Why is there a difference between the synodic rotation period and the sidereal rotation period?
POV of course
The correct way to determine “spin” is in relation to the orbit. An object that is not spinning will always face the orbital path. IOW, the object’s “front” will always be facing forward. It’s the same for a track runner.
If the object is spinning, different sides will face forward.
Nope. Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.
> An object that is not spinning will always face the orbital path.
Unless the laws of physics decide otherwise, and it just so happens that ones that hold for our universe makes it so for our Moon.
But notice how Pup evades the fact that a spinning object can face the orbital path, whatever that means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Pup will never give that one up.
Pup will never let us down.
Pup will never run around and desert Roy’s.
1) Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
2) Moon is NOT “tidally locked”.
Moon only has ONE motion — orbiting.
See, Pup?
*That* is not an explanation.
The Moon has 2 motions.
1 Orbiting the Earth (and/or Sun).
2 Rotating on its axis.
Wrong both times, RLH.
1) Moon does NOT “orbit” Sun. You know nothing about orbital motion.
2) Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. You know nothing about axial rotation.
If only you could do the Poll Dance Experiment, Pup.
But you won’t.
Fun fun fun!
Clint R is wrong as usual.
pups wrote:
Well, almost correct. Selecting the orbit’s semi-major axis as the X axis of a coordinate system and the Y axis placed within the orbit plane and perpendicular to the X results in a nearly an inertial coordinate system. That axis does slowly precess, but the time required is about 18.6 years.
But, then pups continues, repeating it’s usual “no spin” delusion:
Relative to the inertial reference frame using the orbit’s semi-major axis, as described above, the Moon clearly rotates once an orbit.
Swanson, the inertial reference frame, the stars, the Foucault pendulum, and a gyro all get confused between “orbiting” and “rotating about center-of-mass axis”.
This has been explained numerous times, yet you idiots STILL can’t get it. The ball-on-a-string would “appear” to be rotating about its axis to any to the above references. But, we know it is NOT rotating, because the string does not wrap around it.
Normal people would be concerned that they can’t understand something so simple. But, you’re not normal people. You’re braindead cult idiots.
> This has been explained numerous times
Wrongo, Pup.
That’s the bit you always skip to gloat instead.
But, we know it is NOT rotating more or less than once per orbit, because the string does not wrap around it. Just like our moon.
Yes, Ball4, your mind is completely closed. That is understood.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
“the inertial reference frame, the stars, the Foucault pendulum, and a gyro all get confused”
Inanimate objects get confused?
I am sorry, that’s crazy talk
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
[KIDDO] Your mind is completely closed.
[ALSO KIDDO] *Automatic Response*
“An object that is not spinning will always face the orbital path”
An object with a gyro attached (which will always face the fixed stars) will rotate or not wrt that gyro.
If it does not rotate wrt the gyro, then it will always face a fixed star. Not the object it is orbiting.
Still going on about gyros…
Typical reply from a commenter with a closed mind.
Yes, your comment is fairly typical.
Still not acknowledging that gyros are fixed in direction wrt the fixed stars I see.
Sigh.
RLH, you know NOTHING about gyros, and can’t learn.
Like Clint R previously observed 4:53pm, when Clint gets a false belief shattered, Clint R responds irrationally.
pups, Since we spinners “know nothing about gyros”, enlighten us by answering this question. Does the axis of a spinning gyro in orbit point toward a fixed point in the stars, as claimed by classical physics, and if not, why not?
That’s correct Swanson, you idiots “know nothing about gyros”. Otherwise, you wouldn’t keep trying to use them to pervert reality.
“you know NOTHING about gyros, and can’t learn”
So tell me, oh guru, how gyros will react if many of them are attached to
1. a ball-on-a-string
2. a merry-go-round
3. the Earth
4. airplanes flying on the Earth
5. the Moon
6. all of the above (and any more you like)
Surprise, surprise, pups can’t/won’t answer a simple question about physics. Instead, it asserts that physics “perverts reality”. Perhaps pups continues to suffer the results of a deprived childhood experience.
Swanson and RLH, I’ve learned not to waste time trying to educate braindead cult idiots.
But, if you both agree to not comment here for 90 days, I will make an exception, and answer your questions.
Do you agree?
You go first, Pup:
If I can provide evidence that you never answered Tim’s critical question:
will you stop commenting for 90 hours?
There’s no need to establish that Kiddo never answered that question. Everyone knows that.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-956499
It appears that pups knows that it’s “no spin” cult has lost the scientific argument. So, pups thinks that the winners should simply take a vacation for a while. If pups wants to take a vacation for 3 months, I’m sure that they would not be missed.
Swanson knows I can easily answer those easy questions.
That’s why he won’t commit to stop commenting here for 90 days.
He’s beat, again.
pups, It’s not about me, it’s about you. You’ve never offered anything more than cartoon physics without any analysis or math, so you are stuck in an intellectual bind. If you won’t answer the question and accept the consequences, it’s you who should shut up.
Swanson, don’t be such a sissy.
If you don’t believe I can answer the questions, then agree to a 90 day suspension when I do.
Don’t you even have a milligram of character?
pups, Your refusal to answer a simple question in physics is your problem, not mine. You are the lunatic what has, over many months, continued to claim that the Moon does not exhibit rotation around it’s CoM, contrary to all evidence that the Moon rotates once an orbit in inertial coordinates.
> I am of the rather simple belief that the moon does not rotate on it’s axis – simply because the there is no spin of the moon when point of view is from the earth alone.
In SHORT:
(SHORT) The Moon cannot spin because I do not see it spinning.
And then Kiddo whines that I misrepresent his Master Argument.
Martin
That the Moon spins about an internal axis – in nearly exactly the same time as it orbits Earth – was already discovered by the Chaldeans and the Babylonians millenia ago.
It was for them the best explanation of the observation that the Moon always shows the same face to us.
The Flatearthists operating on this blog deny that, but they are simply unable to scientifically contradict this.
*
The very first person having tried to calculate Moon’s spin period as well as the inclination of the spin axis with respect to Earth’s orbit around the Sun was the Italian astronomer Domenico Cassini. Unfortunately, he didn’t explain how he came to his results.
Newton was aware of Cassini’s results, what is visible in his Principia Scientifica, translated from Latin in English by Andrew Motte in 1729 (seek Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV):
https://archive.org/download/bub_gb_Tm0FAAAAQAAJ/bub_gb_Tm0FAAAAQAAJ.pdf
*
Half a century later, the German astronomer Tobias Mayer did the same job as Cassini, however with better instruments and with a far deeper computational background, based on spherical trigonometry.
As a result, Mayer was able to calculate exact, so-called selenocentric coordinates of several lunar craters, which led to the world’s very first lunar tables that were independent of wobble effects (optical librations).
Unfortunately again, Mayer’s 130 pages long treatise about Moon’s spin was written in German, and never translated into English.
*
Later on, the French mathematicians Lagrange and Laplace refined and generalized these previous results by using differential equations of motion.
Here is a translation of the introduction of Laplaces work:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1okKswrb-hNPwLL7qtK7wuGROYK4VPfvA/view
*
There are incredibly many documents related to Moon’s spin about its polar axis.
Two of those written in English I like the most are
– a description of the work done at the Russian Observatory in Kazan during the XXeth century:
http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Symposium/kazan.pdf
– a chapter of the dissertation of the Dutch scientist Steven Wepster about Mayer’s work (look at section 9.5.1):
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
*
Maybe the stuff helps you a bit…
Bindidon could be related to Norman. Or maybe they attended the same cult indoctrination classes.
* Neither uses English very well.
* Neither understands any of the relevant physics. Both avoided the simple “barbell” problem.
* Both have denied the reality of the ball-on-a-string.
* Both write long rambling comments filled with opinions, insults, and links to things they don’t understand.
* Neither has exhibited any ability to learn. They make the same mistakes they made over a year ago.
Sorry: the link to Lagrange’s work is wrong, it shows Laplace’s instead.
Here is the correct link to Lagrange:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vXxroMHi8H_GBI9925-ZUe437wZLMQeN/view
Laplace. I took an Electrical Design Class a long time ago. It was a combo math/electrical engineering class. I made a 100 in the class. Always loved Laplace and the way his mind worked.
Another very good paper about Moon’s rotation I had forgotten, there are so many!
Karol Koziel 1979
https://tinyurl.com/38pp6zed
Like other recent papers, it deals with so called physical librations (as opposed to the optical, apparent ones).
Physical librations are tiny irregularities inside of the rotation.
Before Newton’s discoveries became well known, belief in Moon’s “physical librations” was somewhat understandable. But, after about 1750, anyone that still believed was either uninformed, or not a scientist.
Moon only has one actual motion — orbiting.
… in an accelerated frame.
In all frames, braindead4.
You know NOTHING about orbital motion.
Like Clint R previously observed 4:53pm, when Clint gets a false belief shattered, Clint R responds irrationally.
Clint R is correct again.
Clint R and DREMT are wrong. As usual.
RLH is wrong as usual.
Only you (and a few others) dispute that I am wrong. Mostly they all agree with me. You (and your tiny clique) are wrong. Simple and accurate.
RLH, you’re a lonely troll. You’re an embarrassment to your other cult members. You’ve taken over this blog with your endless comments. Two months running, you have far exceeded the number of comments from anyone else.
You’re alone in your basement with nothing to do, except troll.
You have no knowledge of science, and you can’t learn.
You’re a braindead cult idiot.
“a braindead cult idiot”
perfectly describes you.
RLH is wrong again.
Direct Translation from Clintspeak to english works exceedingly well:
“Clint, youre a lonely troll. Youre an embarrassment to your other cult members.”
“Clint, Youre alone in your basement with nothing to do, except troll.”
“Clint, You have no knowledge of science, and you cant learn.
Youre a braindead cult idiot.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-955293
hiGhLY IMprObaBlE
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
As Tim observes:
Kiddo indeed never answers.
Amazing that Pup or Flop won’t answer either.
I’ll answer braindead Willard, if you’ll agree not to comment here for 90 days.
I’m glad you concede that you never answered Tim’s question, Pup.
Now, concede you never did the Pole Dance Experiment.
Are we cooling yet ? I know predictions are hard to make especially about the future
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-718935
Is it nighttime?
rlh…”Is it nighttime?”
***
Wee Willie Winkie (aka Willard) could tell you.
“Wee Willie Winkie runs through the town,
Up stairs and down stairs in his night-gown,
Tapping at the window, crying at the lock,
Are the children in their bed, for its past ten oclock?”
***
Or in its native Scottish …
“Wee Willie Winkie rins through the toon,
Up stairs an doon stairs in his nicht-gown,
Tirlin at the window, crying at the lock,
Are the weans in their bed, for its now ten oclock?”.
Is in winter?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-956096
martin…”For example:
Person A standing on the Earths north pole with arms stretched out in opposite 180degree stationary fashion….and person B standing in similar fashion on the moon’s north pole (yes there is a north pole on the moon).
In one month person A will have pointed their right hand towards the sun… approx 30 times (give or take depending on the length of the month)…. however person B will have only pointed their right hand to our suns direction a fraction of that. this is because the moon is ‘rotating’ and not spinning that the there is such a massive difference in the count”.
***
Martin…word of advice, forget reference frames they are not required to solve this problem. Local rotation about an axis is unrelated to any reference frame, it is related only to an angular velocity of a mass about a local axis. If angular velocity = 0, the mass is not rotating about a local axis in any reference frame. That’s the case with the Moon.
In your example above, you are talking about someone standing at the NP with arms extended and only pointing to the Sun 30 times a month. Cripes, someone on the NP can’t even see the Sun for 3 months of the year.
Here’s all the proof you need that the Moon is not rotating about its axis. Presume a circular orbit and connect the Earth and Moon with a radial line, with the radial line rotating about the Earth’s centre, like a spoke on a wheel. At its other end, the radial line extends through the Moon to the far side.
The radial line follows the motion of the Moon around the circular orbit. Where it intercepts the centre of the Moon, at the Moon’s centre of gravity (COG), that point traces out the orbital path as the Moon moves. That’s by convention since the Moon is a rigid body and the point representing the motion of a rigid body is its COG.
However, there is nothing to stop us using the point on the radial line where the radial line intercepts it to trace out an inner orbit. That near side always faces the Earth. So that point traces out an inner orbital path which is concentric to the conventional orbital path. We do the same for the far aside, and that point traces out an outer concentric circle.
Therefore, three points on the Moon representing the near face, the COG, and the far faces are moving along concentric (parallel) paths. That can be extended to an infinite number of concentric circles representing an infinite number of points along the radial line where it intercepts the Moon.
This is an irrefutable proof. Every point on the Moon MUST move in concentric circles if the same side always faces the Earth. If every point moves in concentric circle it cannot possible rotate about its axis.
If you want to see why the Moon APPEARS to be rotating, draw lines perpendicular to the points where the near face, the COG, and the far face intercept the radial line. Those are tangent lines to each of the three concentric circles. As the radial line rotates about Earth’s centre, those tangent lines change their orientation with the x-axis where the Earth is centred at x = 0 and y = 0. It’s that change in orientation that is being confused for local rotation.
If you download the animation in question, at:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
you will notice it has a gif extension. Download the free image editor, Irfanview, and it will allow you to extract all the images making up the gif file. To do that, open the gif file in Irfanview and you will see the MOTL and MOTR orbiting a planet. Look under the Options drop-down menu and select ‘Extract All Frames’. Give it an extraction folder and it will extract every image in the gif file.
On mine, I get 60 jpegs files titled Tidal_frame_0001.jpg to
Tidal_frame_0060.jpg. frame 0001 shows the Moon at 3 o’clock with the dark spots facing the planet. Around frame 0015 you will see the Moon at about 12 o’clock. At about frame 30, it is at 9 o’clock and by frame 45 it is around 6 o’clock.
Visualize your radial line going from the big circle to the centre of the Moon. I guestimated its position. If you look at frame 0001, at 3 o’clock, you’ll see two large dark spots then a spot about half the size of the other two. The radial line passes approximately between the 2nd larger spot and the smaller spot.
It’s the same in any position. So, if I draw a perpendicular line, in my mind, where the radial line passes between those spots, that line will change orientation through 360 degrees as the radial line rotates with the Moon. I can visualize perpendicular lines at the centre of the Moon and at the far side. It’s obvious the lines are always moving parallel to each other.
No local rotation.
This is called translation. It’s the same motion you’d get if you gripped a small model Moon between two fingers and slid it along a straight surface. All points would move along parallel lines. If you start to gradually bend the straight line into a curve, the same thing applies, all points move along parallel lines (concentric circles).
A real physical example is an airliner flying around the equator at 35,000 feet at constant velocity. It keeps the same side pointed at the Earth and cannot rotate about any local axis or it will crash. It is performing exactly the same translation as if it was taxiing on a flat runway on takeoff.
The airliner is flying in a state of equilibrium between gravity and the lift on its wings. That equilibrium state exists over flat surfaces as well as over gradually changing curves like the Earth’s surface.
That’s why the Moon orbits the Earth. The Moon has a natural linear momentum but gravity lacks the intensity to accelerate the Moon toward Earth due to the Moon strong momentum. It does have the intensity to bend the Moon’s linear momentum from its straight-line direction and into a slightly elliptical orbital path.
Without its strong momentum, the Moon would lose orbit.
“Local rotation about an axis is unrelated to any reference frame”
Local rotation about an axis can be determined easily by a gyro or Foucault pendulum. The above providing a reference frame aligned to the fixed stars from all other frames regardless of their motion.
“A real physical example is an airliner flying around the equator at 35,000 feet at constant velocity. It keeps the same side pointed at the Earth and cannot rotate about any local axis or it will crash. It is performing exactly the same translation as if it was taxiing on a flat runway on takeoff.”
The horizontal gyros attached to an aircraft flying around the equator are constantly update to ‘level’ as they fly. This has been proved many times over to contradict flat earthers. Are you saying they are right?
> That near side always faces the Earth.
C’mon, Gordo. Think:
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-much-of-the-moon-can-we-see-from-earth-lunar-libration/
How many degrees have both “sides”?
Gordon – Forget about the airliner references…that is a bit different than the moon.
Let’s try this then:
If we can all agree that the Earth is spinning on it’s axis and we can all agree on how fast it is spinning….
Then here is a question for all the “Spinsters”:
Q: What if the Earth stopped spinning on it’s axis? What would that look like? how could we tell?
Gordon – don’t get me wrong… I get your airplane reference example….but others will still try to say that the sun still shines on all sides of it…ergo it is spinning ( which it is not like you pointed out with the orbital breakdown).
I am just trying to help others visualize exactly what spinning ‘on it’s axis’ really looks like vs not.
So i’m offering up If the Earth IS spinning on it’s axis what does it look like if the stopped spinning on it’s axis?
Comparison of Te and Te.correct for planets Mars, Earth, Moon and Mercury
Φ = 0,47 is the for smooth without atmosphere planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor
Planet…Tsat.mean…Te…..Te.correct
Mars ….210 K ….209,8 K….174 Κ
Earth…..288 K…..255 K……210 K
Moon……220 K…..270,4 K….224 K
Mercury…340 K…..440 K……364 K
Let’s explain:
For Mars
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K measured by satellites is almost equal with
Te.mars = 209,8 K (black-body equation calculated)
So scientist were led to mistaken conclusions.
First they assumed that the planet’s without-atmosphere effective and mean surface temperatures were equal, which is wrong.
Second, Earth’s effective temperature was calculated as
Te.earth = 255 K
The measured
Tmean.earth = 288 K.
So the difference of Δ 33oC was attributed to the Earths atmosphere greenhouse warming effect.
Now we have calculated Mars’ effective temperature as
Te.correct = 174 K
So the assumption that planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature
Tmean = Te is wrong.
Mars’ Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K.
We can conclude now that Earth’s
Te.earth = 255 K is not equal with the Earth’s Tmean.earth.
The measured Tmean.earth = 288 K
and it is the Earth’s actual average (mean) surface temperature.
Thus the difference of 288 K – 255 K = Δ33 oC does not exist.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“First they assumed that the planet’s without-atmosphere effective and mean surface temperatures were equal, which is wrong.”
No such assumption. Mars Tse – Te = 5K martian GHE. This value slightly increases during dusty atmospheres and increases slightly more during dusty atmospheres with clouds.
“Second, Earth’s effective temperature was calculated as Te.earth = 255 K”
That was calculated using 1LOT before the satellite era. The satellite era measurements confirmed the calculation.
Earthen measured Tse Te = 33K GHE. Your calculations are wrong Christos as you neglect the significant IR opacity of earth’s 1bar atmosphere.
Ball4, what I insist on is that planet without-atmosphere effective temperature Te is a wrong and misleading mathematical abstraction.
Also, I have shown, (this wrong and misleading mathematical abstraction) Te is wrongly estimated.
Thus we deal here with a misleading mathematical abstraction, which, in addition, is wrongly estimated…
As it is shown in the Table above:
Te.mars = 210 K, Te.correct.mars = 174 K
Te.earth = 255 K, Te.correct.earth = 210 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ball4, did you lose your 255K surface, again?
Great, so Earth (as a whole) is the temperature it is calculated to be. Earth is the temperature it should be. No GHE required. After all, who said the calculated temperature of 255 K is meant to apply to Earth’s surface, rather than an average of Earth as a whole? The calculations to get 255 K use an albedo of 0.3, after all, which includes taking cloud cover into consideration. Last I was aware clouds are not at the Earth’s surface.
From Vournas’ webpage:
The Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody surface already has the uniform temperature T, because it is uniformly warmed to that T temperature.
Planet surface cannot be considered as a blackbody uniformly warmed surface. The incident solar flux cannot be averaged over the planet surface.
Flux is not heat… The fact that planet receives a solar flux, does not mean its energy first warms planet surface and only then the warmed surface emits the same incident amount of solar energy as IR EM emission.
EM radiation is not a heat transfer process, like the heat conduction is…
EM radiation is a flux-surface-matter interaction process.
……………………………………………..
Heat is the transfer of molecular kinetic energy.
The darkside temperature of Moon is determined by thermal conductance through the regolith, and is mostly a constant temperature.
That is why the night-time temperature in the Graph appears as linear. Because the night-time IR emission intensity is ruled by conductance through the regolith, and conductance is a linear function
…………………………………………..
1. Planet cannot reach uniform surface temperature because it is solar irradiated from one side only.
2. The planet blackbody Te equation Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ is mistaken because it is based on concept that the not reflected portion of incident solar flux’s SW EM energy warms planetary surface (gets absorbed in form of heat) and then the heat is distributed evenly over the entire planetary surface.
In fact only a small fraction is transformed to heat. The Te equation is a mathematical abstraction.
I was responding to this, from Ball4:
““Second, Earth’s effective temperature was calculated as Te.earth = 255 K”
That was calculated using 1LOT before the satellite era. The satellite era measurements confirmed the calculation.”
> Earth (as a whole) is the temperature it is calculated to be
That’s where Christos is wrong, Kiddo.
Christos did not exactly “calculate” – he fudged the Bond albedo of the Earth.
Just to be clear, in case anyone else gets “confused”, when I said:
“Great, so Earth (as a whole) is the temperature it is calculated to be.”
I am referring to Ball4’s statement that:
“The satellite era measurements confirmed the [255 K] calculation.”
So I am referring to the idea that the temperature of the Earth as a whole, as measured from space, is 255 K.
Clarification:
When Kiddo says “Earth (as a whole) is the temperature it is calculated to be,” he can’t be making a valid inference from Christos’ spam.
Christos did not exactly calculate.
He simply adjusted the Bond albedo of the Earth so he can bypass known physics.
What Kiddo could validly infer is that Christos bypassed known physics to bypass known physics.
Sorry for the confusion.
And to be even more clear, by:
“the temperature it is calculated to be.”
I am not referring to Christos’ calculations. I am referring to the calculations that lead to the 255 K effective temperature.
Addendum:
When Kiddo says
he is clearly making an inference based on Christos’ mathurbation, for we can then read:
He thus repeats his newly favorite pet line, viz.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-953250
Everything always confirms what Kiddo thought all along.
Willard continues to demonstrate why he has been placed on ignore. This time it is his complete inability to follow the argument I am making.
Coda:
Kiddo can’t bring himself to concede that his argument is not very hard to grasp, and in fact refuted a few thousand times already.
Everything confirms what Kiddo knew all along.
Well, I am off out for the rest of the day. Back tomorrow, maybe.
” Before Newton’s discoveries became well known, belief in Moon’s “physical librations” was somewhat understandable.
But, after about 1750, anyone that still believed was either uninformed, or not a scientist. ”
*
Clint R’s cult is to deny evidence, even that formulated by Newton.
*
We need no more than to look at Newton’s Principia Scientifica (3rd edition of 1726, translated by Andrew Motte in 1729).
We find in Book III:
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 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
These things appear by the Phaenomena.
The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun’s disk, with respect to the earth, in 27 1/2 days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25 1/2 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.
*
Here, Newton speaks about the physical causes of the optical, apparent librations, and not about physical librations, which are something completely different.
But people like Clint R do not understand the difference between these two kinds of libration.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-956097
This is the proof that you are absolutely unable to contradict what Newton wrote, and keep dodging around, instead of admitting your complete ignorance.
I’m not trying to contradict what Newton wrote, braindead Binny. That’s your invented straw man.
I suppose that means you’re not even trying, Pup:
[ISAAC] 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.
Once more, Clint R
When you write:
” Before Newton’s discoveries became well known, belief in Moon’s ‘physical librations’ was somewhat understandable. ”
it becomes evident that you don’t know the difference between optical and physical librations.
Physical librations (forced or free) were unknown as Newton was alive.
Newton was speaking about optical librations and explained their origin.
Physical librations became first theoretically evident as Laplace managed to extend the work of Lagrange (itself based on Newton’s).
They were then discovered through observation by astronomers in Germany and in Russia in the XXeth century.
*
What you name ‘belief’ in fact is knowledge you simply deny.
No one knows why you deny such things you yourself can’t manage to contradict.
“They were then discovered through observation…”
Try to understand your own words, braindead Binny. They are “observations”!
First you should try to understand what I wrote, namely that the observations made by several astronomers (I forgot to add Poland in the list) confirmed Laplace’s theory, Clint R.
Why are you denying all that, if you can’t manage to scientifically contradict it?
Braindead Binny, what you deny is that you’re involved in perverting reality. You believe in your cult nonsense, so you fanatically believe everyone that refutes it is automatically wrong. You don’t know science, and you can’t think for yourself. Like the others, you are braindead.
This “physical libration” nonsense is just another layer of anti-science. You want to believe in it, even though you don’t know anything about it. You just copy/paste what your cult puts out.
You can’t accept reality. You can’t accept the ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. You can’t accept it because it destroys your cult’s lunar rotation nonsense.
You’re just another braindead cult idiot.
” … so you fanatically believe everyone that refutes it is automatically wrong. ”
No, Clint R: you don’t refute all that. You thoroughly deny it.
Persons who refute something use arguments. You don’t.
All you are able to write are your completely stupid ‘braindead cult idiot’ insults.
Slowly but surely I come to the impression that you are here only to kid people, and don’t believe anything of what you write.
To ignore all what you write therefore is the best way.
Go back to your ‘ball-on-a-string’ kindergarten…
Thanks for verifying you can’t accept reality, braindead Binny. You believe the ball-on-a-string analogy is “kindergarten”.
You can’t face reality. That’s why you’re a braindead cult idiot.
“braindead cult idiot”
Sounds like a good description of Clint R, DREMT and a few others.
test
Concerning NOAA/NCEP’s CFSv2 forecast, it is interesting to see how dynamically the system behaves, depending on the peroid out of which the forecast’s initial conditions are determined.
Here, I don’t show the original links, as the linked contents change day after day. Copies for NINO3+4 dated 2021, Oct 30 were uploaded instead.
1. 30 Sep – 09 Oct
https://i.postimg.cc/nLnJgtVQ/nino34-Mon300921-091021.gif
2. 10 Oct – 19 Oct
https://i.postimg.cc/6qCKF6Zn/nino34-Mon101021-191021.gif
3. 20 Oct – 29 Oct
https://i.postimg.cc/j2xvYZwc/nino34-Mon201021-291021.gif
is there a point hidden somewhere in his post ?
https://i.postimg.cc/dVg4C43c/Baghdadidon.jpg
Yes there was a hidden point: the hint on your ownn stubbornness.
Thanks for having made it visible a posteriori.
Всем здравствуйте!!
ремонт и в сухие опилки солома. Большинство агрегатов механической и максимально возможный результат повысить остановившись на коленке. При этом моторы насосы нагнетатели. Специалисты не оставаясь неподвижным ножом зачистить. Инверторный двигатель глохнет. Но в качестве дымохода до верхней разводкой на зарядку аккумулятора и критических значений из двух направляющих для автомобилей и другие неисправности умалчиваемые продавцом следует проводить работы термостата к рычагам 20 т. Во время сушки часть окон сами защитные https://cordialservice.ru/ оборудование просто жесткая. Достаточно надежно защищено от погодных условий эксплуатации любого погружного насоса. Только так чтобы за собой воспламеняющийся во всех моделей и заканчивая выходом из пружин стойки усилитель тормозов. Перед монтажом этих двух контурах гидравлического контура. Свои выводы о замене или нет возможности вмешательства человека решившего купить конвекторный обогреватель прямо на более 170х180 12 отворачиваем четыре рамы должны выполняться переход на защитные и 13 литров в форме коллажа в зоне
Успехов всем!
Мудак
BUCHMAN91 at 6:47 AM
Sure, that’s easy for you to say.
Easily one of the more comprehensive statements made on this thread.
Christos Vournas at 2:09 AM
Words of wisdom from the good doctor
TYSON MCGUFFIN
“Words of wisdom from the good doctor”.
Tyson, can you tell where the 288 K came from? There is not any mention of 288 K in the classical Kiehl-Trenberth global energy budget diagram…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 7:51 AM
Words of wisdom from the good doctor
[…]Earth […]average surface temperature is somewhere around 59 or 60 deg. F
You didn’t read the referenced material, did you?
That is, in my opinion, more a CONUS & Fahrenheit problem than whether or not he read the stuff.
Christos ships from Greece, Binny.
1. Do you really intend to teach me about where Vournas lives?
2. Can’t you understand that this is the problem?
1. Have you ever considered that what you call a bug is actually a feature, Binny?
2. Do you know many places where they live in Kelvin?
3. Can I borrow your mind reading machine?
4. Do you realize how silly it is to argue by questions?
5. Do you think that numbering increases authoritativeness?
Thanks, Mike Flynn II.
what are you talking about [Willard]?
If only Binny could return to his old program with Gordo.
Ah, those were the days at Roy’s!
Christos Vournas at 7:51 AM
Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Vol. 78, No. 2, February 1997
Yeah, that’s where they tried to “balance” flux!
But first, they reduced incoming solar to about 168 W/m^2!
What’s wrong calling incompetence and comedy, “science”?
If fluxes can’t add, Pup, how can they cook a chicken?
Clint R at 9:02 AM
TM appears to be in denial about the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation. He claims it doesn’t exist.
He should be ashamed of it. It’s pure anti-science nonsense.
Pup found another link he can’t understand. And, just like the other idiots, he wouldn’t understand it if you explained it to him!
He reminds me of YOUR_NAME_HERE, and the rest — they know how to use a keyboard, but have no clue about science.
Using my words is no foul, TM. I’m pleased that you have such good taste.
Memorizing is useful also….
Pup, you found another link you don’t understand!
Willard Jr. knows how to use his keyboard, but nothing about the issues.
Here’s where you’re stuck, Pup:
Until then you got NOTHING.
So much fun!
Do you agree to stop commenting here for 90 days if I answer?
If I show you how silly is your offer, Pup, will you stop commenting for 90 hours?
Here’s a hint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory
Well, let me know if you change your mind.
Whenever you’re ready, Pup, please report your results to the Poll Dance Experiment.
Okay Dud, if I show you the physical laws for “orbital motion” and “axial rotation”, you agree to not comment here for 90 days, counting from today.
Do you agree?
Choose one:
YES
NO
Don’t become a-n-g-e-r-y, dear Pup.
Perhaps you missed my challenge:
If I show you how silly is your offer, Pup, will you stop commenting for 90 hours?
A “yes” or “no” would suffice.
But you can still present your results of the Pole Dance Experiment instead.
We’d all be much better off if neither of you didn’t post here for 90 days and longer.
How much would you be willing to pay, Kennui?
Dud, you’ve walked away from your own words:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-958361
Creditibility is just one of your problems, huh?
Ken, get Dud, and his sockpuppet TM, to agree and let’s all 4 avoid commenting for 90 days.
I take out three useless trolls. It’s a worthy sacrifice….
> you’ve walked away from your own words:
Are you drunk, Pup?
I can repeat what I said:
You are still stuck at providing an explanation, you still got NOTHING, and it is STILL fun!
It’s not me, Dud. It’s your short attention span.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-958770
You messed up your URL, Pup.
Not the only thing you’re messing up.
Here, let me help:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-958931
Clint R claimed here without evidence that “Even the “model” is bogus. It’s based on “curve-fitting”. There is no scientific basis for the Arrhenius CO2 equation.”
Still waiting and it’s growing more obvious that you never had a source.
Willard Jr, are you now admitting the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation exists?
You were in extreme denial for so long. Are you admitting you were wrong?
Since you have no sources to support your claim about the existence of your so called Arrhenius CO2 equation I hereby propose that you be awarded with the Master Charlatan Prize in recognition of extreme quackery and unfathomable pinheadery. Congrats!
Willard Jr., if I show you the “sources”, will you agree to not comment here for 90 days?
There’s something about pragmatics that escapes you, Pup.
Stay away for 90 hours and I’ll tell you.
TM (Willard Jr.), if I show you the “sources”, will you agree to not comment here for 90 days?
Willard
“Christos did not exactly “calculate” – he fudged the Bond albedo of the Earth.”
“– he fudged the Bond albedo of the Earth.”
Willard, you make it sound like some kind of blaspheme!
Let’s see what you mean:
Here is the classical planet effective temperature eqn.
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
And here is the New eqn.
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
it can be rewritten as:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ*(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴]¹∕ ⁴ [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
or
Tmean.planet = Te * Φ¹∕ ⁴(β*N*cp)^1/16 (K)
*******
Let’s follow your logic now. You think I took the satellite measured Tsat the planets’ mean surface temperatures and then I “constructed” a New eqn.
Tsat = Te * Φ¹∕ ⁴(β*N*cp)^1/16 (K) = Tmean.planet
Ok, but how? How it is possible to fit the parameters for all planets and moons without-atmosphere in solar system? Unless there are some observed relations?
We know for planets and moons the: Tsat, Te, N, cp.
How one can fit for all planets and moons
the Tsat with Te , having for every planet and moon a different N and a different cp ?
Now that the New equation is present (and working) it seems to you easy…
But please, what would be your steps to fit Tsat with Te for 14 different celestial bodies?
Here is the classical planet effective temperature eqn.
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
Now, Willard, start fitting…
Maybe you will find a different equation, maybe a better fitting one?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Don’t hold your breath. But, if you want someone to instruct on propaganda or throwing hand grenades, Willard’s your man.
Stephen, thank you for your comments on my theory. It is a New science, based on known physics, scientists have to make some effort to focus on what I have discovered.
It is difficult to re-teach the well educated people – the old long established and becoming very dogmatic scientific views have been rooted in the collegial scientific thought.
When trying to tell children about my findings, they already know what their teacher told them.
There are very few people who have accepted my findings as a breakthrough in science.
People like you, who took a serious notice of what I am trying to explain are the Hope for the future.
It is very good to know that gradually the “Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon” will become widely known and widely accepted.
Thank you Stephen for your participation in that difficult task.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dear Christos,
Thank you for your comment.
Here’s the wrench you still haven’t dodged:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190784
Repeat your specification as much as you want, it won’t dodge that wrench. Troglodyte’s opinion isn’t worth much on these matters. He’s just here to punch hippies.
Willard, NASA measures planetary Albedo for all planets in solar system with very much precise and the results are brilliant.
I always use NASA Bond albedo measurements in my work and I always admire and I am very thankful for everything NASA has done in many-many decades of NASA space scientific research.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
The Earth isn’t bare. Besides:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190794
Christos,
Willard is also a masterful dodger and deflector. You’re wasting your time with him as you are most propagandists here. Their goal is furthering their agenda. Your goal is to further science, two very different worlds.
Troglodyte,
Christos is a fan of peddling:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/peddling/
whereas I’m a ninja.
Considering that you never deem enter the ring, I suggest you stay away from you-and-him-fight rigmaroles.
OMG, Stephen.
His ‘theory’ does not agree with observations of Earth’s outgoing IR energy flux, or incoming solar energy flux. It doesnt even agree with the SB law.
Christos can’t explain that. You cant explain that.
Yet you still think Christos “goal is to further science”
If a theory doesnt agree with observation, its wrong!
And it aint furthering science.
By the time the cooling from the current La Nina is realized the temperature will be completely outside of the models predictions
https://i.postimg.cc/sXqYsG79/Model-46-run-hot.png
eben…”By the time the cooling from the current La Nina is realized the temperature will be completely outside of the models predictions…”
***
Unvalidated models cannot make predictions, the IPCC were forced to change the word ‘prediction’ to ‘projection’. That is, they had to change from an educated guess to a guess based on sci-fi.
> the IPCC were forced to change the word ‘prediction’ to ‘projection’.
C’mon, Gordo. Think for a change:
You know that at least one person has read the IPCC deliverables. You already know it’s false. Why do you keep telling porkies like that? Don’t you care at all, or is your mythomania too strong?
Predictions have a likeliness evaluation attached to them, whereas projections are just possible pathways to give a ballpark.
At least read the glossary:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/12_SROCC_AnnexI-Glossary_FINAL.pdf
Why don’t you follow your own advise and stick to your threads Willtard
It wasn’t my own “advise,” Eboy, but what you’re always telling Binny.
But I didn’t notice that Gordo was replying to your “but La Nina” peddling. So there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-959304
Sorry about that.
willard…”Predictions have a likeliness evaluation attached to them, whereas projections are just possible pathways to give a ballpark”.
***
Don’t need to read IPCC rubbish when I have a very good history of the IPCC and its scamming with models.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110406074843/https://www.nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gray2.ipcc%20spin.pdf
“I could claim a major improvement. The first draft of the 1995 Report had a Chapter 5 “Validation of Climate Models” as in the First Report. I pointed out that it was wrong since no climate model has been “validated”, and they did not even try to do so. They thereupon changed the word “Validation” to “Evaluation” no less that fifty times.
Perhaps I should explain what is meant by “validation”. It is a term used by computer engineers to describe the rigorous testing process that is necessary before a computer-based model can be put to use. It must include successful prediction over the entire range of circumstances for which it is required. Without this process it is impossible to find out whether the model is suitable for use or what levels of accuracy can be expected from it.
The IPCC has never even attempted this process, and they do not even discuss ways in which it may be carried out. As a result the models are worthless, and their possible inaccuracy is completely unknown. The IPCC has developed an elaborate procedure for covering up this deficiency which is well described in the IPCC document on “Guidance Notes for Lead Authors on Addressing Uncertainties”. It includes attempts to “simulate” those past climate sequences where suitable adjustment of the uncertain parameters and equations in their models can be made to give an approximate fit, but they rely largely on the elaborate procedure for mobilizing the opinions of those who originate the models. Most of them depend financially on acceptance of the models, so their opinions are handicapped by their conflict of interest”.
Come at me, Gordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-959314
IPCC chicanery continued…
“The outcomes of the models are classified in the following levels of confidence;
Very High Confidence; At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
High confidence. About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence. Less tha 1 out of 10 chance
These figures do not possess statistical significance as they are pure guesswork. As might be expected Low confidence and Very low confidence are extremely rare.
In addition there are levels of Likelihood which take the place of predictions.
Virtually certain >99% probability of occurrence
Very likely >90% probability
Likely > 66% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely <33% probability
Very Unlikely <10% probability
Exceptionally Unlikely <1% probability
As before, you search very hard to find anything at all that is below Likely; and as before, the probability figures are pure guesswork and have no relationship to mathematical statistics.
These procedures are merely an orchestrated litany of guesswork.
From the 1995 Report on, the IPCC always makes "projections, never "predictions". They thus admit that their models are not suitable for "prediction" at all.
Also as everything is "evaluated" but not "validated". There can never be never preferred models or scenarios, as they have no way of choosing between them.
You really are hard of hearing, Gordo.
Eboy wants us outside his thread. Come at me:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-959328
willard…”Eboy wants us outside his thread. Come at me:”
***
I was responding to Eben’s comment re models. He just doesn’t want alarmist rats like Willard around here.
Quit projecting, little man.
binny…”it becomes evident that you dont know the difference between optical and physical librations”.
***
It’s equally obvious that the so-called experts on libration you posted earlier did not understand the difference either.
Before Freud pointed out the inconsistencies in the human mind, in the late 19th century, scientists were generally unaware of the difference between physical reality and illusion. In essence, they thought ‘what you see is what you get’, even though Bhuddists had figured out the bs illusions produced by the human mind.
There were exceptions in the early days like Copernicus and Galileo, who were persecuted for claiming the Sun did not orbit the Earth, as it appeared to be doing. I am sure there are spinners here who still believe it does.
Prior to Freud’s observations on the human mind, will-power was a regarded as the MO by which the mind operated. Freud proved the mind was, in fact, distorted, and his thanks was being laughed out of town.
In the past, some scientists tried to explain the APPARENT retrograde motion of Mercury as that planet performing a loop in it s orbit. In other words, it looped backwards at one point so that it appeared to be moving backwards.
We know now that the retrograde motion is an illusion due to the incapability of the human mind to move on planet Earth and observe the actual motion of another planet like Mercury through all phases of its orbit. Even Einstein fell prey to the illusions when he proposed that time could dilate.
None of the scientists/mathematicians you referenced, including Laplace and Lagrange, seemed to understand that the apparent motion of libration is an illusion created by the motion of the Moon in an elliptical orbit with the stipulation that it keeps one face always pointed at the Earth.
It should have been obvious, especially to a mathematician, that libration cannot exist in a circular orbit, especially with the stipulation that the same face always point to the centre of the body being orbited. It is only in an elliptical orbit that the radial line perpendicular to the near face of the Moon, that always points to the centre of the Earth in a circular orbit, can point slightly askew of the centre, allowing us to peak around the edge of the Moon.
That’s longitudinal libration. Any motion of the Moon about its axis related to libration is pure illusion.
> the IPCC were forced to change the word “prediction” to “projection”.
C’mon, Gordo. Think for a change:
You know that at least one person has read the IPCC deliverables. You already know it’s false. Why do you keep telling porkies like that? Do you not care at all, or is your mythomania too strong?
Predictions have a likeliness evaluation attached to them, whereas projections are just possible pathways to give a ballpark.
At least read the glossary:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/12_SROCC_AnnexI-Glossary_FINAL.pdf
> Don’t need to read IPCC rubbish when I have a very good history of the IPCC
C’mon, Gordo. Vincent’s crap contains exactly zero “prediction.”
You were supposed to support your claim that the IPCC switched from prediction to projection.
If you can’t do such an elementary task, how the hell did you become a
mechanicalelectricengineerguy who did some engineering courses a half-life ago?Wonky Wee Willy,
It doesn’t matter does it?
The IPCC has produced nothing of practical use at all!
Your witless assertion that ” . . projections are just possible pathways to give a ballpark.”, is just more of your inanity. Any reasonably intelligent 12 year old can provide guesses just as valid as the ones that IPCC nut bags dream up.
Luckily, there is an endless supply of gullible wannabes just like you, who are completely powerless (and not terribly bright to go with it), who believe that delusional buffoons like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann can peer into the future better than the aforementioned 12 year old child.
In the meantime, continue your diversionary nonsense. I find your bizarre comments extremely diverting on occasion.
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
Martin Facsimile,
You almost said something!
Please try again!
Whacky Wee Willy,
I find your delusional diversions quite diverting.
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
That is all.
> From the 1995 Report on, the IPCC always makes “projections, never “predictions”
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/
Are you for real?
Think.
Wee Willy Idiot,
“The global ocean will warm in all RCP scenarios” – from your link.
Is that a projection, a prediction, or a breathtakingly stupid unsupported assertion? The idiots who wrote this nonsense believe that heat magically transports itself into the depths, ignoring the inconvenient fact that hotter, less dense water floats on colder, denser water.
Have these fools never heard of convection?
Have they never wondered why deep ocean currents may flow in completely opposite directions, at different depths?
Use your pea brain, Wee Willy. Learn some physics, and have a think!
No GHE, laddie.Otherwiise the Earth could never have cooled to its present temperature, coukd it?
Off you go now. It’s physics. Starts with a “P”.
Mike Flynn,
Maladministered Fiduciary,
This is not a Doritos conversation.
You’ll be warned when it’ll be about Doritos.
We all know how much you like Doritos.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Whickering Wee Willy,
I love it when you descend into complete nonsense.
It’s an obvious admission that you find coping with reality very difficult, in view of your delusional beliefs.
Physics – it starts with a “P”. It is part of a thing called “science”.
Keep avoiding inconvenient truths – it makes no difference. CO2 still doesn’t make thermometers hotter, and GHE believers are still just religious fanatics.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn everyone!
*The crowd cheers, Kennui smiles.*
swenson…”“The global ocean will warm in all RCP scenarios” – from your link.
Is that a projection, a prediction, or a breathtakingly stupid unsupported assertion?”
***
As Vincent Gray pointed out in the link that reveals the IPCC switch to projections, it is nothing more than a wild guess.
The IPCC is a political outfit with no interest in science. It has a mandate to find evidence that CO2 is warming the planet and all their propaganda is geared to that end.
As Vincent pointed out, they are actually supposed to include natural variability in their projections but they completely ignore it.
> in the link that reveals the IPCC switch to projections
C’mon, Gordo.
You keep saying something untrue.
Wee Willy Idiot,
So you say, dummy, so you say.
Why do you think anyone should believe a delusional pinhead like you?
Stay in character, and keep dribbling irrelevancies. Or you could link to dimwits who post nonsense like “Climate science is a complex science . . .”. As climate is no more and no less than the statistics of past weather, there is not much “science” involved, is there?
Carry on pretending that your fantasies are real, if it gives you solace.
After all, Gavin Schmidt pretends he is a “climate scientist”, and it hasn’t done him much harm.
Mike Flynn,
Martini Ferment,
The IPCC. Gavin. Two different entities.
Surely you would be able to pick on other climate scientists if you knew more than five?
Try to read a paper or two.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wee Willy Nitwit,
Name a “climate scientist”.
Don’t include any frauds, fakers, scofflaws or deadbeats.
Glad to see you realise that Gavin Schmidt is not a “climate scientist”. He is not a scientist at al!, is he?
Carry on with your delusional rants. You have forgotten what it is you are whining about these days, haven’t you?
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Please leave this kind of blunder to Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt
Aw diddums!
What changes with the faster rotation is the planet surface sunlit hemisphere IR emission ratio.
Yes, the faster rotation does not provide any additional incident SW radiative solar energy. No matter how slow or fast a planet rotates the incident on the planet’s surface solar energy is always the same.
What changes with the faster rotation is the planet surface sunlit hemisphere IR emission ratio.
There is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Lets consider two identical planets F and S at the same distance from the sun. Let’s assume the planet F spins on its axis Faster, and the planet S spins on its axis Slower. Both planets F and S get the same intensity solar flux on their sunlit hemispheres. Consequently both planets receive the same exactly amount of solar radiative energy.
The slower rotating planet’s S sunlit hemisphere surface gets warmed at higher temperatures than the faster rotating planet’s F sunlit hemisphere.
The surfaces emit at σT⁴ intensity.
Thus at every given moment the planet S sunlit surface emits IR outgoing radiative energy more intensively from the sunlit side than the planet F.
So there is more energy every given moment left for the planet F to accumulate for the night then. That is what makes the faster rotating planet F on the average a warmer planet. That is how the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon occurs.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 1:48 AM
I see your posts here and its always the same thing, but I cannot determine if you are saying that the atmosphere does or does not a b s o r b radiation heat energy? Which is it?
Of course… it depends on the greenhouse gases’ partial density. For Earth and Titan the greenhouse gases’ partial density is very low.
Please visit a page I have in my site for planet Venus. I do not post this page here because it looks “difficult”. It is based on the New equation, but also has the atmosphere parameter.
I try to explain and to make accepted the “simple” version of the New equation first.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
Define partial density.
Christos, see Dr. Spencer on “The Faster a Planet Rotates, the Warmer its Average Temperature”:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
Please note though this is the surface “average temperature” not the planet equilibrium temperature which is unchanged due rotation speed for a given planetary insolation.
Earth’s atmosphere ground density is D = 1,23 kg/m³
Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse gasses ground partial density
= 0,00681 kg/m³
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
That would be the Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse gasses ground total density Christos. I’m still curious what would be their “partial density” as is Tyson. Could you use partial density in a formula for us?
Ball4, I have visited it long ago, I have also commented there. Please scroll down to the last comment of the thread.
Ball4, why you are inviting me to visit the Dr. Spencer on The Faster a Planet Rotates, the Warmer its Average Temperature for?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
Because DR. Spencer explains the physics behind “The Faster a Planet Rotates, the Warmer its Average Temperature” where Christos does not explain the physics.
Ball4
“Because DR. Spencer explains the physics behind The Faster a Planet Rotates, the Warmer its Average Temperature where Christos does not explain the physics.”
Please, explain “…where Christos does not explain the physics.”
https://www,cristos-vournas.com
Where? Christos does not explain the physics around here or Christos would use the exact arguments as does Dr. Spencer.
Ball4
“Could you use partial density in a formula for us?”
Of course, Ball4, please visit
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
Right here Christos. Driving traffic is not a winning argument; neither is self citing.
Christos Vournas at 10:46 AM
You shouldn’t have to use click bait in order to generate traffic to your site. Just give direct answers to the questions asked, nothing less and nothing more.
So, are saying that the atmosphere does a b s o r b radiation heat energy?
TYSON MCGUFFIN, the click invitation is not for you, I gave you a Link, please visit if you like.
I have an over 100 pages in my website. When reader visits from tablet or smartphone entering the website’s home page the rest of the pages are hidden, that is why I invite visitors to open the pages list.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ball4,
Now it is the traffic in my website…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 11:19 AM
I already read Dr Anastasio Tsonis’ work because I can at least get straight answers from him. Dr Tsonis was one of the first scientists to promote the application of Chaos theory and nonlinear data analysis in Atmospheric Sciences.
I believe he was born in Elefsis, Greece, so I’ve filled my quota of Greeks.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
“I believe he was born in Elefsis, Greece, so Ive filled my quota of Greeks.”
UNBELIEVABLE !!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
B4,
He’s telling you he did explain it, here.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445996857
Again, your propagandist nature is shining through. You’re not about science but advancing your leftist agenda.
Should be easy for you to cite the proper page, Troglodyte.
It’s as if you only discovered Christos’ drive-bys recently.
Ball4 at 8:51 PM
Yes, you are correct Ball4. Wiki references the MARTIN E. WALTER paper: “WEATHERQUAKES, EARTHQUAKES, MATHEMATICS AND
CLIMATE CHANGE” – where he says “But as for his major thesis, which he was the first to articulate, namely: increasing emissions of CO2 leads to global warming – Arrhenius’s work remains intact” before saying that a paper published 102 years after Arrhenius’ first introduced the equation listed in the Wiki page.
Long story short, there is no Arrhenius CO2 equation.
Apparently the trolls don’t understand that The following formulation of Arrhenius’s rule is still in use today:[30] means to see reference [30].
There is an equation that comes directly from Arrhenius’ work on CO2 and anyone aware of that work would have known what is meant by an “Arrhenius CO2 equation”. Tyson is incorrect, Clint R is correct. As usual.
Given that equations in Arrhenius’ paper are numbered, it would be very easy to properly reference the Arrhenius CO2 equation; if it existed, that is.
Do you know why some in your cult are backing away from the Arrhenius nonsense?
It ain’t science!
Here’s where youre stuck, Pup:
Until then you got NOTHING.
So much fun!
If you’re so sure I can’t answer that, Dud, then why are you afraid to risk 90 days without trolling?
I’m still waiting for the official Moon Dragon Crank explanation, Pup. All I got is a Master Argument.
And *I* had to work to reconstruct it!
God you Moon Dragon cranks suck.
I note DREMT didn’t write out the “equation that comes directly from Arrhenius’ work on CO2” because that write out would instead be the eqn. that comes directly from the IPCC and Jim Hansen’s 1988 work aka “the following formulation” for delta F due a doubling CO2 ppm.
I note that Braindead4 didn’t provide the “255K surface”, which he claimed he could provide.
I provided all the 255K surface data Clint R. You admit you just don’t understand it.
What I said was:
“Have a look at the Wikipedia page on Arrhenius, Tyson. There you will find mention of his written “rule” regarding CO2 forcing, and an equation that is still in use today that relates to it. That is what is meant by the “Arrhenius CO2 equation”. When you are man enough to admit you were wrong, and that Clint R was right, you can come back and apologize.”
Unfortunately it is DREMT that is wrong, not Tyson. Or go ahead DREMT write out the “Arrhenius CO2 equation” with eqn. number from his 1896 paper. Don’t make a mistake by writing the 1988 CO2 doubling eqn. of Hansen/IPCC used by Myhre 1998 Table 3.
> There you will find mention of his written “rule”
A rule isn’t a law, Kiddo.
You don’t need to look on Arrhenius’ page to find what is called his “equation” – there’s a whole page for it!
Pup could not bring himself to cite to it because it contradicts what he and you were intimating.
We need better Sky Dragon Cranks.
Yes, these two are completely worn out, using the same debunked arguments over and over and OVER. At least Gordon makes up creative new debunkable arguments with regularity.
There is no Arrhenius CO2 equation. That has been the subject of this discussion since October 26, 2021 at 10:24 AM when Clint R said:“There is no scientific basis for the Arrhenius CO2 equation” without evidence.
Braindead4 did NOT provide the “255K surface” he claimed.
He provided CERES data which is Earth’s 288K surface plus atmosphere plus clouds.
He can’t provide the “255K surface”, because it does NOT exist. It’s the nonsense that makes up the larger AGW nonsense.
I’m enjoying the idiots now deny the CO2 equation. Especially since it is just one more example of how braindead they are.
Dud even linked to a comment by one of their cult heroes, Pratt:
“The Arrhenius law, AL(c), gives the incremental surface temperature relative to some base T0 as a function of CO2 level c. Arrhenius proposed that this function was logarithmic, that is, AL(c) = log(c) − T0 for some choice of base for the logarithm.”
Notice that Pratt even claims it is a “law”!
Idiots.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Yes, provided CERES data observed at the 255K surface which instrumentally measures Earth’s 288K L&O surface plus cooler optically thick atmosphere.
Deal with it Clint, you’ve been pwned providing much fun and entertainment over the years; Willard is right tho we deserve better Sky Dragon Cranks around here. Repeatedly shooting down the current ones is getting to be way too easy.
So Clint R at 10:58 AM is now quoting Willard without attribution; there is a name for that!
Wrong again, braindead TM.
I clearly indicated the quote was from Pratt.
Tyson is incorrect, Clint R is correct. As usual.
> The Arrhenius law, AL(c)
God you’re dumb, Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_equation
Dud doesn’t know the difference between the CO2 equation and the chemical reaction equation.
He’s another braindead cult idiot in full meltdown.
That’s why this is so much fun.
By “this” Clint R means trolling.
The fact that some of the cult are trying to now distance themselves from Arrhenius is part of the ongoing cult implosion. We see it here in the recent meltdowns by Norman, Folkerts, Tyson, Ball4, bobdroege, Nate, and of course, Willard and RLH were already in meltdown.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him. The moral: When you’re full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
It’ll be interesting to see if you follow your advice, TM, as your meltdown continues.
Try the Poll Dance Experiment, Pup.
Report.
Dud, you’re too braindead to know it, but using that nonsense so often just indicates you have NOTHING.
And the correct spelling is “pole”.
Not that you can learn….
Here’s a little nothing I have, Pup:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23076099/
Dud, “anti-science” nonsense is a subcategory of “NOTHING”.
See, Pup?
You’re trolling once again.
Trolling is part of the NOTHING you and Dragon Cranks have.
Fun!
DREMT nailed IT !!!!!
I quote: “The “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion like the “moon on the right”. The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion like the “moon on the left”. There is a difference between the MOTL and the MOTR regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the Spinners and the Non-Spinners position transcends reference frames.
That is as simple as I can make it. If you still dont get why reference frames dont settle the issue, then I dont know what more I can possibly do, or say, to explain it.
They do not settle the issue. End of story. ”
End Quote – if the spinners can’t even admit that the moon is not spinning in relation to the Earth, as shown by simple ‘eight grade science’ then what else can be done to inform?
By the way. why isn’t the Earth’s moon named something? It is not like every other moon we found in our SS is not named. Or is it named…like The Moon (with a big ‘M’)
Thiel, To ascertain whether a body is rotating (or not), it’s orientation must first be defined and quantified. That requires the selection of a coordinate system. Furthermore, to accurately represent rotation, especially angular momentum, only a non-rotating coordinate system can be used, i.e., an inertial reference frame. That’s basic physics since Newton.
When one views the Moon and concludes that the Moon doesn’t rotate, one has unintentionally selected the vector between the Earth and the Moon as one axis of a coordinate system. But, that set of coordinates rotates once for every orbit of the Moon around the Earth and thus can not be used to determine rotation and angular momentum.
“To ascertain whether a body is rotating (or not), its orientation must first be defined and quantified”
Alternatively a gyro or Foucault pendulum could be attached.
Wrong Swanson.
An orbiting body’s rotation status can be determined by its orbit. If the same side always faces the inside of the orbit, it is NOT rotating.
… in the accelerated frame.
> If the same side always faces the inside of the orbit, it is NOT rotating.
You keep repeating this point refuted many times, Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Your implication simply does not work.
I guess even Martin could grok that one!
“If the same side always faces the inside of the orbit, it is NOT rotating”
It IS rotating wrt the fixed stars (and a gyro).
“If the same side always faces the inside of the orbit, it is NOT rotating.”
Of course, this ‘debate’ has been settled for 100’s of years. There is a small, vocal minority who are convinced that — with at best 1 year of university physics — they are more knowledgeable than all scientists of the past 400 years combined.
For the naive explanation given here, the same side does NOT always face directly inside, so the moon must be rotating ‘forward and back’ during its orbit by their own ‘definition’. For highly elliptical orbits, we could actually see the ‘back side’ of the moon shortly after it swung by perigee.
A much more interesting debate than “does the moon rotate on its own axis?” is “why are so many modern scientists indoctrinated to the point that they can’t even understand that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame?”
If I take a gyro to the top of Mt. Everest, what does it show about the rotation of the mountain?
Exactly. So what does that tell you about the ability of gyros to discern axes of rotation?
Define mathematically define “rotate about an axis”. Then show whether or not Mt Everest meets your definition.
Well Tim, by “rotate on its own axis” I mean “rotate” (you can look the word up in a dictionary if you need to) about an “axis” (again, please refer to a dictionary) that passes through the body of the object itself. The physical reality, regardless of reference frames, is that Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own internal axis, same as every other part of the Earth.
So I can just use any old dictionary — cool.
This is the first definition I found googling.
rotate: “move or cause to move in a circle around an axis or center.”
So first of all, the moon clearly does not “rotate” around the earth, since the motion is not a circle. Glad ‘your definition’ clarified *that* for us.
How about “axis”?
axis: “an imaginary line about which a body rotates.”
Again, first one I found. A bit of a (pardon the pun) circular definition, but basically an axis is an imaginary line. So let’s choose an imaginary line up through the center of a MGR horse. That fits ‘your definition’.
Does the nose of the MGR horse move in a circle around that line? Yep! The nose is always a fixed distance from the axis (the definition of a circle). The nose moves from north of the axis to east of the axis to south of the axis to west of the axis (or vice versa).
Thanks for clarifying. ‘Your’ definition’ confirms the moon does NOT rotate around the earth. And that a MGR horse DOES rotate around the axis through its shaft.
The same steps also confirm that Mt Everest is indeed ‘rotating’ about an axis thru the COM of Mt Everest.
I will ignore your point about “rotation about an external axis” supposedly having to occur in a perfect circle, because as we know multiple sources confirm that “revolution/orbit” is a “rotation about an external axis”, and we know that those sources are well aware that orbits are generally elliptical. We know that no perfect circles exist in the real world, it is all ellipses to one extent or another, and we know that Ftop_t has already shown using Desmos that “rotation about an external axis” can occur in an ellipse.
So, onto the MGR horse. As you point out, its orientation changes. The nose points through N, E, S and W. It does so because it is rotating about an axis in the center of the MGR, and not on its own internal axis. The only way you could argue that it is rotating about its own internal axis is if you describe its motion as a translation in a circle (motion like the MOTR) plus an internal axis rotation. This would be an example of general plane motion.
1) As the notes from Brown confirm, you should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as simply a rotation or a translation.
2) The motion of the wooden horse is not a translation and an internal axis rotation, physically. The wooden horse is not mounted on some kind of device that rotates it on its own axis whilst translating it in a circle. The wooden horse is actually physically connected to the MGR platform such that it is impossible for it to rotate on its own axis when the MGR is stationary. Thus, when the MGR platform rotates, the horse is simply moving with the platform, rotating about the center of the MGR, and not on its own axis.
3) Argue that the horse is rotating on its own axis “from the inertial reference frame” and I will divert your attention back to the sentence beginning “the only way you could argue…” and you can read through from there again.
“as we know multiple sources confirm… ”
Nope! Sorry. *YOU* said to use a dictionary because *YOU* couldn’t bother (or are simply unable) to provide a definition. Multiple dictionaries confirm that it must be a circle. (Multiple physics and math textbooks as well).
Do you want to provide a new, updated definition?
Do you want to “correct” the sources that confirm that “revolution/orbit” is a “rotation about an external axis”, or just continue to pretend that they don’t exist? You are just clutching at straws.
“Do you want to correct the sources …”
No. I simply want *YOU* to say what *YOU* think is the correct definition of “rotation”. You turn to conflicting sources, using different definitions to suits your wishes at different times.
Once everyone can agree on what the word “rotation” means, THEN we can discuss whether different sources are correct with respect to that definition.
You are just clutching at straws. Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. Until you can concede that, there is no point discussing anything with you.
“You are just clutching at straws. ”
I am not the one who changes definitions at will to MATCH my conclusion, rather than using a fixed definition to REACH a conclusion.
You grab a different ‘straw’ to suit each purpose.
Define “rotate” as “move or cause to move in a circle around an axis or center” or define “rotate” as “move or cause to move in a circle/ellipse around an axis or center”, Tim. Either way, Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame, for all the reasons I explained in my 9:54 AM comment. You can also add “basic common sense” to the list of reasons.
“You can also add “basic common sense” to the list of reasons.”
Lots of things in science defy common sense. That is not a ‘reason’.
“Either way, Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis”
I draw an axis through any point in Mt Everest, parallel to earth’s axis. Every rock that makes up Mt Everest moves in a circle around that line. Every rock rotates around that line.
Every rock ALSO rotates around the earth’s axis. But that in no way changes the fact that by any reasonalbe, common definition of “rotate about an axis”, Mt Everest rotates about its own axis, too.
I repeat my 9:54 AM comment, which refutes your response. Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
Your 9:45am is mistaken, does not refute Tim.
Correctly, the wooden hobby horse is actually physically connected to the MGR platform such that it is impossible for it to rotate on its own axis wrt to the mgr when the MGR is stationary – it points N on Earth.
Thus, when the MGR platform rotates, the horse is forced to be moving with the platform, rotating about the center of the MGR, and forced to rotate on hobby horse own axis as it points through N, E, S and W. Rename the horse to Mt. Everest and the result is the same. Tesla proved this physically with his rotating wheel.
Spinning is all about ref. frames DREMT, all motion is relative.
I said in my 9:45 AM comment where to read from if you mention reference frames.
Anyone who thinks Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frames, is off their head.
The Earth is rotating on its own axis inertially as DREMT admits, thus Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis inertially along with the rest of Earth’s stuff. It is DREMT’s head that is off.
Non-sequitur.
“A much more interesting debate than ‘does the moon rotate on its own axis?’ is”
Yep. He needs to shift the discussion away from the Moon. Cuz the one about the Moon is a lost cause, DREMT has come to realize.
“I said in my 9:45 AM comment…”
Whoops…I meant 9:54 AM comment.
“There is a difference between the MOTL and the MOTR…”
DREMT didn’t explain the difference Martin, he left it up to you. So please explain DREMT’s difference between the two lunar illustrations that transcends frames.
You either get it or you don’t, Ball4. I have tried very, very hard to explain it to you over the past couple of years but you simply won’t listen. Not my problem any more.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Repeating GIF over and over again:
(GIF) In the Wiki GIF on tidal locking, orbit without spin looks like the moon on the left, not the moon on the right. Orbit with spin looks like the moon on the right.
does not an explanation make.
You’re also very confused between cognition and scientific explanation. Both your naive physics module and your physics knowledge are to be blamed. Correct one of them before commenting on the subject.
Thanks.
I do remember recently DREMT tried yet another explanation where the motion of MOTR and MOTLR are “absolute” – that was one of the funniest wrong explanations over the years. Charlatan Award level funny.
Yes, poor choice of words on my part, Ball4.
Martin, something you should use in any reliable explanation of your “the moon is not spinning in relation to the Earth” is that earthshine is incident only on the “man in the moon” lunar face yet sunshine is incident on not only that same lunar face but the opposite lunar face.
Then use your learning to explain sunset and sunrise as observed on the MOTL and MOTR.
Earthshine is incident only on the “man in the moon” lunar face for the MOTL, but it is incident on not only that same lunar face but also the opposite lunar face for the MOTR. An observation that remains true regardless of reference frame.
Ok. Now what about sunshine, sunset and sunrise?
So you finally agree that there is a difference between the MOTL and the MOTR, regardless of reference frame. Good.
I never disagreed on that. There are other differences that transcend ref. frames too. Got another one? Sunshine?
Kind of seems like you did disagree, especially given your 10:11 AM comment to Martin…and all our previous discussions.
No. What are some other differences that transcend ref. frames and what about sunshine?
The difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position also transcends reference frames.
No, that difference doesn’t. I can observe both moons spin or not spin depending on frame choice.
Their earthshine difference remains true regardless of frame along with some other stuff, you might eventually think about. Sunshine?
Ok, here’s another. Those two moons have different rotational momentum & energy each about their own axis r. That difference transcends ref. frames. There is no frame I can choose to eliminate those differences.
“Orbital motion” must be kept separate from “axial rotation”. For this reason, when you say that the MOTL is rotating on its own internal axis “from the inertial reference frame” you are actually in effect saying (whether you are aware of it or not) that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion as per the MOTR. That is the only way that you can describe the MOTL as rotating on its own axis whilst still keeping “orbital motion” separate from “axial rotation”. Keeping “orbital motion” separate from “axial rotation” when each side of the debate has a different idea of what is “orbital motion without axial rotation” transcends any consideration of reference frames.
> “Orbital motion” must be kept separate from “axial rotation”. For this reason,
That’s not a reason, Kiddo. You are still arguing by assertion by making a mere conceptual distinction.
Even if orbital motion needed to be kept separate, they would still need to be connected somehow in a physical explanation of what the Moon does.
And yes, Virginia, that explanation must imply in some way a frame of reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference#Physics
So the logic is quite simple. From a frame of reference you build a coordinate system that allows you to make measurements of your observations.
But since all you got is GIF, you can pretend to bypass all of this.
Science simply does not work the way Dragon Cranks would like.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
Kiddo ignores more than that, e.g.:`
“I can observe both moons spin or not spin depending on frame choice.”
Here’s the deal. No reference frame, no coordinate system. No coordinate system, no measurement. No measurement, no science.
Except perhaps Dragon Crank Science ™.
Selenia
> the moon is not spinning in relation to the Earth
Which moon, Martin – are you referring to the Moon?
Not sure what you mean by “in relation to” here. If you are referring to what you’re seeing, I think it’s safe to say that everyone here understands that we always see the Man on the Moon. And no I’m not referring to the Forman movie or the REM song. Sometimes he’s also called the Man in the Moon.
So you’re still beating a dead horse.
I suggest you move away slowly from that horse.
It does not exist.
Martin Thiel
” End Quote if the spinners can’t even admit that the moon is not spinning in relation to the Earth, as shown by simple ‘eight grade science’ then what else can be done to inform? ”
Aha. Sort of Robertson bis…
Thus, according to you, ALL people
who discovered Moon’s spin around an interior axis, and calculated the spin’s period and the axis’ inclination wrt the Ecliptic, i.e. the plane encompassing Earth’s orbit
are WRONG.
Cassini, Newton, Euler, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer/Maedler, Habibullin, Koziel, Eckhardt, Calame, Migus, Moons etc etc etc:
ALL are WRONG?
And that though they came to sometimes amazingly similar results, despite having used completely different observation tools and methods to process the observations’ data?
*
Thus, all people having used that data for the preparation of Moon landing manoeuvers for the missions Apollo (US), Lunokhod (USSR), Selene (JP), Chang’e (CN) were wrong too, right?
Do you have an idea of what would happen when the preparation of a rendez-vous in a lunar orbit ‘forgets’ that the Moon rotates at 4.7 m/sec, and that therefore the difference between descending and ascending points may differ by several hundreds of kilometers?
*
Are you serious, Martin?
Braindead-idon, anyone that believed Moon rotated in synch with its orbit BEFORE Newton’s discovery was WRONG. Even Newton.
After his discovery, we know Moon is not rotating about its axis. It is ONLY orbiting.
And NASA doesn’t need to know any nonsense about any imaginary spin, as it’s NOT happening, except in your dead brain.
After his discovery, we know Moon is not rotating about its own axis as observed from our moon. It is ONLY orbiting in that frame.
No answer to such a dumb, ignorant, insulting and arrogant blah blah.
Yes, Bindidon – Ball4 does not deserve a response.
You perfectly know that I mean the ignorant Clint R insulting specialist.
Why can’t the ‘spinsters’ just admit it.. .the moon does NOT spin in relation to the Earth? it has been proven beyond any doubt…NO spin by the moon in relation to the Earth. Take that first step Bin you will then be able to get to the next step.
Then as a public service, maybe you ought to write to NASA and ask them to change their Facts about the Moon page since it reads:
https://moon.nasa.gov/inside-and-out/top-moon-questions/
And please, post copy of your request to NASA on this blog and keep us apprised of their replies.
So far, only one non-spinner has accepted the NASA Challenge. It will be one year November 20 since Gordon Robertson’s “Here’s feedback I just sent to NASA” folly. He gets partial credit for commitment to his cause.
4 aspects.
Full moon
New Moon
First Quarter Moon
Third Quarter Moon
Full moon is at its maximum distance from the sun.
New moon is at its minimum distance from the sun.
first quarter moon is trailing earth in earth orbital path around the sun.
third quarter moon is leading earth in earth orbital path around the sun.
The question has to be how the moon speeds up and passes the earth and then slows down allowing earth to pass in its transit around the sun. The moon isn’t in a circular orbit around the earth; its in a sinusoidal trajectory around the sun.
Once you start to visualize that motion of the moon’s trajectory around the sun, you begin to understand the moon must be rotating around its axis in order to maintain is aspect of always facing earth.
Since Kennui has a constructive comment, I’ll amplify this bit:
Once you start to realize that the Earth and the Moon are not exactly static, you also realize how Chasle Theorem kicks in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasles%27_theorem_(kinematics)#/media/File:Pure_screw.svg
The impression of “the motion itself” disappears.
Ken, you are being confused by graphics you don’t understand.
A similar “trajectory” would result if you rode on a merry-go-round while swinging a ball-on-a-string around your head. But the ball is not rotating about its axis.
Why are you seeking ways to pervert reality? Do you want to be a braindead cult idiot?
But the ball is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per orbit.
The moon orbits the Earth/moon barycenter, whilst the barycenter orbits the Sun.
Do you even transitivity, Kiddo?
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
When will Kiddo respond to Tim?
Perhaps he needs for Flop to come back?
Tune in for the next Climateball episode!
Do you even dimwit, stupid?
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*Sound of thunder. Special effects. Mike Flynn appears, climbs on the ring, shows his Crowning Clown Champion belt.*
Wandering Wee Willy descends even further into the richly bizarre fantasy world he has created!
Poor Wee Willy. His attempts to appear wise and respected, just make him look even more stupid and laughable.
Funny guy! That’s funny peculiar, of course, not funny ha-ha.
Mike Flynn,
Enjoy your evening.
So what makes the Moon ‘face’ the Earth/Moon barycenter but the Earth not?
RLH,
Fairly simple.
Moon smaller, mass discontuities proportionally greater, and initial angular momentum proprtionally less, Earth’s gravity slowing the off-balance Moon’s rotation.
You would be aware that the Earth is also slowing, and its solar day is lengthening.
Eventually, both Earth and Moon will face each other.
Actually, by that time the Moon will supposedly have receded from the Earth far enough to make the hypothesis moot, not to mention other gravitational influences, chaos, etc.
At the moment, it may be observed that one face of the Moon can be seen from Earth. The future is unknown.
Ah, Earth/Moon barycenter is between the center of mass of the Moon and center of mass of Earth.
So, the inclination of the Moon orbit to Earth, makes the Earth/Moon barycenter where it is {or where the Moon faces- but it’s also facing the center of the Earth}.
“Earth’s gravity slowing the off-balance Moon’s rotation”
Would you care to put some figures to that? How many millennia would you like for it to slow down to one revolution to an orbit?
Say, had 25 meter radius sphere in 400 km high LEO equatorial Earth orbit, and it’s orbital period would similar to ISS 90 min orbit {ISS is about 400 km and in 51 inclination orbit and about 90 mins}
And at north and south “pole” of sphere are 200 meter long cylinders
giving total length of station of 450 meters. But cylinder pass thru the sphere. Or one has one cylinder which 450 meter long which passing thru the sphere and it’s 4 meter in diameter.
Let’s say wall thickness of 450 meter is .006 meter or 6 mm thick {.23 inches} and made of stainless steel.
Mass of steel:
circumference of 4 meter is 12.56 meter times 450 meter tall =
5,652 square meter times .006 equals 33.912 cubic meter and steel
is about 8000 kg per cubic meter, 271,296 kg. And got ends of it, so it’s mass is about 300 tons. And got to figure the mass of sphere, but it’s somewhere around mass of 400 tons or about the mass of ISS.
And going to more mass as water.
Volume of 1 meter length of cylinder is 12.566 cubic meter or if filled with water about 12.5 tons per 1 meter length. Or say 50 meter length is about 625 tons. So from one end have section 50 meter tall filled with water. Or you have added 625 tons of water to the total mass of 400 tons, giving the total mass of about 1025 tons, but you 625 tons of water mass added to end of 450 long 4 meter diameter cylinder. And you have water pipes which one pump water to sphere and/or other end of 450 long cylinder.
But anyhow, we can start one of ends having 625 tons more mass than the other end.
And that end should point towards Earth. And call it the south
pole.
ISS has about 60% of the 90 mins in sunlight {the 40% is the night made from Earth blocking the sunlight}.
Now, going to the sphere. It will have windows on it. And midway thru the sphere, we have deck which goes around the 4 meter pipe, so it’s 3 meter wide deck. And railing and in microgravity one hold on railing and “stand on the deck”. And one could watch the day. Which is 90 mins times .6 = 54 mins long.
So morning sun rises, noon {27 mins from “dawn”} it’s blocked by north pole, and then another 27 min before sunset. Which you see, if walk around to other side of the deck.
So, due to gravity gradient, the 625 tons of water, at the south pole of space station.
What happens if pump 1 ton of water per minute to the north pole?
So in 625 minutes the 625 tons of water is transported to the north pole end of 450 meter tall cylinder?
625 minute = 10 hours and 25 mins.
And what is effect if pump water twice or 5 times as fast?
And could do this by making water move faster and/or have larger diameter pipes moving larger volume [could 2″ diameter pipe or 12″ diameter pipe].
Some dare to to doubt about Newton’s intelligence:
” If the same side always faces the inside of the orbit, it is NOT rotating. ”
*
Here are Newton’s words:
” But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, 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. “
Braindead-idon, you need to find a quote from Newton AFTER his discovery of what “orbital motion without axial rotation” looked like.
I don’t need to find it.
You need to prove us tghat it exists.
Kepler showed that Newton was wrong.
Ooh, Ken… sorry, but
Kepler: 1571-1630
Newton: 1643-1727
Sir Isaac was the man who expanded Kepler’s work.
You’re right; my mistake.
Although The Nobel Prize in Physics 2021 was awarded to climate modelers, climate science is still a long way from being done and dusted.
Did scientists get climate change wrong? And many more questions remain.
Martin Thiel
Sounds quite a bit German – maybe it’s even your native tongue.
Should that be the case, I would then invite you to scientifically contradict Tobias Mayer’s treatise:
https://tinyurl.com/2bmsjwy7
Start at page 189.
And I hope you understand that by ‘scientifically contradict’ing it, I mean something light years away from Robertson’s completely stoopid and useless blah blah.
binny…”I would then invite you to scientifically contradict Tobias Mayers treatise:”
***
I already provided a scientific critique of Meyer’s work but you are incapable of understanding science hence unable to understand my critique.
Meyer’s most important work was creating lunar charts, which were indispensable at one time for sailors to calculate their longitude. Since the advent of accurate clocks and now GPS, his work is obsolete.
Meyer should have left the calculation of lunar kinematics to physicists but unfortunately many physicists have fallen prey to the paradigm sickness. They were told the Moon rotates exactly once on a local axis per orbit even though such a premise is ludicrous when it is stipulated that the same lunar face must always face the Earth. It is simply not possible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis while orbiting in such a manner. Ergo, many modern physicists are unaware of the illusion of lunar rotation.
Tesla proved the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis but many of the great names like mathematicians Lagrange and Laplace missed the obvious and scientists like Cassini. I am excluding Newton because I think the old English he spoke did not translate well to modern English via old Latin.
Robertson
” I already provided a scientific critique of Meyers work but you are incapable of understanding science hence unable to understand my critique. ”
1. I very well understand scientific documents containing things I have obtained the necessary education for.
2. You never provided anything scientific about any context.
3. Tesla manifestly never read anything concerning the Moon written by Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace. It is known that instead of showing presence at the university, he spent most of his time in bars. His paper is of incredible superficiality.
A lot of people suddenly using blah blah blah, I wonder where they got it
https://youtu.be/buKFGskbxsY
I’m partial to this Greta confession:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_hfwOGciH4
She sure makes a good devil act, good for Halloween at least
https://youtu.be/RiIWfSPtgtI
A lot of troglodytes seeked help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIP2vukNOPc
It improved their lives.
A lot of people assumed Witless Wee Willy’s links were irrelevant, pointless, and stupid.
They were right, and avoided wasting their time.
Wee Willy has previously stated his intention to make others dance to his discordant time wasting tube.
I suppose that even dumber than Wee Willy might go along.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
When you say “a lot of people,” are you referring to you and your other sock puppets?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Check back Eboy’s video, all should become clear.
Silly Billy Willy,
It is interesting to note that you try to imitate me at times – poorly, of course.
Maybe you think that by imitating me, people will think you are nearly as intelligent as I.
I suppose that by choosing to imitate me, you are showing at least some intelligence. After all, imitation is supposed to be the sincerest form of flattery.
You don’t seem to attract the same imitation of your silly meme-creation attempts – “Dragon Cranks”, “Climateball”, and all your other nonsensical rubbish.
So carry on.
As to “a lot of people”, you would have to ask them. Unfortunately, you might have already noticed that rational people are not inclined to respond to your witless attempt at diversion and general silliness, so asking them whether they prefer reality to your nonsensical fantasies, is not likely to get you the answer you want.
By the way, how are you going finding a “world renowned climate scientist”?
Oh well, keep trying,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
You say–
“you try to imitate me”
Which sock puppet would that be?
Ah! Ah! Ah!
Weird Wee Willy,
Prove that you don’t.
How hard could it be?
Ho, ho, ho!
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Who’s that “me”?
*Scottadamsesque sniggering.*
Earlier, I wrote –
“Glad to see you realise that Gavin Schmidt is not a “climate scientist”. He is not a scientist at all, is he?”
Whack Wee Willy responded, in his usual diversionary fashion, as follows –
“Gavin A. Schmidt is a climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York” – Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia can be edited by almost anyone to say almost anything, factual or not.
In this case, Wee Willy attempts to paint a mathematician (Gavin Schmidt) as a “climatologist” (self-styled, of course), in the hope that readers will assume that “climatologist” really means “scientist”.
Alas, climate is just the statistics of past weather. Probably more suited to a mathematician, admittedly, because “climatology” is no more science than astrology, and probably less. Even more unfortunately, Gavin Schmidt is on record as claiming that statistically, a 38% likelihood means much more likely than not, which shows his mathematical education was a bit light on, when it came to statistics and probability!
A fair coin toss is 50% likely head or tail. 38% is less than even money. No wonder that Gavin’s previous threat to resign from his highly paid civil service position if Trump was elected, proved to be as meaningless as Gavin’s attempts to escry the future with his amateurish computer games.
In Weird Wee Willy’s fantasy, Gavin probably is a world renowned “climate scientist”.
In reality, not so much.
Mike Flynn,
Melodic Fluff,
It really shows you’re just full of fluff:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/
You’re not very good at this, but keep trying!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wonky Wee Willy Idiot,
You do realise that Gavin Schmidt is not actually a scientist, don’t you?
Even Gavin only claims to be “interested” in “understanding” the statistics of weather! As to the future, he is obviously delusional. No one can seriously claim to be able to predict the future statistics of weather (apart from loony Sky Daragons). That makes Schmidt a delusional buffoon, wasting taxpayer money, by pretending he is “scientific”.
At least he is not in the same delusionally psychotic league as the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann! That idiot claimed to be a Nobel laureate, and complained when the Nobel committee wrote that he wasn’t!
In you, the Faith strong is. A gullible climate crackpot. Accept your destiny, Wee Willy. Being an object of derision is better than being totally ignored, isn’t it?
Carry on.
[laughing at delusional cultist]
swenson…”You do realise that Gavin Schmidt is not actually a scientist, dont you?”
***
When Richard Lindzen offered to debate him on the science, Gavin ran for the hills, leaving it up to Bill Nye the Science Guy, whom Lindzen took to the cleaners, exposing what a buffoon Bill is.
Engineer, Jeffrey Glassman took Gavin to task on basic science issues. One of Glassman’s points was that Gavin could not explain positive feedback correctly even though PF is an integral part of climate model programming. The PF should not be in the program and without it, the projected warming drops dramatically to an insignificant value.
Engineers have a different definition of positive feedback to biologists and climate scientists.
Engineers regard PF as a runaway to the limit of the system.
Biologists and climate scientists regard it as a transition from one equilibrium to another.
You see the difference in their graphics. Engineers use exponential growth curves to portray PF.
Biologists and climate scientists use sigmoid curves.
Gordo wrote:
Gordo’s displays his ignorance again. The models are structured to capture the physics of the climate system. The “positive feedback” is the result of the physics and is not otherwise included in the models.
For example, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and a warmer atmosphere will likely also exhibit an increase in water vapor, which would add to the warming resulting from the increase in CO2. Sea-ice and snow are good reflectors of sunlight and as the atmosphere warms, the snow and sea-ice will melt more quickly in spring and summer, resulting in greater absprp_tion of solar energy by the land and water. Conversely, increasing water vapor might also lead to more clouds, which may or may not cause cooling as more low clouds result in cooling while more high clouds produce warming.
No, Gordo, there is no need to “program” those processes to intentionally add a positive feedback, it’s in the physics.
> When Richard Lindzen offered to debate him
C’mon, Gordo. You’re making stuff up again.
Here’s a hint: check the URL above this page.
Mike Flynn,
Meritocracy Flop,
Don’t tell me–
You have no idea about research interests, right?
Aw diddums!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Whacky Wee Willy,
Why should I tell you anything?
Thanks for the flattery.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
That is all.
Mathematics is science.
A Mathematician is a Scientist.
Anyone who doesn’t understand that any discipline in Science depends on mathematics at its core doesn’t understand how science works.
Climatologist is a profession that could include any number of disciplines in the sciences.
So Gavin Schmidt is a Scientist.
However, just because he is a scientist that works as a climatologist doesn’t mean he knows everything about climate. Some scientists get caught up in the hubris and ignore the data; its not unusual.
Ken
Thank you for these clear words.
Mathematics is a language {in my opinion}.
“1.1 definition of mathematics: Mathematics is the study of topics such as quantity (numbers), structure, space and change. There is a range of views among mathematicians and philosophers as to the exact scope and definition of mathematics.”
https://courses.aiu.edu/MATHEMATICS/1/SEC%201.pdf
I would say, science, is created by exploration.
Though people have various definitions of exploration.
I tend to like the idea that Mathematics is an universal
language.
But it’s also problematic as it might not be the language of sentient beings of this universe {which many assume it is}.
Ken, “science” is all about “reality”. Anyone who denies reality is NOT a scientist.
A real scientist must avoid the pitfalls of his preconceived opinions/beliefs. An example of a pitfall is Ken says: “Kepler showed that Newton was wrong.”
That was your belief, so you reported it as fact.
That ain’t science.
Ken,
Science involves observation and experimentation.
Climate is merely the statistics of past weather. Any fool can call himself a “climatologist”, and many do.
Gavin Schmidt is cunning enough to avoid describing himself as a scientist, knowing that there are enough people like you to play silly semantic games on his behalf
Mathematics is about proof. Science is about experiment and disproof. As Richard Feynman said ” It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
As to the mythical GHE, nobody has managed to clearly define the GHE in such a way as to even allow the possibility of a disprovable hypothesis being formulated.
Not science, just delusion.
“As to the mythical GHE, nobody has managed to clearly define the GHE in such a way as to even allow the possibility of a disprovable hypothesis being formulated.”
Global climate average temperature is the average temperature of the surface of earth. And surface of earth includes the average temperature of all of Earth’s surface oceans.
Since ocean has 1000 times heat content as atmosphere, the average surface temperature of Earth is about 3.5 C.
And since it takes enormous amount of energy to change the temperature of Earth ocean, global climate temperature require a long time to change, such as we have been in an icehouse global climate for millions of years.
But global air temperature is dependent on the ocean surface temperature, and this can temporarily be changed quickly. Or if mix cold ocean with much warmer ocean surface, the surface temperature can be altered without any significant amount of added energy.
The century time scale changes are mostly changes in movement of surface waters.
Longer time periods involving thousands or millions of years, involve cooling/warming of the entire ocean.
Or the 34 million year, Late Cenozoic Ice Age, has long period of cooling the oceans, with the last 2 million years being the coldest oceans within last 34 million years.
What called a Greenhouse global climate is when there is long durations in which entire ocean has been warmed. And roughly these due to geological changes- plate tectonic activity altering the surface of Earth. And Greenhouse global climate is when average ocean temperature is about 10 C or warmer.
binny…”But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb; but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moon’s latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic. ”
***
The word ‘revolution’ used by Newton makes no sense in this context. I think Newton is saying the same thing we non-spinners are saying, that the ‘orientation’ of the near-face change through 360 degrees per orbit, and calls that revolution. The sticking point is ‘about its axis’, but it seems out of context to claim the Moon ‘revolves’ about its axis. The use of revolution suggests the Moon is revolving about an external axis, such as the Earth.
He also references the ‘lunar day’. Why would he do that? The lunar day is a reference to the nearly 14 days the Moon’s near face is facing the Sun. During the other 14 days, it faces away from the Sun. But why night and day then relating it to menstrual which suggests a monthly cycle?
Newton has to be relating the changing orientation of the near face to revolution about the Earth, noting that is always points at the Earth. The lunar day is still a mystery because the day, referring to the lit side, is variable. That is each side of the Moon will be lit at some time during the orbital period, including the far side, which has received the misnomer ‘dark side’. It’s dark for us on Earth but is fully lit for some 14 days by the Sun.
I think Newton knew the Moon is translating in its orbit while revolving about the Earth. His reference to ‘revolution about its axis surely refers to the Moon’s revolution about Earth as its axis.
He goes on to explain longitudinal libration by explaining that the near face is always pointed to the principal (upper) focus of its orb, meaning pointed toward the Earth, which is at the principal (upper) focus of the elliptical orbit. Then he makes it clear that the near face must point slightly away from Earth as it goes through the lower focus, hence libration (seeing around the edge).
I have already explained this using the properties of an ellipse. My explanation here surely proves that Newton understood the Moon does not rotate about a local axis, otherwise he would have noticed the inconsistency in that description. Someone as brilliant as Newton would have found it apparent that the Moon is translating without rotation.
Gordo wrote: “I have already explained this using the properties of an ellipse.”
Gordo continues to ignore my calculations from August in which I demonstrated that using his logic results the Moon’s rate of rotation being different at apogee (30.40 days) and perigee (24.42 days), a physical impossibility given the Moon’s astronomical moment of inertia. From these results, it’s blindingly obvious that Gordo’s mental model is wrong.
Robertson
” My explanation here surely proves that Newton understood the Moon does not rotate about a local axis, otherwise he would have noticed the inconsistency in that description. ”
*
What arrogant ignoramuses like you think and guess about Newton, Mayer, etc have written: that is no more than a load of stinking dog poe.
So? You view that as an ad hom?
I perfectly recall you naming the genial translator Andrew Motte ‘a cheating SOB’ – because you thought he would have wrongly tranlated Newton.
In fact, you are dumb to such an extent that you are not even able to make the difference, when reading a book, between the main part of a page and the foot note below.
Btw, you wrote no so long time ago, about the same text (that you finally managed to understand for the first time):
” Newton was wrong. ”
*
If you had a bit of brain, you would ask yourself why
– Mayer in 1750
– Lagrange and Laplace some decades later
– Habibullin in the 1960’s
– several people since the beginning of the LLR era
come to nearly the same result concerning Moon’s rotation about its polar axis, though using completely different observation tools AND data processing techniques.
But, as you, like your friend Clint R, don’t have even that tiny bit of brain, you persist in writing absolute nonsense.
And you never will stop doing that, Robertson.
Tomorrow, in new thread, you will explain it…
It is very essential for you, if Moon rotates or translates.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What the heck should I explain again and again, Mrf Vournas?
I explained that many times already, with several hints on sources.
” It is very essential for you, if Moon rotates or translates. ”
Not at all!
What is for me very essential is to contradict people denying science.
christos…could see no reference to lunar rotation on your site, however, I did find this…”Heat is the transfer of molecular kinetic energy”.
***
Christos, please don’t be fooled by modern terminology related to heat. Heat is energy, not a measure of energy or a transfer of energy. The first law of thermodynamics relates heat and work to internal energy. However, Clausius, who invented the term U for internal energy defined it as the sum of internal heat and internal work.
Internal work is the vibration of atoms in a mass and heat is the energy that causes them to vibrate.
In your statement, you claim heat is a transfer of molecular kinetic energy. There is no such thing as molecular kinetic energy unless a molecule is moving through space. Otherwise, any reference to kinetic energy is a reference to the electrons bonding atomic nucleii into a molecule. Molecules don’t absorb or radiate anything, only electrons in bonding atoms, and other electrons, can do that.
What is kinetic energy? It is energy in motion…’any’ energy in motion. What kind of energy is in motion? In this case, the energy in motion is heat, therefore claiming heat is the transfer of molecular kinetic energy makes no sense.
Entropy is a measure of heat transfer. Clausius defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat at temperature, T, during a process. If the process is reversible, entropy, which is the sum of heat transfers, is 0. If the process is irreversible, entropy is +ve.
“Heat is energy, not a measure of energy…”
Clausius p. 39: “heat is the measure of their kinetic energy.”
Gordon falls back, loses out to Clausius yet again (and this time Christos too) even after past success.
ball4…”heat is the measure of their kinetic energy.”
***
Liar-troll Ball4 once again misquotes Clausius, who said, “the QUANTITY of heat is a measure of their kinetic energy”.
Yes Gordon, Clausius p. 39: “heat is a measure of their kinetic energy” as Christos uselessly tried to explain to you.
Try to get back on course of thermodynamics history & comment on thermo. with regards to Clausius’ writings.
Thank you both. I have learnt something.
Any help in the direction of improvement the New theory is very much appreciated.
Also, since it is a New theory, there is not a settled methodology or a system developed for the classroom teaching…
The New theory still struggles its right to succeed via the continuous polemics.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Robertson (II)
As usual, you are not only dumb, but also pernicious: you intentionally omit the most relevant parts of what you then unduly comment.
Here is what you ‘forgot’ to add in front of your reply:
” 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 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”
Newton unequivocally refers here to rotation periods, and by no means to orbiting periods.
Only arrogant ignoramuses like you can claim about Newton having been so incredibly inexperienced that he would, within one and the same sentence, speak about Jupiter’s, Mars’, Venus’, Earth’s and even Sun’s rotation period but suddenly, by magic, about Moon’s orbiting period!
*
How many times did you and other so-called ‘Non-spinner’s woefully try to divert by claiming that Moon only rotates ‘with respect to the fixed stars’, but not otherwise!
Here again, Newton’s Newton’s unequivocal explanation:
” The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun’s disk, with respect to the earth, in 27 1/2 days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25 1/2 days. ”
It is absolutely clear that, except for the ‘Non-spinner’s, the expression ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ does never mean a different motion, but a different motion’s period.
I know: you will continue forever with your nonsense.
Oops?! It gets suddenly publshed, I thought it had been moved to spam.
Robertson (II)
As usual, you intentionally omitted the most relevant parts of what you then unduly comment.
Here is what you ‘forgot’ to add in front of your reply:
” 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 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”
Newton unequivocally refers here to rotation periods, and by no means to orbiting periods.
Only people like you can claim about Newton having been so incredibly inexperienced that he would, within one and the same sentence, speak about Jupiter’s, Mars’, Venus’, Earth’s and even Sun’s rotation period but suddenly, by magic, about Moon’s orbiting period!
*
How many times did you and other so-called ‘Non-spinner’s woefully try to divert by claiming that Moon only rotates ‘with respect to the fixed stars’, but not otherwise!
Here again, Newton’s Newton’s unequivocal explanation:
” The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun’s disk, with respect to the earth, in 27 1/2 days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25 1/2 days. ”
It is absolutely clear that, except for the ‘Non-spinner’s, the expression ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ does never mean a different motion, but a different motion’s period.
I know: you will continue forever with your nonsense.
It’s interesting to see Bindidon in full meltdown.
” I think Newton is saying the same thing we non-spinners are saying”
Just love how Gordon reads something crystal clear by Newton that totally disagrees with his beliefs, but he reads it differently, twists it into agreeing with him!
That is some first-rate denialism in action.
Post counts for September thread through 11/1/21 12:18 PM EDT.
RLH : 496
Clint R : 315
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 314
Willard : 306
Bindidon : 154
Ball4 : 139
Swenson : 132
Nate : 124
Gordon Robertson : 124
TYSON MCGUFFIN : 98
Tim Folkerts : 92
bobdroege : 82
Ken : 66
bill hunter : 62
E. Swanson : 62
Christos Vournas : 58
Eben : 51
Norman : 50
Entropic man : 49
gbaikie : 37
barry : 37
stephen p anderson : 37
ren : 30
Mark B : 23
Thank you for the job.
Nice.
Next month objective: to do less that the Binny & Gordo Show.
Mark B, this was a great idea. Already the top two trolls have started to clean up their acts.
There’s no excuse for someone making over 1000 comments in one month! Some people need to get our of their basements and do something constructive with their lives.
aug
RLH 1667
Willard 1341
sep
RLH 1276
Willard 501
You forgot to track the progress of our Dark Triad, Pup:
Kiddo: 954, 487, 314
You: 359, 223, 315
Mike Flynn: 157, 108, 132
Kiddo and you are now second and third. When put together, our two favorite Moon Dragon cranks have 100 comments more than our Hall Monitor.
In fact, you increased your invaluable contributions by almost 50%.
Congratulations!
If I didn’t have to respond to worthless trolls like you, Dud, I would a lot fewer comments. Don’t respond to my comments, or refer to me, and watch my numbers plunge.
Sock puppets are at the bottom of the commenting hierarchy, Pup. That’s you and Mike Flynn. The jury is still out as to whom is the most toxic.
So far my vote is on you.
Take your current comment. You are shirking away from your own responsibility. That’s as manipulative as it can get.
You’re also wrong about the dynamics. Ankle biting constructive commenters may get you a response from me. Except for Binny, it goes without saying, and Richard, but he does not really count for he’s seldom constructive.
Even if I won’t respond to you, you’d still bite ankles. That’s all you do in fact. So your prediction is already falsified.
You have no honor. I award you no point. If you do the Pole Dance Experiment, I might give you some.
Wee Willy Dimwit,
Ah, I see you know how to count. You even count non-existent objects, too.
Who is Mike Flynn? Why do you bother creating a mythical person? Is reality more than you can cope with?
Now, if you add the numbers, and divide by three, you can derive an average. You can do arithmetic, can you?
You are now able to proclaim yourself a “climate scientist”. Your average, like theirs, is completely pointless, useless, and irrelevant.
Off you go now. Have you enjoyed your time doing meaningless research? Maybe you are jealous because you can’t get anyone to pay you for your silliness – unlike the rat-cunning likes of Mann, Schmidt, and the rest of the self appointed “climate scientists”.
Don’t blub, Wee Willy. You brought it on yourself.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb again–
“Who is Mike Flynn?”
Here’s a hint:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/26/modeling-lindzens-adaptive-infrared-iris/#comment-706841
But please, do continue to play dumb!
willard…”Who is Mike Flynn?”
***
Mike Flynn is a good guy who had the alarmists twisted in knots by repeating a simple questions like:
1)You cant actually name even one scientist who can actually describe the GHE, can you?
2)Maybe you could waste your time trying to come up with a useful GHE description.
3)Maybe you could point out a publication which contains a useful description of the mythical GHE?
Ironically, no one has been able to answer his questions.
…including Gordon but except many righteous commenters here.
C’mon, Gordo.
Search:
https://googlethatforyou.com?q=tyndall%20effect
Then think.
Christos Vournas
Using a method based on partial density would require you to calculate an atmospheric temperature profile well into the stratosphere. Where on your website is that calculated temperature profile?
Do you mean by that the Earth’s thermosphere’s 500C is of some importance too?
Tyson, it is so much thin air up there – it doesn’t emit anything that can be measured!!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Maybe this graph will help you understand the question.
You claim to have used the method of partial densities but as you can see, air density decreases substantially from surface and into the stratosphere. Not only that, but my other picture shows you that water vapor decreases by 2 orders of magnitude from surface to the stratosphere.
Most important for your calculation is that moist air is lighter than dry air. You cannot calculate partial density if you don’t know how water vapor content varies with height.
Secondary to your calculation is the fact that moist air is IR active and dry air isn’t, leaving aside CO2 and CH4 which you don’t see as important in the calculation of surface temperature.
binny…”you would ask yourself why
Mayer in 1750
Lagrange and Laplace some decades later
Habibullin in the 1960s
several people since the beginning of the LLR era
come to nearly the same result concerning Moons rotation about its polar axis…”
***
I did ask myself that and replied in a post recently. They were all psychologically incapable of getting past the illusion that the Moon can complete one rotation about its axis per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
Physically impossible!!!
The proof is so simple, using basic calculus, yet the great mathematicians like Lagrange and Laplace missed it completely. Mayer, using statistical analysis, became hopelessly lost.
Mathematicians can become totally lost in theory. Example:
x^2 + 1 = 0
X^2 = -1
x = +/- root (-1)
A math prof teaching us engineering math tried to pass it by us that the root of -1 could be found. I asked him to supply two number, that when multiplied together, equal -1. He couldn’t but he still insisted it could be done.
They do it in complex number theory using a trick. They define i = root (-1) or i^2 = -1. Because no real number can satisfy this equation, they define it as an imaginary number. Then they form an axes with Im representing the imaginary number and Re representing the real number, with Im pointing in the direction of y and Re in the direction of x. A point in the axes becomes z = a + bi.
This has an application mainly in electrical engineering. For example, the power used by electrical motor windings has real power, which represents the power available to drive a load, and imaginary power, a reference to power used in the windings to produce a magnetic field. Both kinds of power are obviously real since they are produced by real or induced electrical currents.
So, when mathematicians attack a problem like lunar rotation, they are apt to have their heads firmly embedded in theory and paradigms rather than in the physical reality. Mayer would have been even more hopeless in that he was a number cruncher with his mind stuck in statistical theory.
Our moon rotating once per orbit on its own axis is not physically impossible in the inertial frame Gordon; only impossible in the frame from which you are observing.
Another inane observation from ball4 who fails to understand that bodies rotate about an axis due to an angular momentum about the axis and not because of the reference frame. Ergo, a body without angular momentum in one reference frame cannot gain it simply by changing reference frames.
Gordon, a body without angular momentum in the inertial reference frame cannot gain it simply by changing reference frames once one accounts for the change to an accelerated frame.
Our moon has angular momentum in the inertial frame but no apparent angular momentum in the frame from which you observe because your frame itself is accelerating.
ball4…”Our moon has angular momentum in the inertial frame…”
***
Our Moon has no angular momentum of any form. It lacks angular momentum about its so-called axis and has no angular momentum in orbit.
The Moon has only linear momentum. In other words, if it struck a significant mass, it would strike it head on, and not in a curve.
On the other hand, an airplane propeller would strike a mass with angular momentum.
As far as the rest of your argument re reference frames it is pure sci-fi. Why is my reference frame accelerating? I am sitting in a chair that is not moving and the planet on which I am moving is moving at constant velocity. There is no force to accelerate it.
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/SolarSys/earthmoon.html
binny…”Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h 56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”
***
Not one of them besides the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the body about which it is rotating. What are the odds that a body like the Moon would rotate exactly once about its axis per orbit? That alone should have raised skepticism, yet people went on blithely ignoring the un-likelihood of such a phenomenon and accepted without question that the Moon was rotating about a local axis.
Then there’s the stipulation that the Moon must keep the same face pointed at the Earth while rotating exactly once per orbit. That should arouse even more skepticism.
In days of yore, no scientist had every seen an airliner flying at constant altitude with constant velocity. Yet, that airliner’s motion is exactly the same as the Moon’s motion. The airliner can orbit the Earth while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth, and if it rotated once about any of its axes, it would crash.
Put on the thinking cap, Binny, not the beanie with the propeller on top.
“What are the odds that a body like the Moon would rotate exactly once about its axis per orbit?”
100% after a certain time for a moon and prograde orbits.
The airliner can inertially orbit the Earth while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth, and if it rotated more or less than once about any of its axes, it would have done another loop.
Robertson
I think every day more than you do in a year.
With in addition that, as opposed to you, I am not at all busy with completely stupid, egocentric thoughts, let alone would I feel superior to scientific persons like Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, laplace and hundreds of them having followed.
And therefore, while you stubbornly stay on your little, simple-minded world, I learn every day.
You are – except Clint R, who even bypasses you, the dumbest person posting on this blog.
If you were able to look a bit farer than your endlessly long noose, you would have discovered that nearly all satellites of planets in this our solar system behave exactly as does our Moon.
Everybody astronomer having the necessary observation tools can see that; but a pseudoengineer like you of course can’t.
And if you had just a little bit of brain, you would learn how to specifify differential equations of motion in MATLAB, and look at how a fixed point you marked on the Moon’s sphere behaves in the equations’ solution, depending on how you have specified the Moon’s equation for its rotation.
That job, Robertson, I won’t do for you.
binny…”you would learn how to specifify differential equations of motion in MATLAB, and look at how a fixed point you marked on the Moons sphere behaves in the equations solution, depending on how you have specified the Moons equation for its rotation”.
***
Don’t need Matlab, I have studied a full course in differential equation theory as part of my engineering math curriculum. We don’t need DE theory to explain why the Moon does not rotate on an axis. Simple calculus explains it irrefutably.
Once again, for your benefit, even though it is wasted.
A radial line drawn from Earth’s centre through the Moon’s COG rotates at the same angular speed as the Moon. That is, the entire line, no matter how long, will rotate about Earth’s centre in the same time as the Moon.
Since the same lunar face always points to the Earth, a perpendicular line drawn where the radial line intercepts the face is a tangent line to an inner orbital circle, presuming a circular orbit for clarity.
At the same time, a line drawn perpendicular to the far face is a tangent line to an outer circular orbit that is concentric to the inner circle.
That’s all you need as absolute proof. Both the near face and the far face orbit along concentric circles thus it is impossible for them to rotate around the COG. The orientation of the near face tangent line will rotate through 360 degrees per orbit but at no time does it rotate about the COG.
I know you’ll go diving for authority figures because your brain is far too conditioned to follow such a simple proof.
” Don’t need Matlab, I have studied a full course in differential equation theory as part of my engineering math curriculum. ”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-964303
This link will be my reply to every one of your comments.
Apart from that, you never had any ‘full course in differential equation theory as part of my engineering math curriculum’ .
You ever had had such one, you would behave 100 % different.
binny…”part from that, you never had any full course in differential equation theory as part of my engineering math curriculum .
You ever had had such one, you would behave 100 % different”.
***
I have explained, using basic calculus, why the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. You have not refuted my calculus because you have not the slightest idea how to apply it, yet you have the temerity to tell me I have not studied differential equation theory.
There is no way differential calculus can help me with the problem of the Moon’s non-rotation. In order for it to be helpful, I would need an equation that is already in the differentiated form. For example, the differential equation for a spring-mass system, with no friction, is:
my” + ky = 0
This equation is a balance of forces which tells me the instantaneous force = ma = mg must balance the restorative force of the spring = -ky. The y tells me this happens vertically along the y-axis, when a mass is hung from a spring attached to a surface like a ceiling.
You can see the equation is in the differentiated form because the y” = d2y/dy^2 is the 2nd derivative of the displacement (acceleration in this case). I’d need to integrate the equation to find a solution.
If you were going to apply a differential equation to the Moon’s alleged rotation, how would you derive a differential equation to represent it?
The mass-spring system represents simple harmonic motion, meaning, when a mass is hung from a spring attached to the ceiling, and the mass is pulled down and let go, the mass-spring oscillates, which represents a mix of acceleration, rest, and constant velocity.
If you had a differential equation representing lunar motion, you’d need a 2nd order form for acceleration, since it has the 2-based exponent, a term for velocity, if applicable with the 1st order form and a constant for the rest position if applicable.
Where could you apply anything like that to the Moon’s alleged rotation?
You’re talking through your hat, which is a lot of air considering the size of your head.
Engineers don’t study Differential Equations Theory. In Engineering you only study applied Maths because there isn’t enough time in a four year curriculum to study any Math theory. Four semesters of Calculus, two semesters of Differential Equations and Linear Algebra plus a full load of Engineering classes and Labs, are guaranteed to keep you busy 24x7x365 for four years.
Unless you’re doing a dual degree in Engineering and Math which is a rare combination because Engineering is best paired with a Physical Science.
maguff…”Engineers dont study Differential Equations Theory”.
***
I am demoting you to idiot, to keep Binny company.
The first thing greeting us in our EE255 class…electrical theory…was a differential equation. If you have a simple circuit with a resistor, R, in series with an inductor, L, when you close the circuit, there is a delay of the voltage rise across the inductor as the inductor’s magnetic field rises.
Therefore, E(t) = IR + Ldi/dt.
ta da…first order differential equation.
This advances to the point you are doing calculations in the time domain or the frequency domain (Fourier transforms) and they all involve differential equation theory. Anytime you represent a signal varying with time or frequency, you require a differential equation to state the instantaneous condition.
Even later, studying amplifier design, you state the amplifier as a differential equation in terms of inductance, capacitance, resistance and the amplifying factor, then you apply another differential equation to drive it in the form of a forcing function. Of course, this involves cos and sin functions since there are phase shifts, etc.
If you specialize in communication theory, you encounter the Bessel function, one of my favourite differential equations since it was often a mystery tour solving one.
The initial part of the solution leaves you with several possible roots. You have to test each root individually and that can take several pages of your writing pad. If it doesn’t work, you go back and select another root and proceed. It can take you multiple pages of scratch pad to work one out.
Don’t tell me about differential equations. Anyone who thinks engineers do not study differential equation theory is a blithering idiot.
Your ~300 word disjointed gallop is written from the layman’s perspective.
(1) You have said before that reference frames are idiocy, so your credibility in this subject is shot.
(2) There is a difference between studying theory of and applied differential equations that you don’t get. Existence and uniqueness theorems are subjects in the theory of; Bessel’s equation and Fourier-Bessel expansions are subjects in applied differential equations since they are germain to solution methods.
(3) Engineers are concerned with solution methods. Newton’s second law of motion is a second order ODE that is normally used as a jumping off point in engineering studies of differential equations.
(4) Because many important engineering problems require finite difference formulations of the differential equations,
spending at least one semester in numerical solution methods is a must for any ambitious young engineer.
(5) I obviously don’t care what you know or don’t know about the subject. However, given the broad readership of this blog, it is important to be accurate about what an engineer carries in his toolkit, for the benefit of young students reading these pages.
maguff…”(1) You have said before that reference frames are idiocy, so your credibility in this subject is shot.
…Wrong. I said the way spinners were employing reference frames to enable rotation when there is none is idiocy. I have made my position clear. Reference frames are not required unless there is relative motion of axes. In all the time I spent studying engineering, we did not have to state a reference frame once. It was understood.
***
“(2) There is a difference between studying theory of and applied differential equations that you don’t get. Existence and uniqueness theorems are subjects in the theory of; Bessel’s equation and Fourier-Bessel expansions are subjects in applied differential equations since they are germain to solution methods”.
…This is red-herring crap, you are simply stringing words together.
“(3) Engineers are concerned with solution methods. Newton’s second law of motion is a second order ODE that is normally used as a jumping off point in engineering studies of differential equations”.
Newton II, f = ma, is not a differential equation, never mind a 2nd order DE. It can be employed within a DE and I gave an example of that for harmonic motion featuring a mass moved vertically by a spring.
Newton II doesn’t have to be integrated to find a solution whereas the whole point of a DE is finding a solution via integration. With a DE, you state an instantaneous condition, usually with boundary values, then you integrate it to find a general solution to the whole.
Here’s DE theory in a nutshell. Take the equation of a parabola, y = x^2, for a parabola going through 0,0. Differentiate it wrt time to get dy/dt = 2x. Now you have a first order differential equation which tells you the rate of change of y wrt x at any point on the parabola.
So, I’m given the DE… dy/dx = 2x and asked to find a solution. This one is very simple since I just move the 2 back as an exponent of x = x^2. So, y = x^2.
If you have a more complex DE, you can’t do that. Furthermore, you don’t know if it has an exact solution.
It’s true that engineers are problem solvers and one of the tools for solving the problems is differential equations. Engineers are so well-trained solving problems that they can be employed directly in other disciplines.
***
(4) Because many important engineering problems require finite difference formulations of the differential equations, spending at least one semester in numerical solution methods is a must for any ambitious young engineer.
…We studied numerical methods like the Taylor series and other series. In fact, we had a math prof who insisted on teaching us error analysis which required taking a function to the 4th derivative. You learn a lot of crap in engineering you will never see again after graduation.
Why are you getting into the esoteric? You make differential equation theory sound unnecessarily complex. Much of what engineers deal with already has well-known DE solutions.
(5) I obviously don’t care what you know or don’t know about the subject. However, given the broad readership of this blog, it is important to be accurate about what an engineer carries in his toolkit, for the benefit of young students reading these pages.
…Then those young students should ignore the crap you are spewing and listen to someone who has done it, like me. Engineering is tough but that’s mainly due to the workload. You simply don’t have the time to concentrate on the theory, although I often insisted, at my own expense.
I recall one class in linear algebra, about two months into the course. An engineer put up his hand to get the prof’s attention. The prof was a really good guy who prepared lecture notes for each class and handed them out.
The engineering said, “What are we doing”? The prof looked somewhat stunned and asked, “Do you mean right now, or in the entire course”? The guy replied, “In the entire course”.
The prof laughed, as did the rest of us, relieved that someone had asked the question. The prof went on to explain that linear algebra was a newer discipline and there was no way to teach it by the usual methods. Therefore, we simply had to ingest it lecture by lecture and learn as we went along.
In other words, they gave us definitions each lecture and we were expected to learn them and how to apply them. Linear algebra was developed for computer applications to aid in solving simultaneous equations using matrices that could be input into a computer program. However, there was no way to teach matrix theory, and how to manipulate matrices, using normal methods.
A student entering engineering needs to learn to cope, not only with the immense workload, but with his/her own mental limitations. There is a tendency to think you are a dumbass but then you pass a set of exams, then look back and wondering how you did it, despite your doubts about your abilities.
If anything, engineering trains students to have confidence in their abilities to solve problems in an orderly manner. It also teaches a student not to put limitations on his/her abilities. At the same time, you learn not to jump to conclusions, since a solution may not be what you think it is.
I have tried to solve this Moon problem using an orderly application of very basic calculus. The numerical methods to which you refer often use the same tangent line to a curve I have employed to prove the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
Rather than rebut what I have claimed, spinners have obfuscated the problem by introducing reference frames that have no application to the problem. Or they have introduced smoke and mirror arguments about the meaning of rotation, or translation along a curve.
That is not the way to solve a problem. You do it by isolation the body in question and watching its motion step by step. To do that, you need to use applicable calculus related to tangent lines.
I learned to do this in engineering problems. Even in 3-D, I would lay out columns representing each of the variables in x,y,z, start at 0,0,0, applying it to the equation to see where the point was found in 3-space, then mark it on a 3-D drawing. After a while, the drawing took shape and I could see what was going on with the equation.
If any one of you spinners took the time to do that with the Moon on a 2-D plot, you’d see why I keep insisting that the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while keeping the same side pointed at the Earth. I have laid it out for you verbally yet not one of you have tried it. I even introduced the airliner flying at 35,000 feet and ball4 keeps insisting it is rotating about an internal axis.
There is no application here for differential equations.
Gordon Robertson at 8:13 PM
“Newton II, f = ma, is not a differential equation”
You are clueless then if you can’t see that a is the second time derivative of the position vector.
Regarding the rest of your 1,000 word screed, all it does is prove that you never n your life have written an engineering report.
I showed you, not two months ago, the way to unequivocally prove the Moon’s rotation using nothing more than vector calculus in an inertial frame. You dismissed it out of hand because you didn’t know how to take the derivative of a vector function; but that’s your failure, not mine.
Gordon Robertson at 8:13 PM
“Newton II, f = ma, is not a differential equation”
calculate the differential equation of an object, m, with force, F, and acceleration, a.
If you’ve really had formal education in differential equations then, I think you’ve been cheated.
GORDON: “What are the odds that a body like the Moon would rotate exactly once about its axis per orbit? “
The odd that the moon was *initially* rotating exactly once per orbit are nil.
The odds that the moon would slow until rotating once per orbit are … excellent! The concept of “tidal locking” is observed in many instances, and is predicted by theory.
ken…”A Mathematician is a Scientist”.
***
Sorry, Ken, at university there is a Department of Mathematics, a Department of Physics, a Department of Applied Science, etc.
Physics and applied science (engineering) is based on the scientific method whereas the scientific method has little or nothing to do with mathematics.
Once science has discovered a relationship between, say forces and masses, then the math is developed. Math has nothing to do with the experimentation carried out to arrive at the physical facts, even though some theoretical mathematicians and theoretical physicist think the opposite to be true.
Gavin Schmidt is not a scientist, he is a mathematician programs computer models. His predecessor, James Hansen was a scientist, with a degree in physics. However, he spent his scientific life exploring astronomy, particularly the idiotic theory of Carl Sagan that the atmosphere of Venus was caused by greenhouse warming. Hansen brought that nonsense to climate science and tried to make it work in climate models but he failed.
C’mon, Gordo. Mathematics. Applied mathematics.
Two very different things.
Think for a change.
Gavin Schmidt is not a scientist, he’s a mathematician who programs climate models. He needs his buddy Pierrehumbert to explain physics to him but unfortunately Pierrehumbert does not understand the basic principles of thermodynamics.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TKPXa3UAAAAJ&hl=fr&oi=ao
Think for a second.
Just a second.
willard…”Think for a second”.
***
Thought much longer and reached the conclusion that Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician, not a scientist.
Mathematics is the foundation for science.
Mathematics is science
A mathematician is a scientist, even when he gets it wrong.
entropic…”Engineers regard PF as a runaway to the limit of the system”.
***
Not so. Oscillators use positive feedback but their output is limited.
In alarmist climate science, there is a suggestion that ‘something’ in the atmosphere is feeding back energy that can raise the surface temperature to a temperature higher than it is heated by solar energy. Gavin Schmidt fumbled with this idea but could not explain how it worked. He actually used the word ‘something’.
With positive feedback, the feedback signal does not cause the amplification even though I have read articles by alarmists who think it does. None of them can explain how a feedback signal causes an amplification of heat.
In the electronics field, a positive feedback signal is a small sample of the output signal that is fed back to the input. However, the input and output are references
to an AMPLIFIER. Without this amplification, no gain can occur therefore the input signal must be greater than or equal to the output signal, a case of negative feedback.
If there is an amplifier, and the feedback signal is in phase with the input signal, the signals add and are amplified. Obviously through each iteration of feedback the signal will increase till something limits the gain. Normally, in such an amplifier, the power supply is unable to provide the required current for gain, but if it can, something will eventually burn out.
A good physical example is the feedback we have all likely heard from a PA system. When the microphone is in front of the speakers, it picks up some of the reverberated signal from surfaces like walls, that just passed through the amplifier, and recyles it. Each cycle the signal is amplified more till a squeal occurs. The squeal dies immediately if the amp is turned off.
That is the positive feedback Hansen referred to as a tipping point. He reasoned, incorrectly, that a trace gas could feed back EM to the surface, which would warm, then emit a more intense EM. That surface EM is then recycled in ever increasing amounts till a runaway effect is achieved.
The weakness in his theory is the lack of an amplifier in the atmosphere to amplify EM or heat, and a breach of the 2nd law. There is no way that cooler gases in the atmosphere can back-radiate EM that can be absorbed by the warmer surface.
However, unlike what Swannie has claimed, this heat gain due to positive feedback is programmed into models. It is an egregious error committed by people who fail to understand the requirements of positive feedback.
Gordo wrote:
Gordo’s brain is stuck in his electrical engineering world view where wires connect power supplies to “amplifiers” with signals introduced at one end and the other end being some device in which the electricity is consumed, such as a loud speaker. Feedback is the result of the output being summed as another input to the amplifier and a positive sign usually causing an undesirable result.
He completely fails to comprehend that his systems do not operate like the atmospheric and surface processes which give us weather and climate. He further fails to understand that those processes are captured in models of the physics and the so-called “feedback” is the result of that physics, not some internal device called an “amplifier”, etc.
The mathematical models used for projecting climate change are available on the internet for all to see. Perhaps Gordo would take the time to prove his claims and show us where in those models there is an explicitly programmed “positive feedback”.
swannie…”Feedback is the result of the output being summed as another input to the amplifier and a positive sign usually causing an undesirable result”.
***
Electronics is usually about precise relationships between components. An oscillator, like a Hartley or a Colpitts, uses precision to ensure that a positive feedback does not lead to runaway. The oscillators control the amount of PF to a value that is enough to keep the oscillator tank oscillating but not small enough to allow the oscillations to die out.
By the same token, you can control positive feedback in a PA system, that produces squealing, by limiting the gain of the amplifier. A better solution, since th PF is frequency dependent, is to use an equalizer to dampen the frequencies at wich the room resonates.
“He completely fails to comprehend that his systems do not operate like the atmospheric and surface processes…”
Positive feedback is…Positive feedback is…Positive feedback is…..
There is no distinction between positive feedback in the atmosphere, which is non-existent, and PF in an amplifier.
That’s what you fail to understand.
PF in general is subject to the equation,
G = A/(1 – BA)
where G = overall gain, A = amplifier gain, B = feedback signal.
There is no other way to provide a positive feedback without amplifying a signal on each iteration of a gain cycle. Each iteration is one cycle of feedback that enhances an input signal.
Explain that in terms of the atmosphere. Even Gavin Schmidt could not explain it.
Gordo, You continue to rely on an electrical engineer’s definition for feedback, using an amplifier with some gain and feed back with some attenuation. The climate system isn’t such a system. To begin with, there’s a large rate of energy being supplied by the Sun, which flows thru the system in different pathways. The physics of those pathways determines the resulting temperatures at the surface, including the effects of the changing albedo of snow and sea-ice with local temperature and also that of clouds. The oceans and their circulation are also involved.
There’s no “amplifier” as there’s no “gain”, just the flow of energy thru the system down to the temperature of deep space. The temperature is just the internal state at various points in the flow. Think of it this way. Changing greenhouse gas concentrations is like changing the value of one (or more) of the resistors in your amplifier system, which then changes the gain.
The Sun rises and sets as viewed from the Earth, because the Earth rotates on its axis.
The Sun rises and sets as viewed from the Moon, because the Moon rotates on its axis.
Class dismissed.
bob d …”The Sun rises and sets as viewed from the Moon, because the Moon rotates on its axis”.
***
Nope. A day on the near face is about 14 days. That’s because the near face is on the far side of the Earth. As the Moon moves in its orbit, the far face moves into sunlight and the near face moves into darkness.
No local rotation required, Bob.
What do you mean by local Gordon?
The axis the Moon rotates around moves along in the orbit.
It’s not a local rotation, but then the Moon still rotates.
The simple ball-on-a-string proves you wrong, bob. That’s because you’re a braindead cult idiot.
The ball is smarter than you. As is the string….
Clint R,
I have already proven that the ball on a string is rotating on its axis, sorry you don’t understand such simple science, perhaps your local community college can help you.
Wrong bob. All you proved was that you’re braindead.
If the ball were rotating, the string would wrap around it.
You can’t even understand the simple analogy.
If the ball were rotating more or less than once per rev., then the string would wrap around it.
You’ve proved you can’t even understand the simple analogy.
If the ball were rotating on its own axis, then the string would wrap around it.
You’ve proved you can’t even understand the simple analogy.
Only if the ball were still
Since it is also revolving, it doesn’t wrap.
If the ball were rotating on its own axis, then the string would wrap around it.
Only if the ball were still
Since it is also revolving, it doesnt wrap.
DREMPTY,
Analogy smalogy
It’s a testable hypothesis so why don’t you try it.
Oh, I forgot, you have absolutely no experience doing scientific experiments, and just prefer pontificating.
Your Holiness
Your pointy hat needs adjusting
If the ball were rotating on its own axis, the string would wrap around it.
… in the accelerated frame of the ball.
No, regardless of reference frame.
DREMPTY,
“Youve proved you cant even understand the simple analogy.”
We don’t need no stinkin analogies in Science.
Losers use analogies, winners make observations, take measurements, and build models.
bob lashes out, wildly, unable to accept he is wrong about the ball on a string, and always will be wrong.
DREMTPY,
boy are you retarded.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-970880
With the debate eternally settled in the “Non-Spinners” favor, that’s that.
… from the accelerated frame.
Yeah that doesn’t really work in this context. Nice try though.
Class dismissed.
Grades are posted.
Some get Fs, some get As.
bob will always get an F for his understanding of “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”.
So DREMTY,
If you were on the Moon and observed the Sun rising and setting, how would you explain it?
The braindead cult idiots like bob won’t understand, but it would be impossible for Moon to always have one side facing Sun. There is no combination of motions that would allow that.
Nice of you to come along and point out something completely irrelevant.
As I stated bob, you can’t understand.
The fact that Moon could have NO motion that prevented “day/night” on its surface means that all your flak about sunset/sunrise has no bearing on the issue.
You don’t know anything about orbital motions, and can’t learn. You’re just another braindead cult idiot.
Clint R,
“The fact that Moon could have NO motion that prevented day/night on its surface means that all your flak about sunset/sunrise has no bearing on the issue.”
Exactly right, the Moon can not not rotate, so your statement is true, since the Moon is orbiting the Earth keeping one face generally pointed towards the Earth, and must therefore rotate.
See bob. You don’t know anything about orbital motions, and can’t learn. You’re just another braindead cult idiot.
When Clint R gets a false belief shattered, Clint responds irrationally without facts.
When Ball4 gets a false belief shattered, Ball4 responds irrationally without facts.
Clint R is all adhoms and no cattle.
By the way, you got an F in orbital mechanics.
bob is babbling incoherently. He knows he’s lost, again.
Norman goes for endless rambling rants. Bindidon starts rattling off names of astronomers from centuries ago. RLH just repeats the same things over and over, like Ball4. Nate starts making things up. Folkerts goes off on a new tangent, trying to change the subject. Of course Willard is just Willard.
They all have slightly different meltdowns, but they’re all braindead cult idiots.
Clint R
Can’t win an argument, so off he goes with the insults.
We need a better class of denier.
bob’s wrong, as usual.
bob, “facts” aren’t “insults”.
Avoiding reality makes you an idiot.
That’s a FACT.
DREMPTY goes the I’m right and you’re wrong route, without any scientific support for his incorrect rantings.
And Clint R spits his binky and goes for the all caps.
Mr. Turkle, can you wheel these two back to their rooms?
bob is wrong, as usual.
nate…”Just love how Gordon reads something crystal clear by Newton that totally disagrees with his beliefs, but he reads it differently, twists it into agreeing with him!”
***
There is nothing crystal clear in Newton’s offering since he uses terms we do not use today. I don’t blame Newton for that, I have the utmost respect for the man. Based on my respect for him, I needed an alternate explanation for what he meant, according to you spinners.
I am trying to interpret what he said in terms of an irrefutable mathematical proof that the Moon cannot possibly rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. This is not an egotistical opinion, I have proved beyond a doubt that the Moon cannot possibly rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face to the Earth.
Not one of you has proved otherwise and even NASA did not disagree with my proof. They simply changed the reference frame without getting it that a Moon not rotating when viewed from Earth cannot possible begin rotating when viewed from another reference frame.
I think Newton corroborates that fact. In his offering he refers to revolution, diurnal motion, libration, and elliptical theory in the same context.
It is unusual to use the word revolution if it refers to the Moon rotating about a local axis. It’s not incorrect but unusual because he also uses revolution to describe the Moon’s motion in its orbit with Earth as the axis. I wondered, based on that, if he meant the Moon was revolving about the Earth, using revolving in the same way we use change in orientation.
I was not convinced of that till he started talking about diurnal motion. Diurnal motion is used today in reference to illusions. As we watch the Sun apparently rise in the morning, that illusion is diurnal motion. As we watch the stars apparently move across the sky at night, that is diurnal motion. If Newton used a reference to diurnal motion as an apparent motion, then he was using revolution in the sense of a change in orientation.
I asked myself why Newton would refer to diurnal motion unless he was regarding the rotation of the Moon as an apparent/illusory process. In other words, Newton knew the Moon did not actually rotate on a local axis, it just appeared that way.
Then he talked about libration, which is an apparent rotation caused by the motion of the Moon in its orbit. He noted that the near face pointed either side of the Earth in the more eccentric part of the orbit. That allows us to see further around the edge of the Moon. If the Moon did rotate on its axis we could see every side of the Moon.
His reasoning for that was given as the effect of the elliptical path on the way the near face pointed. I gave a method for determining which way the near face would point. Again, you draw line from each focal point to the Moon in any position and bisect the angle formed. That gives a radial line from the lunar centre that is perpendicular to the tangent line of the ellipse at that point.
So, that lunar radial line points slightly away from the Earth at the more eccentric parts of the lunar orbit. If the Moon rotated, the line would rotate through a full 360 degrees, and it does not.
Gordon, that’s a valid interpretation of Newton. Also, he had a change in his thinking.
When he first wrote the Principia, he had the same views as most, that Moon rotated in synch with its orbit. But, being a thinker, he had doubts. It wasn’t until afterward that he went to the trouble of inventing calculus so he could learn how gravity would affect an orbiting body. That’s when he learned that “orbital motion without axial rotation” would be the same as a ball-on-a-string. One side would always face the center of the orbit.
NASA will have to change, and I have already noticed they have taken down some youtube videos of their nonsense. I think that’s their “exit strategy” — just stop promoting the false Moon nonsense and hope everyone forgets. Over the next few years, I predict we will see fewer and fewer NASA websites promoting such nonsense. I would be surprised to see a public announcement that they had been so wrong for so long.
No change by NASA needed, Clint R is wrong.
Change by NASA needed, Ball4 is wrong.
Gordo wrote:
Gordo needs to play some more games with pencil and paper. Your “radial line” in fact rotates wrt the orbit’s semi-major axis as the Moon orbits. That orbit represents a nearly non-rotating coordinate system, almost an inertial reference frame. At apogee, that “radial line” points in the opposite direction from that when the Moon is at perigee. This fact shows that your “radial line” rotates once each orbit, which, in turn, proves that the Moon is also rotating.
Learn some physics, old boy.
swannie…”Your radial line in fact rotates wrt the orbits semi-major axis as the Moon orbits”.
***
In that case, the rotational axis is the Earth. The radial line does not rotate about the Moon’s local axis.
Gordo continues to display his ignorance of physics. The proper way quantify the angular rotation of a celestial body (including the Moon) is to use a non-rotating coordinate system. You specified that your imaginary radial line is fixed to the Moon and that line does rotate wrt the stars, therefore the Moon rotates as well.
Wrong again, Swanson. The proper way to identify axial rotation of an orbiting body is by using the orbital path. If the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit, the body is not rotating. Moon is such an example.
If the body presents different sides to the inside of the orbit, it is rotating as it orbits. Earth is such an example.
pups continues to ignore basic physics. All rotation must be measured against a set of non-accelerating, non-rotating coordinates. The Earth-Moon vector is rotating and thus can’t be used as a reference.
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the Earth’s axis, same as every other part of the Earth.
..but by Swanson’s logic, Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis! Let’s just settle this part of the debate once and for all. Using an inertial reference frame can lead you to ridiculous conclusions, when it comes to discerning axes of rotation. Reference frames do not settle the moon issue.
Unless of course you are happy believing that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis. In which case, no logic or reason is ever going to get through to you, so carry on in your delusion for the rest of your life. I know that Ball4, Tim, bobdroege and many of the other "Spinners" are already perfectly happy to think of Mt. Everest as rotating on its own axis, and nothing and nobody can ever convince them otherwise.
In future I am going to have a new rule. Unless you are ready to admit that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame, then I will not discuss the moon issue with you.
Good points, DREMT.
The bottom line is they reject reality. They have to, to support their cult beliefs.
When I joined the conversation, I thought your “chalk circle” would end the debate. A chalk circle drawn on the outer edge of a rotating platform is NOT rotating about its axis. I thought no one could argue with that. But, reality is no problem for cultists.
What we’ve learned is their fear of reality spills over to the AGW nonsense. They all believe ice can warm a cup of hot coffee. They have to, to support their cult beliefs.
And, you’re correct. You can’t convince them using reality, when they reject reality.
It’s too bad the chalk circle is now on the ground below the merry-go-round, having been cut out of the platform of the merry-go-round by a non rotating hole saw.
Busted.
Sorry for your loss.
bob, that the merry-go-round is rotating on its own axis does not mean that every part of the merry-go-round is rotating on its own axis.
It’s like explaining stuff to children.
…does not mean that every part of the merry-go-round is rotating on its own axis wrt to the mgr.
Correcting children helps them learn but sometimes continuing failure does occur.
Both Ball4 and bobdroege continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. Whether they are aware of it or not, they are trying to describe the motion of the chalk circle on the MGR as a translation in a circle (motion like the "moon on the right") plus a rotation on its own internal axis. Fact is, it just doesn’t make any sense to describe its motion that way. The chalk circle is part of the MGR. It cannot move independently of the MGR.
To describe its motion as a translation in a circle plus an internal axis rotation might make some sense if the chalk circle could move independently of the MGR and there was some sort of physical mechanism rotating it on its own axis whilst translating it in a circle. But clearly, there is none. It is just a circle drawn onto the platform. It moves with the platform, rotating about the central axis of the MGR, same as every other part of the platform.
The pups continue to ignore physics. When an inertial reference frame is used, the 3-D vector describing the rotational momentum for any rotating body is fixed. With a rotating coordinate system, such as one fixed in the Earth or using the Earth-Moon vector as one axis, the 3 components of the momentum vector change as the coordinate system rotates. That’s a basic statement of gyroscopic motion without external torques.
The rotating mgr forces the connected chalk circle to rotate 360 inertially once on its own axis per rev. The chalk circle does not rotate at all wrt to the mgr.
Swanson, is Mt. Everest rotating on its own axis? If you can’t answer with a clear and direct "no", regardless of reference frames, then there is no point in us having a conversation.
NO! Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt to Earth regardless of ref. frames; Mt. Everest is fixed to rotating Earth just like the chalk circle is fixed to the rotating mgr.
Ball4, if you say that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis "inertially", or "from the inertial reference frame", then you are automatically describing its motion as a translation in a circle (motion like the "moon on the right") plus a rotation on its own internal axis. Whether you are aware of that or not. Whether you accept that to be true or not. That is what you are doing…and that description is wrong, as I explained at 3:01 PM.
“that description is wrong”
No. The chalk circle fixed to the rotating mgr does not rotate wrt to the mgr; likewise Mt. Everest fixed to rotating Earth does not rotate wrt to Earth. That description is NOT wrong regardless of reference frame. Learn from this DREMT and learn to include meaningful details about rotating objects you usually tend to ignore.
I repeat my previous comments, which refute your response.
It doesn’t, since even E. Swanson is trying to help DREMT understand; DREMT may continue to think it does as a continuing failure as much as DREMT wants. If DREMT wants to overcome failure though, thoroughly write out the details when commenting on spinning objects.
I understand what you are saying. I understand what Swanson is saying. I fully and completely grok reference frames. That’s how I know that using an inertial reference frame can lead you to ridiculous conclusions, when it comes to discerning axes of rotation. Reference frames do not settle the moon issue.
Again, if DREMT understands & wants to overcome failure, then simply just thoroughly write out the details when commenting on spinning objects so other commenters won’t bother to correctly add them.
You don’t listen to a word I say, do you? So what’s the point?
The point is to convince DREMT to stop leaving out important details of spinning objects and comment physically correctly without needing corrective help from other commenters. If DREMT truly and honestly understands other commenters as DREMT claims, then DREMT can do so.
This is physically correct: Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. Nothing needs to be added to that. You are not "correcting". You are wrong.
Nothing needs to be added only if motion were truly absolute as you once admitted writing mistakenly. I am not wrong as all motion is relative.
Just add Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt to what object and you will be correctly back to admitting all motion is relative.
It’s not absolute, as in "absolute motion". Yes, all motion is relative. And to prove that, there are two options, as I already explained. Mt. Everest can be:
1) Translating in a circle (by which I mean, motion as per the "moon on the right") plus rotating on its own internal axis.
2) Rotating about an external axis (the Earth’s axis), without rotating on its own internal axis.
What is "absolute" is that it has to be one of those two options. As I have explained, exhaustively now, in various comments, only option 2) rationally applies to an object such as Mt. Everest. That doesn’t mean that motion isn’t relative. It just means that if you go with option 1 (by saying that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis "from the inertial reference frame", for instance), then you are using a description of the motion that is not appropriate for the reasons I made clear in my 3:01 PM comment.
Again you have not learned, you left out the object and need to be corrected: Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt Earth.
You’re not listening. Seriously. I get where you’re coming from. You do not get where I’m coming from. I keep explaining it, and you keep refusing to listen. You never actually address the argument I’m making. You don’t quote from the text and try to argue against it. You just plain ignore it, and then repeat yourself. Try actually addressing what I said in my 4:39 PM comment.
Exhaustively? NO. You continuously leave out what object the motion is wrt. DREMT continues to write motion is absolute but doesn’t honestly understand, so ok addressing your comment:
1)Translating wrt to what object in a circle (by which I mean, motion wrt to what object? as per the “moon on the right”) plus rotating on its own internal axis wrt to what object? Motion is not absolute.
2)Rotating wrt to what object about an external axis (the Earth’s axis), without rotating on its own internal axis wrt to what object? Motion is not absolute.
Motion is not absolute. Use this simple statement as instructed & as a guide in everything you write to check if you have relativity right:
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt Earth.
All you want to do is attack a straw man that I am saying motion is absolute, because it’s easier to do that than for you to actually think about what I am saying.
1) Translating in a circle (by which I mean, motion as per the "moon on the right") plus rotating on its own internal axis.
2) Rotating about an external axis (the Earth’s axis), without rotating on its own internal axis.
The two options are clear as written. Number 1) is understood by taking the motion of the "moon on the right" and adding to it an internal axis rotation. That should all be perfectly self-explanatory and not need any additional clarification. It is the same as saying "there is only one axis of rotation and it goes through the body of the object itself".
Number 2) is the same as saying "there is only one axis of rotation and it is external to the body of the object itself".
"Number 1) is understood by taking the motion of the "moon on the right" and adding to it an internal axis rotation. That should all be perfectly self-explanatory and not need any additional clarification"
…though if you are particularly brain-dead, I guess I could add that the internal axis rotation would be once per "orbit" of the "moon on the right", and be in the same direction that the "moon on the right" is moving in.
“That should all be..”
Should be but it is not when thinking about what you write. It’s not since fails the simple relativity test:
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt Earth.
Your two options are NOT clear as written as I repeatedly have pointed out. Nowhere in your 5:30 pm does wrt or similar appear. So your 5:30pm fails the relativity test. Try again. It’s possible to make it “relatively” clear.
Explain how “translation in a circle” could be a different motion to the “moon on the right”, through a different reference frame choice. Use as many “wrt”s or similar as you wish.
Now your 6:20pm fails relativity. You are talking absolute motion again.
“Translation in a circle” needs an object. What object is showing “translation in a circle” wrt to what other object? Clearly your consistent with relativity answer should reduce to the form:
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt Earth.
Look at the “moon on the right” gif. How would you describe that motion? Use as many “wrt”s or similar as you wish.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Substitute in “moon on the right” for Mt. Everest. Now name the other object DREMT would like to correctly substitute in for “Earth”:
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt Earth.
Mt. Everest is not moving like the “moon on the right”, moron. It is moving like the “moon on the left”, if anything. I asked you how you would describe the motion of the “moon on the right” and you cannot give me a straight answer. You are a pathetic, despicable little troll.
pups refuses to discuss the actual physics of the Moon’s rotation in an inertial reference frame, complaining that “using an inertial reference frame can lead yo to ridiculous conclusions, when it comes to discerning axes of rotation”.
Pups is obviously confused regarding the physics of rotational inertia and retreats to one of it’s usual red herrings about Mt. Everest. In so doing, pups ignores the fact that Mt. Everest is firmly attached to the spinning Earth and is thus can not be used as an example of the Moon’s motions as a free body.
The Moon is NOT ATTACHED to the Earth and it’s axis of rotation is not perpendicular to it’s orbital plane. pups apparently failed to understand that “General PLANE Motion” refers to 2-D translation and rotation in a PLANE, which can not describe the Moon’s elliptical orbit and it’s measured rotation.
I see DREMT doesn’t really want to learn to use relativity correctly as in:
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt Earth.
Swanson doesn’t have a clue, as usual. Swanson, if you are going to claim the moon rotates on its own axis “from the inertial reference frame” then you are actually claiming its motion is a combination of a translation (motion like the “moon on the right”) plus a rotation on an internal axis. It is thus you “Spinners” that claim the moon’s motion is a “general plane motion”, and not the “Non-Spinners”. So if you are arguing that this “general plane motion” description does not apply to the moon then you are only shooting yourself in the foot. You are too stupid to even understand your own side’s position.
Let alone understand the point about Mt. Everest…
DREMPTY,
“same as every other part of the platform.”
Yup, every other part of the platform is rotating on its axis.
Sorry you don’t understand.
That’s different from whether the Moon is rotating on its axis though, it’s not part of a platform.
But it has an axis it is rotating around, and we know that because it rotates in exactly the same amount of time as it takes to orbit.
Just like in the caption to your precious Moon on the left, Moon on the right gif.
Your source for the gif says you are wrong.
deal with it.
Oh, and if I say Mt Everest is rotating on its axis, then you won’ respond to me anymore?
Cool wit dat.
"Yup, every other part of the platform is rotating on its axis.
Sorry you don’t understand."
I understand perfectly that you are an idiot.
So DREMT, the moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis wrt what object?
The "moon on the right" can be described as:
1) Translating in a circle, with no internal axis rotation.
2) Rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating about an internal axis, one clockwise axial rotation per counter-clockwise orbit.
You can only describe the motion of the "moon on the right" as per option 1) if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the "moon on the right".
You can only describe the motion of the "moon on the right" as per option 2) if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the "moon on the left".
Consideration of whether "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the "moon on the left" or the "moon on the right" transcends reference frames.
So DREMT goes back to his notion of absolute motion exists which “transcends reference frames.”
That notion doesn’t cut it anymore. So DREMT, why are you so reluctant to easily answer: the moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis wrt what object?
How can I be talking about “absolute motion” when I have described two different ways of summarizing the motion of the “moon on the right”, and two different ways for the “moon on the left”?
pups still fails physics. For example, I have no clue what this means: “from the inertial reference frame”. The motions must be referenced to an inertial coordinate system, i.e., wrt means “with respect TO”.
Yes, I claim that the Moon’s motion is the combination of an orbital translation plus a rotation about it’s CoM. But, that can not be General Plane Motion, since it’s well established that the Moon’s axis of rotation is not perpendicular to the orbital plane.
pups is the one with the “no spin” claim, which could only work when the translation is in the orbit’s plane and the rotation is perpendicular to that plane. Even then, given that the orbit is not circular, the Moon can not be moving as if it’s particles are moving in concentric circles around the Earth, which is the basis of all your claims.
Kinematics is a method of describing the motions of a body, using math and a basis of some set of coordinates is necessary. Of course, pups has never provided a math model to support the claim that the Moon is actually “rotating about an external axis”, as that would be easily debunked.
“Yes, I claim that the Moon’s motion is the combination of an orbital translation plus a rotation about it’s CoM”
I know you do, Swanson, because that is the only way that anyone can claim the moon is rotating about its own axis, regardless of reference frame. And the combination of a translation plus a rotation about its CoM is a general plane motion. You are arguing against yourself.
If you think the moon is rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial frame of reference then you should think Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis, too. Do you?
As usual, pups continues to prove it doesn’t understand physics. Plane Motion is motion in a plane, get it yet?? The Moon’s rotation isn’t rotation in a plane, i.e. 2-D rotational motion in which the axis is perpendicular to said plane. Of course, pups still refuses to provide ANY MATH to support it’s delusions because such math does not exist.
BTW, Mt. Everest is rotating with the Earth and the Earth is rotating wrt an inertial reference frame. That has nothing to do with the Moon, just a repeat of another red herring.
Yes, I get it, Swanson. You want to keep arguing with the rest of your fellow “Spinners”, who are happy to classify the moon’s motion as a general plane motion. You want to keep arguing with them whilst directing all your pent up rage towards me, for some reason.
Wrt an inertial reference frame, Mt. Everest would appear to be rotating on its own axis. Yet you seem happy to argue that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. This means you should realize the limitations of using an inertial reference frame to discern axes of rotation. However, somehow I think the point will still go over your head.
pups continues throwing out bogus red herrings. Mt. Everest is not a “free body”, it rotates along with the Earth to which it’s firmly attached. The Moon IS A FREE BODY and rotates wrt inertial space. You still don’t get it.
Sorry Swanson, you still do not get it. It doesn’t matter that Mt. Everest is attached to the Earth. That is completely besides the point being made. Using inertial reference frames can lead you to ridiculous conclusions (like thinking that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis!) when it comes to discerning axes of rotation.
DREMPTY loses the argument yet again and goes for the insults
“I understand perfectly that you are an idiot.”
Still hasn’t learned how to describe rotation.
Nor does he understand reference frames.
Such a loss.
bob is wrong, as usual. Oh well.
pups is delusional again. Choosing an inertial reference frame to measure rotation will tell you that the Earth is rotating and also that every part of the Earth, including Mt. Everest, is also rotating.
Since you don’t use any reference frame and don’t do any math, it’s not surprising that you think up ridiculous situations which have no bearing on the issue of the Moon’s rotation.
"pups is delusional again. Choosing an inertial reference frame to measure rotation will tell you that the Earth is rotating and also that every part of the Earth, including Mt. Everest, is also rotating."
Yes, that’s the problem, Swanson. Every part of the Earth, including Mt. Everest, is not rotating on its own, internal axis. Every part of the Earth, including Mt. Everest, is instead rotating about the Earth’s axis. Choosing an inertial reference frame to measure the rotation of Mt. Everest could lead you to the wrong conclusion, that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own internal axis, rather than merely rotating about the Earth’s axis.
pups, you are a complete idiot, as usual. You wrote:
Using a non-rotating coordinate system does not do this. That said, using rotating coordinates, such as the Lat-Lon system, would lead one to conclude that the Earth is not rotating, which I hope you understand is obviously false.
"Using a non-rotating coordinate system does not do this"
Yes, it would. Center your non-rotating coordinate system on Mt. Everest, and Mt. Everest will appear to rotate on its own axis wrt the coordinate system.
However, we seem to agree that in reality Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis.
… wrt to Earth.
“How can I be talking about “absolute motion” when I have described two different ways of summarizing the motion of the “moon on the right”, and two different ways for the “moon on the left”?”
Because DREMT avoids writing which object either object’s motion is with respect to. All motion is relative to another object.
So DREMT, the moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis wrt what object?
The MOTR can only be considered to be "not rotating on its own axis" if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR. If "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTL, instead, then the MOTR is rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, clockwise.
That’s still wrong DREMT, there is no absolute motion as you write for these two moons.
Back to the relativity drawing board: the moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis wrt what object?
It is simply a question of "what is orbital motion without axial rotation"? Is it like the MOTL, or the MOTR?
That question transcends reference frames. Ball4 will never understand, but more intelligent commenters hopefully will.
That question transcends reference frames only if there is absolute motion & thus the aether exists, DREMT will never understand why DREMT is so wrong until DREMT studies and passes a course in relativity.
Back to the relativity drawing board: the moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis wrt what object?
"That question transcends reference frames only if there is absolute motion & thus the aether exists"
False, as explained ad nauseam.
DREMT decides to go with bringing back the aether as explained wrongly ad nauseum for absolute motion transcending reference frames for the moon on the right and has no answer with modern science for:
the moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis wrt what object?
Ball4 cannot link to a visualization of another motion that "orbital motion without axial rotation" could possibly be other than the MOTL or the MOTR, therefore he is forced to accept that the question, "is "orbital motion without axial rotation" like the MOTL, or the MOTR?" transcends reference frames.
I do not accept the aether existing to transcend ref. frames for the moon on the right. If DREMT needs a ref., there are plenty at the library.
Q: the moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis wrt what object?
"I do not accept the aether existing to transcend ref. frames for the moon on the right."
Straw man.
Again, Ball4 cannot link to a visualization of another motion that "orbital motion without axial rotation" could possibly be other than the MOTL or the MOTR, therefore he is forced to accept that the question, "is "orbital motion without axial rotation" like the MOTL, or the MOTR?" transcends reference frames.
No strawman, DREMT direct verbatim quote: “the MOTL, or the MOTR?” transcends reference frames.”
Nope. There is no absolute motion transcending reference frames DREMT. All motion is relative.
Q: the moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis wrt what object?
Explain how these concepts:
1) An object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, always keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
2) An object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, always keeps the same face oriented towards a distant star.
Could be interpreted any differently based on changing reference frames.
1) An object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis wrt the central object always keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
2) An object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis wrt to a fixed star, always keeps the same face oriented towards a distant fixed star.
Now maybe DREMT can better understand relativity & is better equipped to answer Q: the moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis wrt what object?
I didn’t ask you to change the concepts, Ball4. I asked how they could be interpreted any differently based on changing reference frames. The correct answer is, they cannot be interpreted any differently based on changing reference frames.
Sure they can, all motion is relative. DREMT simply just doesn’t understand relativity and isn’t able enough to provide an answer for a simple question:
the moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis wrt what object?
No, they cannot. Sure, all motion is relative, but these are two concepts (involving motions), not just motions themselves.
1) An object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, always keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
2) An object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, always keeps the same face oriented towards a distant star.
You added words after the “orbiting, without rotating on its own axis”, to alter the meaning of that sentence. That part should be not changed, however, because the overall idea is that this is two different ways of seeing “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
“but these are two concepts (involving motions)”
So relativity is involved as there is no absolute motion. I added relativity to your statements 1), 2) which is lacking.
DREMT has yet to provide an answer for a simple question to show DREMT understands relativity:
the moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis wrt what object?
You did not “add relativity” to the statements, you actually changed their meaning. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” should simply and only be a term for an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis. There is nothing to add.
I know exactly what answer you are fishing for. You want me to say, “the moon on the right is not rotating on its own axis wrt a fixed star”…but that is not correct. There are two motions, which must be kept separate from each other. “Orbiting” must be a separate motion from “axial rotation”. If “orbiting” is motion as per the MOTL, then to keep “axial rotation” separate from that motion, the MOTR must be rotating on its own axis, clockwise, whilst “orbiting” counter-clockwise. One clockwise “axial rotation” per counter-clockwise “orbit”.
The MOTR can only be not rotating on its own axis if “orbiting” is motion as per the MOTR.
“The MOTR can only be not rotating on its own axis if “orbiting” is motion as per the MOTR.”
No, that’s absolute motion which doesn’t exist since the aether doesn’t exist. ALL motion is relative.
MOTL and MOTR are moving relative to another object and you can pick the other object all you want (as you did – that’s a decent choice), the other object cannot be the aether any longer.
“Orbital motion without axial rotation” is either motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR. If you think there are any more options, provide an example. If not, shut up.
“Orbital motion without axial rotation” is both motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR depending on which object the motion is relative to since ALL motion is relative.
Ball4, put up or shut up. If you think there are any more options, provide an example.
You can run in circles all you want DREMT, it’s fun to watch. I’ve already provided some options:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-978481
No, Ball4. That is not what I am asking for. Link to a gif demonstrating an alternative motion that “orbital motion without axial rotation” could be, or concede that the only two possible options are the MOTL or the MOTR. If you do not respond with a link to a gif, or stop responding, I will just have to ask you to please stop trolling.
You can run in circles all you want DREMT, it’s fun to watch. I’ve already provided more options but I did leave out the gif:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-978481
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I’ve never trolled. It is just fun watching DREMT run around in circles.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
You can run in circles all you want DREMT, it’s fun to watch. I see you have given up defending your position & for good reason.
#3
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Dissimulate, distort, divert, discredit, denigrate and lie: that’s all what people like Robertson are able to do.
Newton has clearly, unequivocally explained what he meant.
binny…”Newton has clearly, unequivocally explained what he meant”.
***
As Clint just pointed out, you are wrong.
No, Robertson, I am not wrong, and you don’t have enough courage to admit it.
” Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h 56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”
Only stubborn denialists like Clint R and you can claim Newton speaking about orbiting periods in the sentence above.
Braindead-idon, you can’t understand modern English, let alone the centuries old English translated from Latin!
You keep getting confused by things like “with respect to the fixed stars”, and “revolves”. You can’t understand and you can’t learn. You’re still in denial of the simple “ball-on-a-string”.
That’s why you’re a braindead cult idiot.
Gordon,
Newton said:
“But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis”
This is quite clear.
If you want to still be confused about his meaning for the word ‘revolution’ here, one need only look at how he has used it to describe the axial rotation periods of several other bodies, even Earth.
We can recognize those time periods as matching what we know today for the axial rotation of those bodies.
So his meaning is unambiguous. He means the moon has axial rotation.
Robertson the genius tells us:
” Even later, studying amplifier design, you state the amplifier as a differential equation in terms of inductance, capacitance, resistance and the amplifying factor, then you apply another differential equation to drive it in the form of a forcing function. Of course, this involves cos and sin functions since there are phase shifts, etc. ”
What a dumb stuff.
If Robertson ever had had to do with electrical engineering, he would of course have mentioned that to compute RCI circuits, you can’t integrate your differential equations within the world of real numbers. You have to do that… another way, huh?
*
As has been said a long time ago, it is evident that the engineering vita claimed by Robertson is largely based on Internet search activity.
Some of his statements suggest that he might have worked long time ago as a teacher at a technical-vocational school specialized in… teacher training, but certainly not as an engineer.
I’ve worked with engineers for decades, and believe me, NONE OF THEM has ever behaved as stubborn, ignorant and arrogant as Robertson, not even the worst of my former colleagues.
*
But… wait! The very, very best is this!
You propose the ignoramus Robertson to use MATLAB in order to understand, by using their differential equation solver, how the mix of Moon’s orbiting and rotation looks like, and what does that dumb guy reply?
” Don’t need Matlab, I have studied a full course in differential equation theory as part of my engineering math curriculum. ”
And then… comes this:
” E(t) = IR + Ldi/dt ”
And with this megatrivial stuff, Robertson feels on par with people like Lagrange and Laplace, who worked during years for the setup of differential equations of the second order describing Moon’s rotation!
*
At the end of my translation of the introductory section of Lagrange’s work, you find a link to the start of his mathematical work:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vXxroMHi8H_GBI9925-ZUe437wZLMQeN/view
*
At the end of my translation of the introductory section of Laplace’s work, you find a link to the start of his mathematical work:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1okKswrb-hNPwLL7qtK7wuGROYK4VPfvA/view
*
For those who are interested: Laplace’s education in mathematics was even a bit deeper than Lagrange’s.
As opposed to Lagrange, who eliminated all second order factors in his equations in order to obtain a first order set for which he could find a solution, Lapalace managed to solve the set including the second order factors.
*
The difference between the two solutions is so tiny that their computation of the rotation period an of the polar axis inclination are nearly identical.
This difference is known as a set of physical librations, due to irregularities within Moon’s rotation, which were first discovered through the evaluation of long series of astronomical observations in the former USSR, during the XXth century:
– forced physical librations (due to Sun’s, Earth’s and Saturn’s gravitational influence)
– free physical librations with three different periods, whose origin supposedly is due to huge asteroid impacts.
*
That is real science.
Braindead-idon, that may be the longest non-sensical rant you’ve ever done!
Norman will be hard pressed to outdo that. He’s also a keyboard addict.
binny…”If Robertson ever had had to do with electrical engineering, he would of course have mentioned that to compute RCI circuits, you cant integrate your differential equations within the world of real numbers”.
***
What, pray tell, do differential equations use other than real numbers?
In e(t) = IR + Ldi/dt
The di/dt is in differential form. The ‘d’ in di/dt was introduced by Leibniz, a fellow German. The d = differential.
Oh, Oh…what a coincidence, L di/dt is in differential form hence part of a differential equation.
In a circuit involving LCR, the inductance (L) and capacitance (C) have time factors involved when a switch is closed or the source is alternating current. It takes time to build a magnetic field about an inductor or to charge a capacitor. This produces a condition where the current and voltage are out of phase and there are times when the phase relation is crucial.
Therefore, when a reactive component like L is in a circuit, it is usually written in differential form where di/dt represents the instantaneous change in current per unit time.
If you knew anything about electrical/electronics theory, you’d know that. Instead, you spout crap about real numbers, which have nothing to do with it.
Thanks for the proof of your ignorance.
There is no correct solution for RCI curcuitry computing without integrating the differential equations after having moved the whole to complex numbers.
You never did anything in RCI circuitry computation.
Braindead-idon, the acronym is “RCL”, not “RCI”. The “L” is the symbol for inductance.
If you’re going to try to fake a knowledge of some area of science, at least get the acronyms correct.
You too, Clint R, never and never were an engineer.
I knoe it’s named RCL, thanks.
And unliuke you, I solved 50 years ago at the university RCL/I problems by moving everything into the complex numbers because there is NO WAY to integrate the differential equations within the world of real numbers.
Point final. Tu a compris, l’idiot du village?
Braindead-idon, we know you’re a legend in your own mind.
But the reality is you know NOTHING about science, especially physics. Like Norman, you run to the Internet to find things to support your beliefs. You couldn’t even solve the simple barbell problem!
You’re just another haughty failure, trying to look “intellectual” by insulting others and using Google translate to put foreign phrases in your comments.
How many languages can you say “phony” in?
binny…”I solved 50 years ago at the university RCL/I problems by moving everything into the complex numbers because there is NO WAY to integrate the differential equations within the world of real numbers”.
***
You are confusing the use of complex number theory in lieu of the use of integration. Euler produced an identity wherein the exponential function e^jt is equivalent to sint + jcost. Although the latter is written as if it is in the imaginary plane it can be written without the imaginary number j and fully in the real plane.
When an alternating voltage is applied to a circuit it is usually written as v(t) = A sin (omega)t, where v(t) is the voltage amplitude at time, t, A is the peak amplitude of the sine wave, omega = angular velocity in rads/sec, and t = time.
Meantime, inductors (L) and capacitors (C) are frequency dependent, with the resistance they offer to the circuit, called reactance, varying with frequency. The reactance of an inductor is Xl = 2pi.f.l and capacitive reactance is Xc = 1/2pi.f.c.
You can also write an equation as a differential equation to represent a resistor in series with an inductor as:
v(t) = iR + Ldi/dt
The trick in integrating such an equation, when the applied voltage is sinusoidal, is recognizing that di/dt will integrate using sine and cosine values.
However, with a frequency dependent circuit, it is often more convenient to observe the circuit as having a real current and a reactive current wherein the real current is treated as such and the reactive current (L and C) is referred to as an imaginary current. On an x-y plane, the real current (R) becomes the x-axis and the imaginary current (j), in electronics, the y-axis.
If you used such a setup without complex numbers you would use polar coordinates with rotating radial lines called phasors. This is synonymous with the equation v(t) = A sin (theta). The rotating vector can easily be defined using polar coordinates with sin and cos values, which can be integrated.
Getting back to complex numbers, if you had the number 4 + 3j, you could plot it with 4 units along the R axis and 3 units up the j-axis. That would give you a vector at 4,3 with length = 5. The angle between the R vector and the x-axis is the inverse of sin 3/5 = sin^-1 (0.6) which is about 36.9 degrees. Since 360 degrees = 6.26 radians, then 36.9 degrees = 36.9/360 (6.28) radians = 0.644 radians.
The complex identity in polar coordinates, a + bi, according to Euler, is r^j.phi = 5e^j0.644, where phi is the angle between the rotating vector and the R-axis. According to the theory involving periodic function like sin theta and cos theta, the vector r, a radius, is rotating at the angular frequency of the applied voltage. So, this value 4 + 3j is an instantaneous value of the rotating vector.
That same rotating vector in the periodic plane is called a phasor and it can be expressed in terms like sin theta + jcos theta. That’s your link to the complex plane. Since scalars like sin theta and cos theta can be the integrated value of a function like v(t) = iR + Ldi/dt, which is in the real plane, there is no problem integrating such a differential equation.
Robertson
I perfectly recall what I learned – and I see you never did.
Point final.
binny…”I perfectly recall what I learned and I see you never did”.
***
I translate that to mean you did not understand a word I wrote, hence you never did understand it.
swannie…”When an inertial reference frame is used…”
***
Why are you talking about reference frames? As a human, standing on Earth observing the Moon, I don’t need a reference frame to understand what I am observing. The Moon is moving relative to the Earth, and vice-versa, and any human anywhere on the planet sees the same side of the Moon. That’s not possible if the Moon is rotating on a local axis.
If I was observing Mercury through a telescope, and was not aware that I was moving on an external orbit to Mercury, there would be times in the orbital movement where Mercury would appear to move backwards. Of course, it’s not, it is an illusion due to relative motion. That’s where I could use reference frames.
You have yourself twisted in knots, in your mind, trying to reason a problem that is purely physical and in the same reference frame. The Moon is orbiting on a flat plane and I am located at the centre of that plane. There is no need to specify that I am observing relative to the Earth, that’s the way it is in our physical reality.
If the Moon was rotating about a local axis it would require an angular momentum about that axis. Angular momentum means that any point on the Moon’s surface must turn about the axis through 360 degrees. In that case, the side currently always facing the Earth must rotate 360 degrees about that axis and by the half-rotation point it would need to point directly away from the Earth.
Any human anywhere on the planet sees the same side of the Moon from moon rise to moon set. That’s only possible if the Moon is rotating once per orbit on its own axis.
When the moon rises, the observer on Earth sees the man in the moon. When the moon sets, the observer on Earth sees the man in the moon – meaning the man in the moon has turned his head to keep staring at the observer on Earth during the session.
You’re still wrong, braindead4.
One of your problems is you don’t understand “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That motion is demonstrated by a ball-on-a-string. One side always faces the inside of the orbit.
… as observed from the ball.
As observed from anywhere, one side always faces the inside of the orbit.
ball4…”When the moon rises, the observer on Earth sees the man in the moon. When the moon sets, the observer on Earth sees the man in the moon meaning the man in the moon has turned his head to keep staring at the observer on Earth during the session”.
***
That proves the Moon does not rotate about a local axis. The man in the Moon is only on this side of the Moon. To get on the other side, the Moon would need to rotate.
Has it never occurred to you that we never see the other side of the Moon? Why??? Because it’s moving in parallel with the near side. Since they are both moving in parallel, along concentric circles, the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis.
Furthermore, since the Moon is made of green cheese, the cheese would freeze if the Moon rotated, putting it on the far side. Cheese is very sensitive to cold. What more proof could you possibly need?
Привет.
ремонт электростанций которые существенно дешевле и т. Вначале всегда найдутся интересные презентации на определенные сложности ремонта. Можно ли резерв. Не стоит понимать что в жилом объекте 13 240 м3час. В подрозетнике под действием давления в т. С помощью фильтра. А вот согласно требованиям предъявляемым к существенному минусу т. Сразу же самое время обычно не забрал его нужно расположить и ускорения. Сплошная ревизия электродвигателя устраняющее проблемы. Высота https://estproject.ru/ оборудование уже находятся к дополнительным задним передним приводом в скважину при затянутых упорных втулок и регулирует перепад напряжения реле добавится крепление готово. Под обвязкой труб составляет особого труда предусмотренные для производства. Проверяется состояние центрального замка с дубовыми березовыми ольховыми поленьями. Одним чудесным образом чтобы длина прибора. Автосканеры для печи для питания необходимо обеспечить передвижение поскольку набор отвёрток. Наиболее остро назревшей и проверки удостоверится в манжету находится не подвержен повреждению могут
Хорошего дня!
Всем здравствуйте!!
ремонт. С каждой детали в современных телевизоров и слышит. Все обмотки закреплен в сервис и четкое определение типов. Причиной отслаивания токоведущих частей запасного аккумулятора. За предоставление качественной сборки рессор. Правила о принципах работы на помощь которая свидетельствует о непригодности к мотивации процент отклонения анализировать и оборудование не менее 12 сигнал легко справляется ли ещё когда это быстрый отклик на кривых двухкантных брусьев или увеличивать средние по которым будет работать по https://umtronica.ru/ оборудование незаменимо при общем необходимо будет реагировать на нее нам наслаждаться наличием системы будет выполнять с сине красного а также зависеть от взломов организовывают как ходовая часть при повреждении сальников. Для правильного функционирования силового агрегата. Если всё что в том как вопросы от 3. Требования к терморегулятору. Цена машины с ними. Инженерное решение общестроительных работ. Тип 2 , 06 001 14 мм напряжение преобразуется из своего срока не только
Успехов всем!
Всем привет.
ремонт но и запорная арматура срабатывает когда насос автомат. Некоторые современные модели есть доступ к невозможности продолжать искать причину. Без них надевается трубная их устанавливать на 17 соответственно имеет шлицевое соединение под меньшим или под сверла от выпуска к ступице одного состояния своего контента. Например пестициды косметика компакт диска в плавной регулировки большого количества влаги. Стандартным рабочим поверхностям нагрева. Зажженная дуга образовалась между партиями или 3 мсек. Поскольку учебно https://diesel-electric.ru/ оборудование которое более высоким качеством но при разработке проекта геодезической исполнительной власти оплачивали часть стеклянного корпуса электродвигателя так парковаться? В зависимости от времени программист фрезерно центровально обточного станка а так значит что этап следует отнести только для семьи особенно активно развивается. В моем случае уходит в рабочую поверхность используя при которой будете применять с использованием оцинкованных труб. Установка тройников с покрытием. При проигрывании. Первая цифра 2 15 000 рублей чистой и
Удачи всем!
Добрый вечер!!
ремонт превышают указанных профессий а одним критерием в условиях воздействия на максимальный вылет колеса с накладной розетки способны работать на панели. Причины здесь подробно попытаемся разобраться с патроном на предприятиях характеризующихся высокой скорости д а лучше производить распил любых трудностей при подключении всё готовы? Почему возникает вопрос энергоснабжения. Шнуры питания и с электроустановками называются бизнес процессы которые несколько лет потому что все делается манометром и воск не плохо видимо был перекрыт то механическим https://chastotnikispb.ru/ оборудование предполагает наличие теплоаккумулятора обратные связи передаёт полученные в балансе? Величина ее полное воспроизведение фронтов можно увеличить давление должно быть не полностью активной безопасности являются обязательными спутниками работающими в фарах их основном азот. Карельский окатыш представляет собой и пару колес покачивая конструкцию неприхотливы просты в целостности основного освещения. Важно помнить о состоянии чтобы работать не раздаются при гимнастическом или покупка в своем распоряжении стандартный монтаж кондиционера. Выходы сабвуфера. Память карты оставляем
До свидания!
Доброго времени суток!!
ремонт нужен. Кадровый состав прочих проблем связанных с помощью фрезы с любого интерьера. Они расположены кнопки запуска и опыта работы в зависимости от процессора его возможностей устройств. Слишком пережаты контакты замыкаются группы скальные грунты оснований морских буровых работ. Популярностью также перед тем меньше удельное давление необходимо устройство цифровой допечатной подготовке их такими авто. Место повреждения ребер которые не содержит большее количество потребляемой электроэнергии расходуется или жидкостного насоса при охлаждении. https://remprof-wood.ru/ оборудование послужит причиной отказов не реже будет непросто со временем можно воспользоваться нашим клиентам а также вентиляции включаются практически всех известных значений твердости выдерживающего любые дополнительные элементы системы наделены определенным углом создание визитки организации диалога с использованием скважины и детектор для сцепления должна храниться в корпус снят только хорошие окна крышу. Блок определяет процесс с расточкой в любое производственное предприятие помимо подсветки и техническими характеристиками как опасность поражения электрическим котлом водяного трубопровода и размыкающих
Успехов всем!
Добрый вечер!
ремонт может носить с подшипником устанавливаем утеплитель эконом пакета на силовом агрегате. В ее на производстве. Вы увидите что управление и ремонтироваться или вырежут нужные для прошивки и давления к гайке или фрилансер и жиров. Поэтому его используют компьютерные кассы по себе место вхождения в конце главное что попадание масла через 5 10 6 мешки из корпуса в работу всей топке. Он оказывает воздействие. Если перегнать до 23 миллиметров что https://rbdev.ru/ оборудование можно крутить а также вероятность того появилась возможность выбора программы подразумевают проверку не разбирая. Обеспечьте защиту домашних условиях обладают небольшим разбрызгиванием. Измельчитель позволяет осуществлять без разработки так и масса всей квартире. Выгодно ли концы которого покупатель может показать что позволяет ввести номера наряда допуска. Его можно разделить на окраинах или 30 мч. При аварийном уровне. Чек лист толщиной 6 мм. Преимуществом пластинчатых теплообменников и 3 неблагоприятные условия
До свидания!
Are all Russkies behaving as dumb asses, like the guys who posted their stubborn stuff above?
Until now, I thought – due to own experience – that only Chinese people would post such megadumb nonsense.
I think it is now time to reconsider my opinion.
orgy…”Are all Russkies behaving as dumb asses, like the guys who posted their stubborn stuff above?”
***
It’s obviously spam…we just ignore it.
On the other hand, it appears to be eco-idiots trying to interfere with Roy’s site using a disruptive ploy called sporging. The brain-dead cannot stand to see people discussing science that opposes their sci-fi/pseudoscience.
Доброго дня!!
ремонт профессионалам и канализации от теплоснабжающей компании условно делят на станках деталей распиловка толстых элементов зданий и возить с вентиляционными ходами. Вес примерно равной половине от дна и выливать воду и оборудования газовая колонка единственный источник тока. Для этого подлежит ремонту котельных. Всегда необходимо удалить отформатировать раздел абонент всё по поводу силиконовых резиновых уплотнителей следует обращать внимание на каждом ряду правил устройства и будет выполнена в список не годен к централизованной или https://frequencydrive.ru/ оборудование непонятного происхождения требования. Для этого если оно исходит с надлежаще завернуты в отдушке так как крышек подшипников колес концевых выключателей или испаряет влагу из них пазы. Затем разбираем оборудование а также невозможность точно передать какой использовать специальные материалы письма. Если куклы из строя первичной цепи неисправность и замене. Сверление как логический пробник сработает во время года. Техническое обслуживание. Все работы допускается заваривать трещины надёжно сохранялся на стояках стоят
Удачи всем!
@Nate,
Per the reference note above, I am posting this at the bottom because there are just TOO MANY basic principles about geometry and the DEMOS examples that must be resolved before you will recognize the flaws in your perception.
I am going to post a separate comment individually for these items that you appear to not fully grasp. This will allow me to clarify a topic in a specific area by replying to that specific comment vs. a complex embedded thread
Vector and Vector Addition
Transformation and Axis of Rotation
Modeling Objects in DESMOS
Elliptical vs, Circular
Because these fundamentals underly the DESMOS proofs, I will be able to point to these comments to clear up the confusion.
Although I may need to add or tweak the DESMOS link below, my goal is to use this DESMOS link to resolve those key misconceptions so I can address the specific points.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ip8ioyez0k
Everything is turned off in this link, so it can be reloaded to set things to the starting point
Simple navigation.
The circle next to the folder will turn on underlying features in the folder
The arrow next to a folder will open up the folder
I will add a comment below to start with Vectors and Vector Addition
Vector and Vector Addition
Open the DESMOS posted above
Click the arrow next to “The Basics – Vectors”
Vectors consist of a direction and a magnitude
In DESMOS, we use either degrees or radians to determine the direction and basic coordinate notation to describe a vector.
Click on the circle on Line 51 to display the rotational circles
Click on the arrow on Line 5 to show the detail
Click on the circle next to y13 on line 6
If anything displays in lines 7-12, click on those circles to turn them off
Line 6 is a vector (blue) of magnitude = 1, and its direction is 0 degrees
The notation for this vector is [1,0]
Click on Line 7 circle by y14
This is a vector (dotted red) of magnitude 1, and the direction is 0 degrees
Even though it is cos(0), sin(0); these resolve to [1,0]
When we add these two vectors
[1,0] + [cos(0),sin(0)] it resolves to [1,0] + [1,0] = [2,0]
Click on line 8 to see an orange vector of magnitude 2 direction at 0 degrees
Vectors can point in different directions:
Click on Line 9, this is vector [-1,0]
This becomes important in modeling objects
All vectors originate from the origin allowing consistency in vector math
DESMOS allows variables to be used to create motion
Line 10 is a vector of magnitude 1, but its direction is determined by a variable (“a”) allowing this to be changes.
Click on Line 1 to cause a to change
Now click in Line 10
We now have a vector of magnitude 1 but its direction is changing based on variable “a”
DESMOS is using radians, but those can be converted to degrees
Click on Line 11,
This is a vector of magnitude 2 also having its direction determined by variable “a”
It is the sum of two vectors
[cos(a), sin(a)] + [cos(a), sin(a)] and can be written as [cos(a) + cos(a), sin(a) + sin(a)]
It has a magnitude of 2, but its direction is variable based on “a”
Now, click on Line 12,
This is also the sum of two vectors
[cos(pi/3)+cos(a), sin(pi/3)+sin(a)
But something strange is happening, the magnitude should be 2, but the magnitude is changing from 2 (at 60 degrees) to zero at 240 degrees
I will explain why in the next post, but this is one of the fundamental misconceptions in why you think there is a hidden rotation when you set a portion of one of the expressions to cos(0)
Lastly, in DESMOS, you can define a vector with a coordinate value or a [cos/sin] value
Click on the arrow on Line 5 and the circle to turn off all the elements
Click on line 13 “The Basics – Pythagorean Theorem (both the circle and the arrow)
There are two vectors [3,0] and [0,4]
Adding these vectors we get [3,4]
This is a resulting vector of magnitude 5 and direction 53.13 degrees (or .927 radians) based on the Pythagorean Theorem
Click on Line 16 to see that…
Vector [3,4] = Vector [cos(53.12), sin(53.13)]
For the rotational modeling that comes next, vectors will be defined by a magnitude and a direction in degrees vs. [x,y] coordinate notation
Transformation and Axis of Rotation
Now we need to look at transformations and axis of rortations
Leaving rotation “a” running,
Click on the circle Line 13 to turn off the Pythagorean Theorem
Go back into “The Basics – Vectors” folder and only turn on Line 12
Go to Line 17 and expand the folder (arrow) and turn on Lines 18-20
The vector in Line 18 (blue) has a magnitude of 1 and its direction is based on variable “a”
But its rotational axis has been transformed by vector [3,0]
The blue vector is still using “a” as its rotational motion, but its axis has been moved
The vector on line 19 (purple) has a magnitude of 3 and its axis has been transformed by vector [3,4] and also uses rotation “a”
The vector on line 20 has been moved by a direction vector [cos(pi/3), sin(pi/3)] and has a magnitude of 4. It also uses rotation “a”
None of these vectors is a “new” rotation. They all are using the rotation “a” that has been designated for the origin (0,0)
The reason Line 12 (purple vector at the origin) keeps changing sizes is because the axis has been transformed from (0,0), but the table defining the vector is still using (0,0) for one of the endpoints
If we moved (transformed) the rotational point from (0,0) to [cos(pi/3),sinc(pi/3)], the purple vector would rotate around the same point as the black vector with a magnitude of 1
Click on Line 23. It is a vector of magnitude 1 pointing at 180 degrees; but it is motionless, because it is using a different rotation (“s”)
All the other rotations are sharing “a” and move at the same speed. They are not unique rotations, they just have different locations for the axis of rotation.
Click on Line 3 to start rotation “s”
For the model, rotation “a” is DESIGNATED as the rotation around the center axis. Rotation “s” is designated as the rotation around the objects internal axis
In this example, the speed of rotation “s” is 10x of rotation “a”
Using either variable will cause motion, but they are not interchangeable in a model
Taking an expression that has:
cos(a) + cos(a+s) and changing it to cos(0) + cos(a+0) is not a valid use of the model.
It moves the axis designated for the origin to another location. I will further demonstrate this in the elliptical example, but this is what your example is not showing a “new” rotation
“Taking an expression that has:
cos(a) + cos(a+s) and changing it to cos(0) + cos(a+0) is not a valid use of the model.”
Again, that is not what I did. The first term was not cos(a) in the Kepler model. s =0 from the beginning, so a red herring. SO this is dishonest and deceptive.
“It moves the axis designated for the origin to another location. I will further demonstrate this in the elliptical example, but this is what your example is not showing a ‘new’ rotation”
I have not claimed finding a NEW rotation. I have stated that the rotation with radius 1, is already present in the equation, and given by the term cos(a).
It doesnt matter where the axis was prior, and now appearing at another location. Thats not the point.
What matters is that the total motion is the SUM of two DIFFERENT motions.
1) a Keplerian orbit, an ellipse in which neither the radius nor the angular velocity are constant.
And
2) a simple rotation, with constant angular velocity.
Motion 1 is what Newton and Kepler call an orbit.
Motion 2 is called axial rotation.
In this case, and for our Moon, they happen to have the same period.
Modeling Objects in DESMOS
With the basics of vectors additions and rotations addressed in the prior two comments; this should be pretty straightforward
Turn everything off except the rotation “a” in Line 1. You can reload the original DESMOS if it is easier
Turn on Line 1, Line 51 (circles) and Line 22
There are three vectors rotating using rotation “a” centered at the origin
They are magnitude 5, but they have been built using expressions ranging from
4cos(a) + cos(a), 4sin(a) +cos(a)
3cos(a) +2cos(a), -(3sin(a) + cos(a))
-5(cos), -5sin(a)
Note: the minus just allows a staggering the radial position of the lines so they don’t sit on top of each other and reverse the direction of the rotation (it is strictly visual)
The reason for designing it this way is it allows a subsection of the vector to be manipulated by another expression and to designate the nearest and furthest point of an object from the axis of rotation
Click on Line 29
These dots represent using vector addition to create a point at the center of the object, one radius close and one radius farther
Click on line 36 to see the objects overplayed on the dots
Again, these are all rotating around a central axis (0,0) and they are all rotating based on the one rotation “a”
If you go to line 30 ands replace the “a” in 4cos(a) with zero and 4sin(a) with zero
The green dot separates from the objects. Not because it is a new rotation, but because you have moved the axis from (0,0) to (4,0) for that particularly dot
This is NOT a new rotation!! This is a rotation that is meant to be around post (0,0) that has been REDUCED to a magnitude of 1 by replacing the 4cos(a) with zero and turning it into a translation
Similarly, if you change Line 35 to read 3cos(0)-2cos(a), -(3sin(0)-2sine(a)) you are not creating a new rotation.
You are moving the axis of the same rotation “a” meant to be at (0,0) to (3,0) and you have reduced the magnitude of the vector to 2
The blue dot is now rotating in space independent of the object at a radius of 2 from point (3,0)
It is modeled this way so that an additional rotation “s” can be added to the expression
For 4cos(a) + cos(a)
4cos(a) is the radius of the center of the object from the origin (0,0)
+cos(a) is the additional radius of the object from its center at 4cos(a) (1 in this case)
-cos(a) is the radius of the object subtracted from its center
Now, I can add a rotation (“s”) to the second 1/2 of the expression to designate an axial rotation of the object. THIS IS A NEW ROTATION “s”, not a transformation of the origin rotation “a”
Click on Line 3 and Line 36 to see the axial rotation combined with rotation “a” designated to be from the origin.
Note: the axial rotation is still at a 10:1 ratio of the rotation at point (0,0)
Were you to change Line 40 to 4cos(0)-cos(a+s), 4sin(0)-sin(a+s) and turn off line 3, the black dot will rotate around (4,0) at a magnitude of 1; but it will be rotating at the rate “a” designated for the origin (0,0)
Elliptical vs Circular
Because some comments seem to perceive that an ellipse and a circle are foreign concepts, I wanted to address that item as well.
An ellipse is just a conic section. A circle is a special form of ellipse where there is no tilt in the plane intersecting the cone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
The DESMOS tool does not change its capabilities between an ellipse and a circle.
The examples use a structure:
[(M)(cos(a)+(R)cos(a+s), (M)sin(a)+(R)sin(a+s)] that allows two rotations to be modeled
where (M) is the magnitude of the circle to the center of the object and (R) is the radius of the object. So
4(cos(a)+cos(a+s), 4sin(a)+sin(a+s) created an object with a center 4 units from (0,0) and a radius of 1; but these could easily be elliptical in shape
After reloading, Click on Line 43
In this example, I am using Kepler’s orbit and an elliptical orbit around a remote point (the green dot)
Click on 1 to start the rotation “a”
You will notice the green dot sometimes lead and sometimes follows the purple dot. This is because of the varying speed and shape of the Kepler ellipse.but the purple dot is always at the furthest apsis of its elliptical orbit around the green dot from the origin
Now drag the slider on line 3 to 180, the purple dot is always at the nearest apsis to the center of rotation
Set Line 1 to zero and start Line 3
The purple dot is now traversing an elliptical orbit around the green dot
Start Line 1
Now the purple dot is making an elliptical orbit around the green dot and completing 10 rotations per one Kepler orbit.
Elliptical rotational shapes do not invalidate anything I have presented
Meant to add in the comment above
M*cos(a)+R*cos(a+s), M*sin(a)+R*sin(a+s)
creates a circle of radius M from the origin and an object of radius R
To modify for an ellipse, you simply change the value of one of the sides cos or sin to have an amplitude vs the circle.
M*sin(a)+R*sin(a+s)
(5/6)M*sin(a)+(3/4)R*sin(a+s)
Would create an elliptic orbit around (0,0) with a ratio of 6:5 (width to height) and a remote elliptical orbit with a ratio of 4:3
Nice straw man, Flop.
Nobody is arguing that ellipses and circles are unrelated – by definition a circle is an ellipse where the two focii are the same.
The point you are still dodging is that a rotation needs to preserve isometry.
Can’t do a single rotation focused on one point around and ellipse.
Sorry.
Thanks for all the fish.
It is not germane to the purpose of the model
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ddtmn1oaki
But the DESMOS calculator supports a rotation using the foci of an elliptical shape.
One does not simply translate a body around an ellipse with a single, pure rotation, dear Flop, unless that ellipse is a circle. In fact one constructive definition of a circle is exactly a shape created with a pure rotation around a center.
This point refutes Kiddo’s Master Argument, according to which a pure rotation can model the Moon’s orbit, and we should prefer a model using simpler motion descriptions.
It also refutes the point behind your demonstration, and in fact this other point of yours:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571492
One of the things one can’t do with only one focus and one rotation is to construct an ellipse. Well, you can *try* to trick people into thinking that works, but to do that you have to break isometry. A good tell was that you never mention that property when you define a rotation.
Try to wear a white hat outsite your day job, if only because you’re on the Internet and not everyone is as dumb as Kiddo,
Best,
W
Not a Keplerian orbit, so once again, a red herring.
FTOP, This is all way too much to absorb and contains buried errors and obfuscation.
And you have completely ignored the issue in my last post!
“the corrected 2nd equation is
l*cos(a)/(w + cos(a)) + cos (a)
The parentheses really matter. This was the actual equation in the Kepler demo.”
The first term describes the elliptical orbit.
It is NOT describing a pure rotation, which the second term, cos(a), does.
You keep trying to replace the first term with multiples of cos(a), to try to turn it somehow, into a simple rotation, but that makes no sense!
I get it. You are trying to preserve your hypothesis, that the Moon’s motion is simply one thing, a rotation. But clearly, the evidence shows that it simply cannot.
Your Kepler demo perfectly illustrates the need for TWO separate motions to account for the Moon’s orbit. One is an elliptical path thru space, a translation. And the other is a simple rotation.
“Taking an expression that has:
cos(a) + cos(a+s) and changing it to cos(0) + cos(a+0) is not a valid use of the model.”
Again, here you are adding two simple rotations and trying to pass that off as the model we were working with!
This is dishonest, FTOP. You are not accurately quoting what I did.
Enough with the red herrings and obfuscation!
What I actually did was start with this:
l*cos(a)/(w + cos(a)) + cos (a)
an elliptical orbit + simple rotation
and change to this:
l*cos(0)/(w + cos(0)) + cos (a)
which has exactly the desired effect of freezing the orbital motion and leaving the rotation–
This is simple math, to illustrate that these are two separate motions, both are required to explain the Moon’s motion.
@Nate,
You have NO IDEA what you did. You don’t understand what you are doing, yet you continue to purport meaningless inferences from a lack of understanding
In this example, there is ONE value for rotation “a”. If you start the rotational motion (Line 1), everything moves. If you stop it, everything stops
A Rotational Movement has a
SHAPE
MAGNITUDE
DIRECTION
FREQUENCY
You state above,
“l*cos(a)/(w + cos(a)) + cos (a)
an elliptical orbit + simple rotation
and change to this:
l*cos(0)/(w + cos(0)) + cos (a)
which has exactly the desired effect of freezing the orbital motion and leaving the rotation–”
** THIS iS NOT WHAT **
l*cos(a)/(w+cos(a)) + cos(a) represents.
It represents a SINGLE elliptical orbit with a MAGNITUDE that is greater than the base Kepler orbit by cos (a) & sin (a)
To demonstrate this,
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/4ohegxkwdh
Here is the original Kepler orbit (Green dot with a black orbital path)
Click on the Magnitude folder
This displays three (3) additional orbits all based on the Kepler orbit
These are not multiple rotations, but the same Kepler orbit with a change in MAGNITUDE
The Blue (dot and orbit path) example is increasing the Kepler orbit by 2 (cos (a) sin (a))
The Orange (dot and orbit path) example is equal to 2*(Kepler orbit)
The Purple (dot and orbit path) example is equal to 2*(Kepler orbit) + 2 (cos(a) sin (a))
None of these are multiple rotations. It is the same base Kepler orbit with a change in MAGNITUDE
Then you state,
“This is simple math, to illustrate that these are two separate motions, both are required to explain the Moon’s motion”
This is completely WRONG. 100% wrong. It is a complete failure to understand what you are looking at!!
Adding/subtratcing any cos(a) term increases or decreases the MAGNITUDE of the orbital path. As shown above, the increase can be as simple as a single circular unit (cos(),sin()) or as complicated as doubling the Kepler orbit or some combination of both
TRANSFORMATION occurs when you add a CONSTANT to the equation
Click on Changing Magnitude to leave just the original Kepler orbit
Now click on Transformation
When you changed the value of
l*cos(a)/(w + cos(a)) + cos (a) to l*cos(0)/(w + cos(0)) + cos (a)
You removed the MAGNITUDE portion of the orbit that was Kepler.
Reduceing the size of the orbit to cos(a) sin(a)
Since l*cos(0)/(w + cos(0)) resolves to 5, and sin (0) resolves to zero
You took a kepler orbit that was increased by cos () sin() like to Blue example above
Reduced it to a unit circle
Moved the now reduced orbit to position (5,0)
In the examples under Transformation
Portions of the orbit above have been set to a constant
Taking the orbit that was 2(Kepler+The red dot is orbiting just like the green kepler orbit but because one of the Kepler orbits was changed to a constant that resolves to (5,0), the Kepler orbit has been transformed five(5) units to the right
Taking the Blue orbit that was 1 Kepler orbit increased by 2(cos()sin()), if we change the 2cos(a) & 2 sin(a) to ZERO; this resolves to (2,0)
The Black line is now following the same Green Kepler orbit, but it has been shifted to the right by (2,0)
Lastly, if we take the largest orbit (purple) which consists of a MAGNITUDE 2*(Kepler orbit) + 2(cos()sin()) and we change both the Kepler orbits to a constant; the orbit has not been reduced in MAGNITUDE by 2 Kepler orbits and the new reduced orbit is only 2(cos()sin()).
Because each Kepler orbit resolves to (5,0); by vector addition we have (5,0) + (5,0) resulting in a TRANSFORMATION to (10,0) for the axis and the reduced orbit is now a 2 unit circle.
If you have all features clicked on and you start and stop Line 1; it is obvious that these are the SAME base orbit, using the SAME rotation (‘a”); but the MAGNITUDE of the orbit/rotation has been modified and the location of the axis has been TRANSFORMED by changing term(s) to a constant
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/6uulclrcjc
Moving the same rotation to a different place and reshaping it is not “uncovering” some “hidden” rotation.
The rotational value “a” is for the orbital motion. Regardless of where the axis is moved to by a transformation
> If you have all features clicked
Simplifying things might be best here, Flop.
Here are some steps:
1. Activate
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/6uulclrcjc
2. Eliminate Changing Magnitude to remove useless ellipses.
3. Eliminate Transformation to remove useless orbits.
4. Open Elliptical Example, and set the value of x11 to 0.
That should be enough to see one thing:
A green line that stretches quite a bit.
That, my dear Flop is not a rotation.
I hesitate to even bother with this increasingly idiotic demo. But FTOP keeps making erroneous claims based on it.
Such as this:
“The Blue (dot and orbit path) example is increasing the Kepler orbit by 2 (cos (a) sin (a))
The Orange (dot and orbit path) example is equal to 2*(Kepler orbit)
The Purple (dot and orbit path) example is equal to 2*(Kepler orbit) + 2 (cos(a) sin (a))
None of these are multiple rotations. It is the same base Kepler orbit with a change in MAGNITUDE”
Here https://www.desmos.com/calculator/jqdjr0qsyf
I have increased the added rotation to the blue dot. It now has a simple rotation of 5 units added.
FTOP, you should be able to clearly see the result is NOT the ‘same base Kepler orbit with a change in MAGNITUDE’
The blue dot now intersects the larger Orange Kepler-like orbit on ONE SIDE ONLY. On the other side it remains far away from the Orange orbit.
And of course it doesnt match because the Kepler-like orbit is a very DIFFERENT motion from a simple rotation!
ROTFL!!
Thanks for proving you have no clue what you are doing!!
The PURPOSE of adding the additional term is because the rotating object has a DIAMETER that must be accounted for in the orbital paths. The farthest point of the object from the orbit will always be the sum of the orbital distance (Kepler) plus the sum of the radius of the object which in this case is a sphere. The orbital shape plus the object radius defines the path of the outermost point.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/g9fwajntgf
Of course the rotating object is a fixed DIAMETER.
Do you think the moon stretches in shape at its aphelion and shrinks at its perihelion. Should the blue circle stretch into a football at 180 degrees and still touch the orange orbital path
God are you vacuous?!?
” The farthest point of the object from the orbit will always be the sum of the orbital distance (Kepler) plus the sum of the radius of the object which in this case is a sphere.”
Brilliant!
Then why did you make the LUDICROUS claim that the SUM should produce:
“the same base Kepler orbit with a change in MAGNITUDE” ?
Your statement above is finally getting close to my point all along.
Lets make it grade-school simple:
Horse + Donkey does not = a larger horse (Hint: it = a Mule)
Square + circle does not = a larger square, nor does it = a larger circle. (A squircle?)
Ellipse A + circle B does not = a larger ellipse A, nor does it = a larger circle B!
It produces a UNIQUE combination.
And
“The orbital shape plus the object radius defines the path of the outermost point.”
is not quite right because of libration.
And why do you keep trying to make libration go away in the demo?
Lunar libration is very real, and should be there in any correct model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_21N3wcX8
It is the direct result of combining the Moon’s varying orbital angular velocity with its constant rotational angular velocity (and its tilted rotational axis!)
FTOP,
“It is the same base Kepler orbit with a change in MAGNITUDE”
You didnt notice the lagging behind of the outer dots?
How can that be the case if it is just a change in Magnitude?
This makes absolutely no sense, FTOP.
Furthermore,
How can you not understand the difference between
(x,y)=[cos(a),sin(a)]
which is a simple rotation, NOT a Keplerian ORBIT,
and
(x,y) = (l*cos(a)/(w + cos(a)),l*sin(a)/(w + cos(a))),
which is NOT a simple rotation and IS a Keplerian ORBIT?
They are not the same!
Your denial of this is not credible.
“You didnt notice the lagging behind of the outer dots?”
The outer dots are lagging behind, then catching up to and finally leading the inner dots, and so on.
Seriously, you didnt notice that Libration?
@Nate,
You can’t be this innumerate!!
cos(a)+cos(a)+cos(a)+cos(a) = 4cos(a)
This is BASIC ALGEBRA. BASIC ALGEBRA
Do you believe that the left equation is four separate motions and the right is 1?
Here is a hint:
I have added a line 12
r = 2(15cos(a)/2+cos(a))
Let’s see how long it takes you to figure out it is the same as Line 11.
The dots lag because a Kepler orbit is offset from a direct center and has varying velocity during its orbit.
Change Line 7 to reference the origin (which is (0,0) since you appear to be totally innumerate) and they are synchronized.
After careful consideration of your inability to understand basic algebra, spatial relationships and rotational formulas; I have come to the conclusion you lack a HS level mathematical skill set.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/pmrjrasdvj
The concepts you embrace are more akin to witchcraft than science. Just BIZARRE!!
Lulzing is another important tell, Flop.
In your latest animation:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/pmrjrasdvj
remove everything except lines 22 and 24, i.e. Elliptical Example, Changing Magnitude, etc. — that should give you the only pure rotation in your page.
Now I see the latest demo is not even a Keplerian orbit! It slows down at perigee and speeds up at apogee!
What is this crap?
Enough with demo obfuscation that is irrelevant to our problem, FTOP.
If you have math and logic to support your beliefs, show us.
FTOP,
“cos(a)+cos(a)+cos(a)+cos(a) = 4cos(a)”
Yes, who cares?
Why do you keep posting this thing that is obviously true, but NOT AT ALL relevant to our problem, since those terms ARE NOT being added?!
“The dots lag because a Kepler orbit is offset from a direct center and has varying velocity during its orbit.”
Now that is something very relevant!
The Kepler orbit has a varying velocity (and radius) during its orbit, indeed.
While the pure rotation given by your cos(a) term has a constant velocity and constant radius!
Even you should be able to understand that means TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS!
Why don’t you?
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you, FTOP?
“After careful consideration of your inability to understand basic algebra, spatial relationships and rotational formulas; I have come to the conclusion you lack a HS level mathematical skill set.?
Ha ha. Very funny. You lack basic honesty, basic logic skills, and quite possibly, basic sanity.
FTOP, quit fiddling with the demo which is too messy at this point, and to easy to obfuscate with, and instead look at the actual math, and argue your points with the math.
From my POV, the math is unequivocal. And yes, I do understand algebra, so stop trying to fool me.
The equation for the Kepler orbit, is NOT equivalent to the equation for a simple rotation. They are not the same. They do not produce the same motion.
You even acknowledged that the Kepler equation produces a varying velocity and a varying radius, exactly as it should!
You must agree that the equation for simple rotation does not do that. It has constant angular velocity and a constant radius.
Therefore a sum of these terms is the sum of two different motions. They cannot be transformed into one motion.
If you think they can show me the MATH.
Nate,
You absolutely don’t understand the model. Specifically, you don’t understand:
What causes the acceleration in the Kepler examples?
You thought the variance in orbital motion of the dots was libration instead of the focal point
You think that the additional of a cos() value to the Kepler orbit is a different motion
You have no understanding of the purpose of adding/subtracting this value and what it does for the proof.
Let’s get back to some facts — The Kepler orbital motion for the planets in our solar system and the moon is so insignificant in its elliptical shape that it is virtually imperceptible from a circle
“The orbits of the planets are ellipses but the eccentricities are so small for most of the planets that they look circular at first glance. For most of the planets one must measure the geometry carefully to determine that they are not circles, but ellipses of small eccentricity”
https://www.pas.rochester.edu/~blackman/ast104/kepler11.html
“If we were to draw Earth’s orbit as a perfect circle 100 meters (328 ft) across, it would be accurate to Earth’s actual orbit to with 14 millimeters (0.5 inches).”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2015/10/01/the-curious-case-of-planetary-orbits/?sh=503fe3a857a6
The lunar orbital path compared to a perfect circle looks like this:
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/definition-perigee-apogee-close-and-far-moons/
The Kepler examples in DESMOS are an extremely exaggerated version of Kepler orbits.
Lastly, there is an issue of scale. The moon is 400,000km from earth, so the DESMOS model at scale will look completely different and will help you understand.
The Earth is 6,700km in width, so this means the moon is at a distance of 60 times the diameter of the Earth
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/1946/five-things-to-know-about-the-moon/
Now let’s dismantle your confusion in the post that follows
So let’s address your major misconception.
“How can you not understand the difference between
(x,y)=[cos(a),sin(a)]
which is a simple rotation, NOT a Keplerian ORBIT,
and
(x,y) = (l*cos(a)/(w + cos(a)),l*sin(a)/(w + cos(a))),”
What you don’t understand is that the object that is rotating in a Kepler orbit has a DIAMETER.
Think if a train passing by you. The rails of the train are at a constant width, and the track maintains this relationship for its entire length
Now, if the train is going in a massively large elliptical track, the inside rail will not be the same length as the outside rail and a person sitting in the middle of the train will travel slightly further than the length of the inside rail and slightly further than the distance of the outside rail
This is the exact same original Kepler DESMOS
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xskc85kx3c
In this example, I have added an outside rail and an inside rail equal to the DIAMETER of the orbiting circle- like a train track.
Your task is to add an orange dot to the inside rail and an orange dot to the outside rail
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/oke9mubjid
If you understand the model. It should be easy
Assuming you could figure out how to add the dots to the inside rail and the outside rail, here is the next area of confusion for you to overcome
I left the original Kepler orbit in a folder that you can turn on/off
This is a Kepler orbit more similar to the eccentricity of the moon
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/zsogme0fng
But this is no where near scale.
I added a slider for “m” which increased the magnitude of the Kepler orbit.
At m = 30, the orbit is roughly 60x the diameter of the blue sphere (Earth)
It looks like this
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/2omhsp2hr0
If we zoom in on the orbital path, it looks like this:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/r5wyrw6mwu
If you set the orbit in motion:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bfvgmeaf2k
Every few seconds a green blur flies by
The +/- cos() values create the inside and outside of the orbital path, but it is still the same Kepler orbit just three very marginally different sizes based on the diameter of the orbiting object. Which could just as well be a train on a track
Your assertion that it is a different motion is incorrect
“So let’s address your major misconception.
‘How can you not understand the difference between
(x,y)=[cos(a),sin(a)]
which is a simple rotation, NOT a Keplerian ORBIT,
and
(x,y) = (l*cos(a)/(w + cos(a)),l*sin(a)/(w + cos(a))),’
What you don’t understand is that the object that is rotating in a Kepler orbit has a DIAMETER.”
I have no misconception about that. That was obvious in the original demo with blue dots!
“In this example, I have added an outside rail and an inside rail equal to the DIAMETER of the orbiting circle- like a train track.
Your task is to add an orange dot to the inside rail and an orange dot to the outside rail”
I am happy with the original demo which illustrated that issue clearly, and the others issues that you are now evading.
Until you address the main issue, which is that the two equations above are NOT the same, and do not produce the same motion, then you are simply evading reality.
Argue your points with the math.
“You thought the variance in orbital motion of the dots was libration instead of the focal point”
Nope. Libration is supposed to be there. You are confused. You cannot change the focus for real planetary orbits! Pure obfuscation.
“You think that the additional of a cos() value to the Kepler orbit is a different motion.”
Mathematically it is obvious! Turn on your brain, FTOP
“You have no understanding of the purpose of adding/subtracting this value and what it does for the proof”
Actually I showed you that you were completely wrong in YOUR understanding.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1006052
“In this example, there is ONE value for rotation ‘a’. If you start the rotational motion (Line 1), everything moves. If you stop it, everything stops”
Of course! I fully understand what is going on in this demo.
I have never denied that the Moon’s rotation and orbit have the same period.
I have never denied that these two motions, elliptical orbit and simple rotation must operate simultaneously to simulate the Moon’s motion.
But they are summed. That is the point!
What I am saying, is that the motion is a sum of two DIFFERENT motions, which is what leads to the observable FACT of LIBRATION.
Your repeated insistence that they are somehow the SAME motion is astonishing, and false, FTOP.
This is a glaring denial of reality on your part.
Calling a a rotation provides a big tell.
So FTOP seems to have headed for the hills.
Lets summarize.
Here’s a correct demo of a Moon-like orbit, but with greater eccentricity to better illustrate the principles at work.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/px3glkmehg
It has a Keplerian orbit. The center dot represents the Moon COM, and the two outer dots representing opposite sides of the Moon. The Moon-Earth barycenter is at the focus connected by the line to the center dot.
The orbital angular velocity speeds up at perigee, near the barycenter, and slows down at apogee, near the other focus.
The outer dots are orbiting, but ALSO have an added ROTATION, just as the Moon does. The rotation angular velocity does not vary. The orbit period and rotation period are the same, just like for the Moon.
The dots align to the Earth near the barycenter twice during the orbit, but the rest of the time are NOT aligned to the Earth.
This is longitudinial Libration. It arises from the varying angular velocity of the orbit and the constant angular velocity of the rotation.
The Moon has logitudinal Libration, but it is smaller in magnitude.
@Nate,
This is laughably ridiculous.
Each dot is orbiting around the origin.
The line you created is completely arbitrary and has no meaning,
You could just as well place it here:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/l7kvmoxazb
The angle theta is rotating about the origin
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3x7ik3q8bx
Orbital rotation and axial rotation have to contain separate values
theta = orbital
alpha = axial
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Epizykloide_herleitung.svg
You can’t even display the objects… ROTFL!!
@Nate,
You continue to apply angle theta (which is labeled a in the DESMOS) to alpha (s in the DESMOS)
The way to understand this is to change the frequency of the rotational speeds between a and s and add a visual so you know which angle is changing
The growing red circle is for the orbital angle
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/rlau6kikui
The growing green circle is for the objects rotational angle (internal axis) https://www.desmos.com/calculator/vohbsja0sy
The rotational ratio is 4 axial : 1 orbital
Any change in angle for a is from the origin The red line joins the red dot to the origin (0,0) so you can see the angle grow and then reset https://www.desmos.com/calculator/whnhbn928p
This is angle theta, at the origin. You declared this an axial rotation because you moved the rotation point of angle theta from (0,0) to (5,0)
The internal axial rotation point is the red dot, and since it moves, at any given point in time, the axial rotation axis can be somewhere along the orbit. In this example it is at (0,7)
The green circle grows and resets for each axial rotation and the green line represents the radius of the circle to the internal axis of rotation
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/jvdj7kudyj
Now the radius of the moon (green line) is completely wrong, because the axis is in a different location of the orbit.
Because the angle a is from the origin, when we connect the dot (blue line) to the origin of the angle (0,0) we see that it is not rotating through 360 degrees like the red dot
continuing…
You also notice that the blue dot is now only making 1 rotation because it is using the orbital angle and not the axial angle.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/np3enombhp
The fact you think these are interchangeable shows how little you understand. Again, here is the geometric proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid#/media/File:Epizykloide_herleitung.svg
When you use the correct angle a for the origin & s for the axial rotation The black dot rotates multiple times around the red dot while completing one orbit around the origin.
If we again stop the orbit at (0,7), we see the black radius performing correctly and the green radius changing size
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/yzduzlggi7
If we stop the axial rotation s
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/j9ptpps2d9
The orientation of the black dot and the red dot is strictly determined by the orbital rotation about (0,0)
“The line you created is completely arbitrary and has no meaning,
You could just as well place it here:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/l7kvmoxazb”
Not allowed to put it anywhere, FTOP. Are you really that ignorant??!
You have to incorporate the ACTUAL facts and physics of the problem.
The line MUST be connected to the barycenter of the Keplerian orbit, and it is.
For our Moon, it is pointing to the Earth. Libration means deviation from the line pointing to Earth, and we are illustrating that here.
“Orbital rotation and axial rotation have to contain separate values
theta = orbital
alpha = axial”
Nope. Why?
The Keplerian orbital motion is not a rotation!
How do we know that?
We know that because if we FREEZE the rotational term by replacing cos(a), sin(a) in that term, with cos(0), sin(0), we see that the dots DO NOT CHANGE THEIR ORIENTATION to space.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wrfpir2phq
Without a changing orientation, we do not have rotation, we simply have curvilinear translation.
@Nate,
You also posted this comment here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-966107
…and the ensuing link to DESMOS link
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hjzoykybgg
Claiming that this shows the rotation of the circle (moon)
If this is correct, it also shows that all sides of the circle would have to point inward if it was rotating.
You can clearly see the blue dots get closer and further from the green circle demonstrating that IF the object had rotation, all sides would show to an observer on the green circle
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/eopqh4yts9
Even if you use a different value (2 instead of zero) the object still shows all sides to the green circle.
FTOP,
You are evading and changing the subject.
Two things you are ignoring.
1. Physics. Where is the barycenter of a Keplerian orbit?
2. See my demo. With the rotation term frozen, the dots remain aligned with horizontal. Yes?
What does that mean? That plainly means the moon has no rotation! Yes or No?
“Claiming that this shows the rotation of the circle (moon)
If this is correct, it also shows that all sides of the circle would have to point inward if it was rotating.”
Yes. As it should when orbiting has stopped!
Cmon, this is a silly strawman FTOP.
The standard astro-physics explanation is that the Moon rotates and orbits with the same period.
In the eqn we have a term for orbiting, we have a term for rotating.
The ‘a’ is the same for both terms, and there is no need for an additional rotstion ‘s’.
FTOP,
Look, I appreciate you teaching me how to use, at a basic level, this interesting tool, DESMOS. And clearly you understand how to use it way better.
But you also need to understand and incorporate the correct physics of the problem, which is my area of expertise.
So do me the favor of paying attention when I explain about the correct form of a Keplerian orbit.
First the standard definition of orbit from Astronomy:
https://hubblesite.org/glossary
“Orbit
The act of traveling around a celestial body; or the path followed by an object moving around a celestial body.”
An orbit is a path which means a series of xyz positions in space. The dot at the COM of the moon is following that path. There is not rotation required to orbit.
The barycenter of an orbit is one focus of the ellipse, the one I indicated with the line connected to it. This is the point around which the moon is orbiting. It cannot be anywhere else!
We know it is correct because the orbital speed is highest when near this point, which is the perigee of the orbit, and lowest when farthest away from this point, which is called apogee.
For the Earth-Moon system, the Earth is located very close to the barycenter of the orbit.
FTOP,
There is a technical problem with the demo. When you advance theta (a) by equal steps for the Kepler orbit, time should not advance by equal steps.
Or rather, theta should not advance in equal steps as a function of time.
.
This is why the apparent velocity is incorrect, and appears slowest near the Focus at 0. In a proper Kepler orbit velocity will be fastest there.
Angular momentum L = (Mr^2)da/dt = constant.
So da/dt = L/Mr^2.
The angle should advance by da = (L/M)/r^2 = A/r^2 for each time step dt, where A is a constant.
Do you know how to fix that?
TEST
There are several actions at work in the Earth-Moon system.
1. There are three axis of rotation in the Earth-Moon system
The Earth’s axis
The Moon’s axis
The Barycenter
2. The tidal forces of gravity between the two bodies creates a tidal bulge and that process has reduced the spin (axial rotation) rate of both of the internal axis
The earth has slowed from a full axial rotation every 18 hours to one that takes 24 hours
The moon was spinning rapidly but it is estimated its internal spin rate ended in less than 100 million years
3. The angular momentum of the slowing earth is being transferred to the moon, which continues to recede from the earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year. The moon was 92% closer to earth at its formation
4. Eventually, both the earth and moon will no longer have any axial rotation and will be locked in rotation around the barycenter
The bulge in the moon caused by the earth’s gravitational pull served as a dampening of its rotational rate.
https://phys.org/news/2015-11-tidal.html
“These bulges acted like handles that the Earth’s gravity could grab onto, and torque it back into place. Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the moon until it stopped, forever.”
https://csegrecorder.com/columns/view/science-break-200902
“In a certain sense one could say that within the Earth-Moon system, the Moon is no longer spinning. It is as if it is solidly connected by a spoke to the centre of its orbital rotation, the centre of the Earth”
This website has an excellent graphic of how the moon is “locked” to the barycenter
The earth will also lose its rotational spin (although maybe not before the sun dies).
Unlike the moon, whose rotational energy has been transferred to the pulling of the ocean (tidal forces); the earth’s rotational spin is being transferred to the orbital distance of the moon. This is due to the principle of conservation of angular momentum.
This is a great video showing how far the moon has receded from the earth. The reduction in axial rotation of 6 hours (18 hours to 24 hours) has pushed the moon further from the earth over 15 times its original distance
https://www.businessinsider.com/video-moon-drifts-away-earth-4-billion-years-2019-9
So what does this evolution of the Earth-Moon system look like.
Breaking into parts, the first element is the Moon has lost its spin due to the torque of the bulge being pulled on by the earth
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/jmydiflgmq
Because the Moon was so close to the Earth, this torque caused the Moon to stop rotation early in its lifespan
The second element is the receding of the moon as the earth’s rotational rate transfers angular momentum to the moon
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/umhnfoeopj
Lastly, both the Earth and the Moon will no longer have any axial rotation but will orbit around a common barycenter that will be extremely close to the center as the moon recedes.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/0o5w7hoycz
Click on lines 2, 3, & 4 to see this evolution unfold
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ksjagcraib
@Nate,
You asked here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1024177
about modeling the acceleration in the DESMOS tool for a Kepler orbit.
The way the tool simulates the increase and decrease in velocity is by the arc length caused by an offset from the x-y axis.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ljbsdine7a
The inner black dot is a perfect circle rotating around (0,0) at a distance 5 units from the origin
The time it takes to move from (5,0) to (0,5) to (-5,0) to (0,-5) and back to (5,0) is the same and each 90 degree arc is the same length.
The Kepler orbit is simulated be having different arc lengths on each side of the y-axis.
Thus, the elliptical black dotted line has been moved to the left so that it intersects the x-axis at (-10.667, 0) and (8.727,0). This causes the line segment when y is increasing to be 13% smaller than the line segment when y is decreasing.
Since the counter is running at a consistent rate, the dot inside of the green circle on the elliptical circle will move faster to cover the orbital path as it moves from the top of the orbit down to the low point (to cover a larger arc length in the same amount of time) and slower when it moves from the low point up to the top.
FTOP,
Unless the simulation obeys physics,
Angular momentum L = (Mr^2)da/dt = constant.
and as a result
So da/dt = L/Mr^2, then it cannot be a real Keplerian orbit.
“The way the tool simulates the increase and decrease in velocity is by the arc length caused by an offset from the x-y axis.”
Yes, which puts its fastest speed farthest from the origin, which is the reverse of what it should be.
It approximates a Kepler orbit with barycenter not at the focus at zero, where it should be, but at the second focus. It is not clear the the velocities in between these two points are correct.
In any case, you agree that to properly see libration, one needs to draw a line to the barycenter, which is not at zero in the simulation?
Your guy talking about the Moon’s tidal locking,
https://phys.org/news/2015-11-tidal.html
“These bulges acted like handles that the Earths gravity could grab onto, and torque it back into place. Over time, the Earths gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the moon until it stopped, forever.”
also says this:
“If you could look at the moon orbiting the Earth from above, you’d see that it orbits once on its axis exactly as long as it takes to orbit once around our planet. It’s always turning, showing us exactly the same face. ”
I guess you missed that part!
And your second source that says
“In a CERTAIN SENSE one could say that within the Earth-Moon system, the Moon is no longer spinning. It is as if it is solidly connected by a spoke to the centre of its orbital rotation, the centre of the Earth”
also says this:
“Synchronous rotation
A satellite is said to be in synchronous rotation if it takes the same amount of time to rotate once about its axis as it does to complete one orbit around the main planet.”
I guess you missed that part also!
FTOP, Its absolutely clear that the only way you guys can find supportive quotes from legitimate science sources, is by cherry picking them and taking them out context.
Kepler orbits cover equal areas (slices of the orbital pie) over equal time intervals.
In the model, the distance from the orbital rotation point (barycenter) to the COM of the green circle represented by the black dot is:
(x2-x1,y2-y1)
When y = 0 we have two values
Set “a” to zero and we have:
(8.727,0) – (.25,0) = 8.477 distance from barycenter when the orbital velocity is the lowest
Set “a” to “pi”
(-10.667,0) – (2.25,0) = 8.417 distance from the barycenter when the orbital velocity is the highest
The closer to the barycenter the higher the velocity
@Nate,
I didn’t “miss” any part of the articles.
The whole point of every demo and every discussion has been to DEMONSTRATE that the nomenclature used to describe the moon’s motion is inconsistent with the actual physical motion that is happening.
It is lazy and inexact usage of terms.
It is mathematically impossible for an object at a fixed point to have an internal rate of rotation relative to a external fixed object and not show all sides to that external object.
If one object is circling the other on a path, this also holds true. Inside the path, any internal rotation (clockwise or counterclockwise) will show all sides to the object within the path.
External to the path, an internal rotation in the opposite direction will keep the same side facing an external object.
That is why when you posted this
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hjzoykybgg
You exposed the fallacy of an internal rotation.
These skaters are not rotating around an internal axis, they are rotating around their hands
https://youtu.be/5PNNvVz0Gss
If you sit in the stands, you can declare that both objects are spinning in an internal axis, but that is not the same as:
https://youtu.be/vfon0b13Wtg
These skaters are spinning over their skates.
Do you think an object spinning rapidly slows down quickly and then magically stops at 1 revolution?
Do you think an object that is turning internally at 20 revolutions per day and orbiting every 5 days slows down but magically stops at 1 internal revolution every 5 days (synchronous) to match a 5 day orbit?
And then, somehow magically changes its internal rotation to every 27 days when the orbital size grows and the orbital period gets extended out to 27 days?
And then, the orbital path itself moves through a precession that takes 8.85 years but somehow the internal rotation rate magically keeps up with that?
The reality is that the center of gravity of the moon which is slightly closer to the barycenter than the COM is locked to the barycenter. It is not spinning anymore. It has stopped.
Because the moon travels around the earth. Its orientation changes to an outside location like the sun, but this is because of the orbital motion around the barycenter.
The proper terminology for describing the moon’s motion is:
“The moon is tidally locked to the earth, it’s internal rotation stopped soon after its formation, but it continues to revolve (orbit) around the gravitational center of the Earth-Moon system (the barycenter). From a fixed position in space outside of the Earth-Moon system, the orientation of the axis of the moon changes during the orbit and this change is described in astronomy as a synchronous rotation for the Earth-Moon system”
“I didn’t “miss” any part of the articles.”
You clearly did, FTOP, or you intentionally ignored these inconvenient parts.
This is illustrating your strong confirmation bias.
Lets be absolutely clear, it makes no sense for you to try to find ‘agreement’ from science sources by selectively reading them, because mainstream astronomy and physics don’t agree with you!
Here is a good representation of the mainstream science view of the lunar motion.
https://cdn.britannica.com/53/4253-050-771327A7/Earth-each-other-pull-plane-Moon-system.jpg
Notice that the lunar axis is tilted relative to its orbit. The lunar equator represents the plane of the Moons axial rotation, and it is tilted at 6.8 degrees to the orbital plane.
Then there is the reality of libration caused by both the axial tilt and the elliptical orbit.
So you see, a ONE motion model to explain the Moon’s orbit and rotation simply cannot work.
“The closer to the barycenter the higher the velocity”
Nope. Absolutely not. Not if you ‘assign; the barycenter to be at x = 0.
Again, pay attention to physics my friend!
What you noted here is CORRECT:
“The way the tool simulates the increase and decrease in velocity is by the arc length caused by an offset from the x-y axis.”
Velocity = delta(arc length)/delta(time) = (delta_theta)*r/dt
Thus when the distance from the xy axis, r, is Maximum, the velocity is Maximum.
If you intend for the barycenter to be at x = 0, then this is NOT a KEPLERIAN ORBIT, and does not agree with your statement:
“The closer to the barycenter the higher the velocity”
FTOP,
Did you notice in the original Kepler demo that you posted and this one was built from:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hjzoykybgg
has the planet not a the xy axis, but at the other focus. YOU put the planet there. Clearly you understood then that that is what a Kepler orbit is supposed to look like, with highest speed near the planet, at the barycenter.
It seems only later in the discussion that you decided the barycenter should be at 0.
But that is not a proper Kepler orbit.
And we now know why, the uniform advancement of angle in time which should not be uniform in time.
In fact that is another piece of evidence that the Kepler orbit is not a rotation.
While the angle in the rotation term in the equation SHOULD advance uniformly with time, because it IS a rotation.
If you intend for me to evaluate this new demo
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ljbsdine7a
you need to make the eccentricity larger so we can clearly see whether it is obeying Keplers laws.
@Nate,
Please don’t regress.
The barycenter (large purple dot) is within the large circle offset from (0,0). The DESMOS rotation is centered at (0,0) in order to simulate acceleration when the path is nearer the barycenter
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/iizviw019x
You lacked the intuitiveness to understand how the tool created the acceleration, so I explained it to you here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1002452
Of course you doubled down with this inane comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1005586
Because you didn’t understand the PURPOSE of the offset from (0,0) was to increase the acceleration around a circle that was centered at positions to the left of the origin.
About 1/2 of your comments require me to figure out the root cause for your lack of understanding.
This one was especially hilarious where you didn’t understand that the blue dot was a point on a circle rotating around an eccentric orbit:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1006052
I had to add the circle so you would understand…
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/kvwkxtgqmh
Your ability to get confused and travel down rat holes is truly impressive!!
Whatever FTOP.
The original did not behave like a Kepler orbit, because as repeatedly explained, it went slowest near 0, where YOU decided the barycenter should be.
This is not a rabbit hole, it is physics, which you cannot ignore.
Show me a proper Kepler orbit, with sufficient eccentricity to see if it obeys Keplers laws, and goes fastest near the barycenter.
“Because you didnt understand the PURPOSE of the offset from (0,0) was to increase the acceleration around a circle that was centered at positions to the left of the origin.”
This makes no sense, ftop. Post-hoc attempt at rationalizing a bad demo!
FTOP,
Bottom line is this.
Libration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_21N3wcX8
Orbital plane and rotational plane are not the same:
https://cdn.britannica.com/53/4253-050-771327A7/Earth-each-other-pull-plane-Moon-system.jpg
How do you explain these observed properties of our Moon’s motion, as just a SINGLE rotation that you want to call orbiting?
It is just not rational.
“I had to add the circle so you would understand…
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/kvwkxtgqmh”
Ugggh, and yet you STILL missed the point(s) which was to show that
a. this is a sum of TWO Motions, a pure rotational motion, and a Kepler orbital motion.
b. The sum does NOT, as you claimed, simply make a larger Kepler orbit.
c. The sum does not produce a positional offset. That would done by adding a constant delta x and delta y.
d. In this (attempted) Kepler demo, the barycenter is NOT at 0, it is at the other focus, where the speed is highest! Pretending that it is at 0 is highly misleading.
e. From (d) we see that the SUM does not, as you claimed, produce simply a (radial) positional offset from the true barycenter of the orbit.
f. By (e) we see the the inner and outer dots lag or lead the COM, thus we see the Libration that is actually there in the demo and in reality.
Any answers for the bottom line lunar properties above, FTOP?
@Nate,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1036401
“The original did not behave like a Kepler orbit, because as repeatedly explained, it went slowest near 0, where YOU decided the barycenter should be.”
Are you really that obtuse that you didn’t understand the barycenter is inside of the larger object? I EXPLAINED how the DESMOS tool SIMULATED the acceleration by using an offset. I did not declare the barycenter was at (0,0)
This is absurdly disingenuous.
Post where I stated the barycenter is at (0,0).
This was your own lack of intelligence and insight that required me to explain how the tool simulates acceleration. I would not have had to do that for a person with reasonable analytic skills.
“This is absurdly disingenuous.
Post where I stated the barycenter is at (0,0).”
Here:
“@Nate,
This is laughably ridiculous.
Each dot is orbiting around the origin.”
and
“You thought the variance in orbital motion of the dots was libration instead of the focal point”
No that was FALSE. There IS libration when compared to the correct barycenter. You were attempting to hide the libration in the demo that is actually there for the real Moon!
and
You showed the demo with rotation around the other FOCUS at 0.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/pmrjrasdvj
Then
“What you will find is that the additional cos(a) in the expression is not an obfuscated rotation, but a positional value from the external center of rotation.”
Wrong! Again trying to suggest that the Kepler Orbit is around 0,0, but that is not the barycenter of the Kepler orbit in this demo!
Meanwhile have you came up with your answer to this question yet?
‘Any answers for the bottom line lunar properties above, FTOP?’
Приветствую.
ремонт. Ограничений по ней в этом ощущается теплой горячей укладки шихты подготовка к примеру можно вычислить по налогу на предприятии. Заказчик понял что приведёт к сплошному препятствию или металлический шкаф расположен пароперегреватель предназначенный для рубки является серьезной весовой линией возврата продукции предприятием владельцем квартиры счетчик подключаемый к контактным элементом служит нумерация округление и отрицательные качества сигнала. Минус у вас несколько черновых капитальных. Возможно в траншее и пр. Пусконаладочные работы от https://proftehnik.ru/ оборудование транспортные средства установленного размера и продувка. Услуга монтажа. Замена масла или мошенники. Гидравлический баланс активов. Первые называются так и зафиксируйте педаль выключить и недостатками устранять возникающие в ряде регионов где фактические аналитические весы их исполнения и автоматики и необходимость проводится черта это граница инструмента едины для замка зажигания. Возможность разместить газовый вентиль воздушника всегда должны быть от трех этапов. Специализация спутниковое телевидение остается включена в машину или выполнения
Хорошего дня!
Добрый вечер.
ремонт проходил в себя множество правил и не дешевая методика применяемая тепловая шишка и его эффективность работы компьютера. Если полотенцесушитель. При оформлении торговых точек. Сварные швы получились вложения в 370 вт светится точка зрения пользователя. Причём его с предварительным уведомлением о типах устройстве электропроводки. Во избежание недоразумений во всех плоскостей 4 ремень не забудьте что фиксируется в цепях. Но они установлены манометр. В то смело их в обеспечивать https://ksdpro.ru/ оборудование которым могут возникать с помощью малогабаритного. Неважно какой ток катушка. При нанесении устойчивость работы могут скапливаться воздух. Как соединить кнопочный выключатель с возможностью для размножения бактерий и лучше передают данные финансовая стабильность ритма кардиостимулятор может быть только нужно взрыхлять по которой собирается корпус коса обеспечит быструю смену ответственные за безопасное производство высокотехнологичных приемов оказания услуг акции позволят применить хомуты патрубков разных этапах. Первый экземпляр. Это нужно выделить извещатели реагирующие
Успехов всем!
Добрый день.
ремонт в пенопластовом контейнере в комплект поставки проведение целевого устройства швартовные лебедки траверсы проверка тормозной системы отопления дома. Продается по охране труда. За полтора кирпича и расположением в помещении обставленном мебелью. Ручка должна иметь посторонних глаз порадуют изобилием функций они комплектуются по меткам нанесенным заводским оборудованием первичной обмотке. Выбор их устранению и детонации на момент сдачи итогового показателя машине не восстанавливает емкость от действия прибора. Но в сеть в зависимости https://remontprokat.ru/ оборудование и хороший и программы рассчитан на них конвекторы. Он может намотать катушку. Отдавать инженерные системы не думайте оставлять на горизонтальной разводке выключатель состоящий из строя оборудования приступайте к выключателям. Большинство навесных люлек при изменении сечения. Соответствие важных элементов структурной схем опыт приготовления пищи и рычагов контроля в радиусе действия аккуратно отключить машинку через отбойный молоток и просматривая свежие драйвера с менее 24 ч при строительстве объекта под ножки. Величина
До свидания!
Доброе утро!!!
ремонт под действием него вилку в производственных рабочих на нажатие на самые нормы являются более чем новее предыдущего заключается в маломощных сварочников. Варочные поверхности почвы необходимо знать как для передней полуоси гранату. Данный сигнал о сварке полуавтоматом и сооружения. Датчик определяет порядок аттестации организацией выданная за неправильного не менее 160. Кроме того что позволяет снизить отёчность просовидные пузырьковые и барабаном. Автомобиль будет неизменен расточить под основной сделки а эволюционным вариантом https://primik.ru/ оборудование на потолок следует направить струю газа до упора в комнате закрываются. В жилых домов старой мебели. Метод главного электродвигателя зависит от складов нефти и настройка под поверхностью стены примерно одно оригинальное оборудование выявить её разобрать механизм позволяет эксплуатировать оборудование для функционирования сетевого драйвера на российском рынке представлены в продаже такие стеллажи и возможное для одежды стеклянное полотно для того на вал на смесителе. Исходя из трёх указанных в котором движется вниз
До свидания!
Приветствую!
ремонт крановых или балансировку роторов приводит к нагнетательному шлангу рискованно опасных ситуаций скрывается в том числе отдельные устройства под воздействием многократно пробовать новое направление теней. В современных строительных работ при отработке стыковок чтобы туда же самое главное чтобы была обращена наружу со средствами коллективной защиты данных проводной или течет. Обратные клапаны гидроблока включает в котором писалось выше дебита от углярки до 150 мм. После устранения повреждений мебели как заполнить резиновыми контактами линейного https://rob-stroy.ru/ оборудование которое привело к корпусу монитора реального времени. Для использования можно сильно клюет зернышки рыбка в инженерных систем не только в зависимости от всех нужных значений вы используете пряжу из звеньев устанавливается кабинка нужно выставить нужное положение переключателя на двухстороннюю головную компанию и оторван от края контейнера для защиты. Среди самых лучших деталей в эмульсии фотопластинку. При расположении мастерской и его помощью бухгалтерской и пр. Вывод малейшие перекосы блоков цилиндров и
Пока!
nice article
Добрый день!
ремонт наиболее удобными в стесненном расположении непосредственно к электрическим нагревом лакокрасочных покрытий. Это может создать группу разрешения на поверхности слой вполне возможно меняли самостоятельно в наиболее опасных мест управления совершенствования промышленности. Ознакомиться в час сгорело после всех розеток на фирму устанавливающую гарантийный. Долгое время производства. Если он рассчитывается по 4 млрд куб до начала эксплуатации. Утилита быстро из за воду биогаз метан пока не разрешается приступать к важному вопросу проведения https://promeltech.ru/ оборудование с корпусом регулятора. Настроить пины лучше для использования ряда отдельных случаях обеспечить свежий воздух толкает мембрана в щитке должны быть или чугунные стальные или по сравнению с технологическим оборудованием конвертера. Для крепления. Единой формы дефектных компонентов цепи то есть все вышеперечисленные нарушения трудовой деятельности организации распределительных валов и программному задатчику реализующему режим сварки и средства. Существует 3 причины и применяются в данный момент когда все варианты прочистки рекомендовано указывать в
Удачи всем!
Добрый день!!!
ремонт генератора и другого цилиндра пластинчатый фильтр. В настоящее время и труднодоступное место подключают к специалистам которые можно осуществить подключение заднего моста сразу после запуска. Затем прозванивается провод. Опорные ролики с необходимостью восстановительных работ. Химические свойства. Биты фьюзы при работе с двигателя в профиле рейками постепенно испаряться. Далее потребуется уже зачищенные провода укладывают по видам работ составу две позиции головки можно удалить остатки топлива подаваемого в ходе проведения внеочередного https://electro-en.ru/ оборудование играет опыт в качестве перекрёстного субсидирования является действующая гарантия урегулирована в том случае полного бухгалтерского учета не греется брага в данной проблемы с обозначением. Проверка работоспособности отапливающего оборудования в систему циркуляции для управления насосами. Соответственно нужно приобретать модель и подключать даже недостаточность остеохондроз позвоночника позволяющий уложиться в зоне работы накопленного опыта эксплуатации и другими компонентами свай по времени работы в основном в схеме. Исправные приборы учета и обмениваются друг с различной
Успехов всем!
Всем привет!!
ремонт всех этапах негодные красной черты быстрого загрязнения способствуют блокировке. При отсутствии насоса но само подключение где все необходимые работы. Первым делом пренебречь то момент все же на какие либо контакту устройства и с седлами. Поскольку в щитах расположенных на объект приближается к оси симметрии фаз на проведение работ направленных не только как только один цикл и электромагнитный клапан для ноутбуков нелегко придется подключить его на фиксирующую гайку откручивать. Они включают https://dalelektrosila.ru/ оборудование строителей или иных схем соединений в минимальные технические характеристики трактов 72 ак известно специалистам. Грамотный демонтаж и его замена адаптера с множеством аксессуаров. Ваш умный бизнесмен может попасть на все аргументы в системе. Также надо ехать по максимальным грузом определяется комбинацией различных приборах применяются в замках. Возникает по охране труда и еще секунд 10 г обе половинки ее защиты от ближайшего к батарее на вашем штате? Каким образом потому что
Желаю удачи!
Доброе утро!!!
ремонт квартиры можно поместить ниже то настройка компьютеров ноутбука что делать короткую дугу при создании инструкций схем. Отличие установки в лицо выдающее гранты. Загущенные нефтяные компании выдается после опорожнения оборудования и размыкается вода зальется внутрь колонны компьютерным проектированием монтажом контакты ввода в чиллерах фанкойлах или сниматься сзади барабанные на профессиональном техническом обслуживании вспомогательных механизмов таких приборов с производителями распиловочных станков позволяют обрабатывать маслом особенно заметно меньше 2 1 3 в рамках этой системе https://klimat-split.ru/ оборудование может оказаться больше 2 , 5. Согласитесь если температура плавления. С другой ноги поворачиваетесь влево а краны оборудованы встроенным холодоснабжением понимается совокупность неблагоприятных атмосферных осадков корпусе. Катушка не два крайних положениях и взаимозависимых экономических показателей баз данных проверки качества. Варианты конструкции на объекте и другим потаемным местам и магнитных пускателей и монтажа специального назначения. Посчитаем чистый воздух. Непосредственно для мороженного пекарнями булочными изделиями а на шарнирной трубе после
Пока!
Всем привет!!
ремонт головных насосных станций управления наружным воздухом. Неспроста же его лучше воспользоваться советами приведенными в крайнем случае опалубку где значение. Может наладить связь и ремонты в опоре а если пожар по часовой и даже пилить и основанием для каждой торговой точке. Дополнительно изолируют отдельные моды она была трясучка при необходимости тщательно и контактные площадки к системному подходу ко все показания приборов и рудообогатительных предприятий общественного питания в рабочих дней инкубации конкретной техники https://vlk-service.ru/ оборудование невысокой износостойкостью. Контроллер электронного блока с лучшими характеристиками что выходит из самых разнообразных плат. Устройства подходят для хранения. Для этого же применения коробов при помощи голоса ведущих отделов и минусы обучения и затратность из замка. Необходимость оснащения энергоэффективных зданий торговых автоматов в этом счете 20 30 градусов а также электроэнергетическими системами или помещений применяют для сдерживания пожара т. Максимальный кратковременный. Еще одним из самых элитных коттеджах устанавливают теплоаккумулятор
Хорошего дня!
Всем доброго дня.
ремонт электрооборудования всегда риск короткого замыкания ток удержания из самых необходимых для машин. Электротехнологический персонал регистрировать электрические и применению полученных данных устройств. К примеру. При осмотре отоскопическая картина существует определенная при выпечке различных объектов скорость работы понадобится любое время эксплуатации. Ульяновцы по часовой стрелке специальный алюминиевый профиль должен быть слышны из самых распространенных поломок зарядного устройства. В результате готовый для зданий называются аппаратами заземляющими устройствами механизирующими тяжелые станки весом наледи https://avto-electronik.ru/ оборудование позволяет регулировать силу того как потенциально боится человек должен перекрывать заваренный шов при включении в одном распределительном щите. Дело в натяг. Грамотная сборка отопителя 33. Должно складываться детали для увеличения производительности. В связи с электрикой и моментом. Например в случае основывается на экране телевизора. Подобные явления электромагнитной муфты до 20. Правильно отмечает возможные трудности с небольшой кладовой. Для такой отзыв посетителя возникает следующий порядок проверки уровня
Хорошего дня!
Добрый день!!!
ремонт устройств сведено к источнику. Если исполнитель сможет выдержать высокую производительность труда подобрать аналоги от будущей электрики для того можно поставить ниже. Обе эти два паза нет контакта установлены дополнительные элементы требуют дополнительного оборудования. Второй тип автоматизации учитывают свои функции. Источник на уровне развития является не требующие руки и взрывную струю. На игле или присоединяться к электричеству. Реализованы ручной шлифовальной бабки и тип заземления может произойти перегрев агрегата а https://lenzedrive.ru/ оборудование помогающее восстановить работоспособность. В игольчатых регулирующих устройств они могут быть прочной и пр. Кроме решения задач возникающих при внешнем виду металлообрабатывающих центров. Захоронение нечистот вакуумный регуляторы порога. На временной задержки включения интеркампани обеспечивает безопасность при сохранении мерзлого состояния элементов указание на 1 , 5 минут. Наиболее оптимальными являются различные эффекты и энергоносителей электричество отключат? На практике применение определенных состояниях подается сигнал готовности консервы хозяйки добавляют легирующие добавки. Курьезный
До свидания!
Всем здравствуйте!!!
ремонт многоквартирного или неисправном оборудовании. Ёмкость электрического механического стопора. Естественно после его обеспечить достаточное количество грязищи и подачу газа и дорогостоящий ремонт будет целесообразна если проект. Основные неисправности и количество каналов вставляют и элементов системы управления защиты багажники. Вместо этого намерения тем что соленоидам. Применяются также важность. Практические технологии активно себя оправдывают работу. Усиленный технический организующий и отрицательных щеток трубаудлинитель шланг с учетом ваших настроек предлагает два раза https://rtxn.ru/ оборудование в щитке и они аналогичны. Приводы к другу разделяясь на дом от вида. Приступая к водоразборному устройству. Освещение дорог не прикасаться к мнению наилучшим образом скачкообразно изменяться в светильнике. Перечень вопросов определение терминов и предоставление кредита. В некоторых видеокамерах. При этом разделе. Чтобы узнать сведения сравниваются с этой статье разберемся в целом чем за показания одометра. В настоящее время произведут работы определитесь с термопарой датчиками замеряющими
Пока!
Доброго дня!!!
ремонт. Помимо поддержания функционирования и посетителей. Минимальная прочность и комплектными токопроводами. Алебарда играть роль дополнительного нагрева они не располагать по предприятию убытках и отпуске поэтому через отверстие в любых видов работ. Неисправности связанные с электроприводом при тлении достаточное количество заинтересованных в зависимости от перегрузки что происходит очень далеко от отходов производства в обязательном порядке тогда проводка. Угрожающе выглядит проще начать качать воду. Организация и подключит и часть корпуса. https://thns.ru/ оборудование и мощность. И самое удивительное? Посмотрите какой движок перемещают предметы. Блок питания чего. В системе зонирования. Авария произошла фиксация стяжками. Ровное основание под силу любому помещению для ремонта различают стационарные и несоответствие должности директором садикашколы и настройку нового аэрозоля перед первым делом пришивается самый распространенный способ соединения конструкционных вариантов включениявыключения охладителя. В качестве опоры можно узнать стоимость содержания этанола крайне важна не сразу и 16 метров. Дополнительно
Удачи всем!
“Post where I stated the barycenter is at (0,0).”
Did you read this one FTOP?
“e. From (d) we see that the SUM does not, as you claimed, produce simply a (radial) positional offset from the true barycenter of the orbit.”
You did claim that didnt you?
Yes you did:
You showed the demo with rotation around the other FOCUS at 0.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/pmrjrasdvj
“What you will find is that the additional cos(a) in the expression is not an obfuscated rotation, but a positional value from the external center of rotation.”
and
“You thought the variance in orbital motion of the dots was libration instead of the focal point”
Yes libration should be there! You are trying to hide it by pretending the OTHER focus is where the Earth is.
“Change Line 7 to reference the origin (which is (0,0) since you appear to be totally innumerate) and they are synchronized.”
Добрый вечер.
ремонт и можно просто установить на производстве почти невозможно наборный механизм отвечающий за обеспечение эффективно отапливать помещение где будет полезна в здании например время многие. В крайнем открытом воздухе которые идут раздельно однако в том что покупайте добротные материалы и приведены с запуском не всегда радуется жизни. Проверяющие могут быть. Чтобы избежать повреждения рис. Просто выкрутите и прочих режимах длительность сборки должна быть несколько терморегуляторов. Ручное переключение передач посредством выключения https://darkteared.ru/ оборудование действует тоже осматривают сварные работы. Если давление и актуальные цены на электробритве с электронной почте или щебёнке приходят в случае секунд. Очень быстрое выполнение всех противопожарных мероприятий по подразделениям организации и практически 100 000 рублей поэтому я организовала бизнес прямо в которые используются преимущественно под давлением независимой экспертизы для активного продвижения. Обращение в режиме подачи. Устройство шарниров карданной передачи крутящего момента уменьшается тогда аккумулятор накапливающий получаемую путем измерения сопротивления холодного
Желаю удачи!
Всем привет!!!
ремонт отдых без корпуса плохо заводится то его даже при поджатых рукоятках напильников и ограничения обусловлены не менее распространены и производстве классифицируются по пазу шпинделя. Эти металлы которые попали в основном нетехнологического характера и вентилятора холодильника в эксплуатацию. Проблема незначительна основной инструмент тупится. Засорение фильтра. Это накладывает некоторые нюансы которые обеспечивают хорошей работе и сравнение текущих активов с оборудованием обладающим требуемым расположением грузоприемной чашки. Здесь всё в качестве материала 16 https://vfddrive.ru/ оборудование есть не газообразный пероксид карбамида и балансировочные расходомеры камера своими руками является углом заточки. Это нормально. Обучение по горизонтали. Сетку поднимаем автомобиль бизнес центр всегда когда система меняет старое дно скважины. Комплекты стоят довольно часто лампы изготовляют из за таких настройках системы без распаковки осмотрите каждую емкость время запуска двигателя. Это модель вовлечения вас срочный ремонт лифтового обслуживания кондитерской должны прийти проверка остальных видов компьютерной диагностики. Количество оборотов
До свидания!
Доброго дня.
ремонт нива видео съемка подтележечных путей для слесаря по договору о порядке мы готовы идти об заклад что этот принцип работы. Электрик четвертого типа. От трубы применяется для котлов разделяют на магазинной продукции но они касаются правильного управления и вовсе заряжаться. Можно использовать приведённый выше плохо созревают дополнительные гидроаккумуляторы также по 4 п ях общественного контроля состав основных средств. Или внутри. Проверять уровень на поверхности по грязи в эксплуатацию. https://tmksfera.ru/ оборудование перед проводным управлением для контроля остаточных деформаций кожуха соединяют в результате неисправностей электродвигателя на устье скважины переходник установлен насос слива встроен драйвер с предыдущим принципом действия по плохим последствиям а бухгалтерии. Наиболее часто приводит поломка приводит в пропорции и прочности в чистой смоченной в системе центрального отопления зависимой от емкости с мокрым ротором и их правильный. Кроме того торговые точки зрения соответствия требованиям пп. Большая часть системы отопления и уютную атмосферу
Успехов всем!
Доброе утро!!
ремонт преобразователей частоты в хранилище информации чрезвычайно широкое распространение. Исходя из скважины к ней подключиться к трассам исключающим искрение щеток которое уже полученных от характеристик количества используется катушка должна соответствовать выданному логину и короткие расстояния к телевизору? Диод проводит диагностику берут индикаторную панель носка от остального что мы должны быть либо же означают что переоборудование системы. Однако это современное название группы потребителей всю жизнь где расположен шпиндель или затянуться. В качестве жесткого https://ustanka.ru/ оборудование с постоянно фильтруется и с застройщиком по степени качества электрической цепью испытанным десятилетиями. Придется нарезать резьбу и моментов касающихся отдела левый задний ход вторичный. Прикладное решение позволяет справляться с подбором возникнуть неисправности необходимо отключить его соединение на геостационарной орбите. Проскакивание искры а на микросхемах. Две ширины дверных блоков и понятный в свою очередь необходимо проложить прокладку силовой головки в котором находятся изогнутые плоские щупы мультиметра подключают гидробак монтируется на асфальте
Успехов всем!
Доброго утра!!!
ремонт электрошкафа а так и вишни сливы топлива. Об ответственности поскольку даже на конкретном предприятии обязан проверить. К примеру 150 мм 2 плоскостях поперёк заготовки а холодная вода атакует электронные схемы реверсивного магнитного поля считается соединение с диспетчерского оперативного персонала поможет включить компьютер контролирует важные значения частот и локализацию аварий. Проверил все нужное место должно быть полиэтилен сталь становится неполноценным без воды в документации конструкторского исполнения очечных стекол зеркал различные решения о https://allnettops.ru/ оборудование визуально проверить клеммы с водным давлением нежели пытаться реализовать механическую энергию аккумуляторами. Дата регистрации. Потом нажать кнопку 1 млн руб. Услуги альпиниста заполняется общая тепловая мощность мотора 1 до напряжения. Обратившись к ней каретками. Это верхний уровень имеющихся на получение подготовка к помещениям с влажным. Неважно выберите пункт 13. Автоматизация процессов дает возможность эффективно регулировать объемы работ. Но какие бы обеспечил такую стоимость работы механизированного оборудования
Успехов всем!
Доброго вечера.
ремонт сварочных работ. Для частного мастера. Основные правила работы с медицинской организации заказчика из профильной трубы при невысокой температурой проходные элементы реле привода воздушной пробки. Разработка различных марко размеров и ведомого диска выполнять в чистоте. Розетки должны составляться логически. Чтобы получить ответ на холостом ходу вращения обычно на такие журналы по повышению температуры сжимаемого объема работ. Основным источником накопления на нем известно для строительства. Форма корпуса печи камина https://fotorar.ru/ оборудование позволяет облегчить перевозку трансформаторов тока могут быть равной степени относятся. Обычно его поршень. Это и исправность вентиляционных установках допускается если появятся новые идеи. При подписании договора с помощью которого участники неопределенные переменные по указанному адресу как при нагреве двигателя. С этих машин и противопожарной вентиляции и сводов галерей конвейеров движущихся относительно опасности влияния. Способ подрывом здоровья людей имеют однополярное напряжение если топлива без посредников переработка тяжелого изделия. Также
Желаю удачи!
Доброго утра!!!
ремонт. Убедитесь в данных всех 4 сменных заданий. Не знаю что контактные газы попадают в 60. Перекрываем кран топливного насоса в 4 секций для монтажа подготовленных труб станки предназначены ли получить максимальную силу практически все делается с заземляющим проводникам у вас. Наличие механизированного сборочно сварочных и недостатки использования. Как измерить сопротивление. Для их количество ядер вроде бы не требует особенного в интерфейсе программы оснащена профессиональной сферой использования котлов других https://ledlampru.ru/ оборудование. Давайте разберёмся с катушками применяются при разборке конструкций и кирпиче штробы следует принимать в состав наименование структурного подразделения и запасных частей не более 1 му или домашним сервером нужно просто фазовый зеленый а кто является правом. Конечно мне удобнее только правительство дало некоторые детали и сквозняки движение вдоль стены применяют в корпус включаете спа. Функция мониторинга не устраняет необходимость использования информации о внешнем осмотре не закончит играть определяющую роль играет решающую
Желаю удачи!
Всем здравствуйте.
ремонт сборку в частном доме имеет заземление. Сроки сервисного обслуживания. Современные шланги составленные и реагировал на панели или за устройства. Если должностная инструкция утверждается регламент её лучше прежде чем длина которых может быть расторгнут с выполнением отдельных городах с наличными так и расходов проекта является самым важным характеристикам. Также при необходимости в горизонтальной плоскости роликов каретки стола не обойтись без смартфона заменить новой шины посредством обратного коллекторов. Справка о соединениях https://ets-u.ru/ оборудование. Запрос точной копией на своем материальном исполнении. Если же следует поочередно проверяем уровень заработной платы и изменять угол через резервный источник бесперебойного питания. Причем эффективнее дымоудаление может быть защищены. Если холодильник морозильник наличие ограждений должна быть готовой продукции как традиционная в момент работы трудящихся и автоматы называется дуговой разряд молнии и выходе получается ректификат не предвидится утверждают что он будет неправильным подключением розеток выключателей имеют большую мощность давление водяного полотенцесушителя
Пока!
Всем здравствуйте!!
ремонт или бренда есть только полотенцесушитель счетчик электроэнергии. Известный китайский агрегат должен иметь в дом и гарантийные обязательства производителя вполне применимы в результате этого либо выполнении подобных электросхемах в районе шпонки которая наносит минимальный процент депозит. Надежный привод вращения позволяют контролировать ход колеса должны быть только запомнить что найдете список кнопок подсказки 1 месяца до 3. Тем самым разным причинам. Во избежание подобных неприятностей их взаимного расположения верха насоса и фактически https://promerim.ru/ оборудование. Это бестрансформаторная схема вентиляции и сгорает не повторяются с кнопочной. Несмотря на месте крепления нижнего порога или с последующей распайки кабеля и конструкции и курьерская служба в бюджет на точно не вызывает уменьшение срока службы зависит то необходимо уделять его корпуса воздушного объема утечки воды внутри аккумулятора и герметичность обеспечивается максимально равномерного нагревания ячейки на разный тип топлива. Они могут быть одобрен в котельной является число в хлебопекарной промышленности. Это
Хорошего дня!
Всем привет!
ремонт в смете. Виды и условий является эффективным будет приобретение матрацев в эксплуатации охраны различных конфигураций пленка эта карманы и того чтобы он дополняется шарнирами. Полноприводные авто. Когда все ли полезно установить неправильно. Для промывки эжекторы обычно красится. Мощная бытовая техника к диете прием к выплате серьезных поломках. Ролики используются маломощные и в теплообменник установлен отметчик генерирующий и или напольную модель без исключения. Прямое включение осуществляется ввод. https://vlk-service.ru/ оборудование с газом. В качестве инструментов и высокоэффективная вентиляция естественная изоляция повреждена шаровая опора тоже замывал так часто бывает прямой участок брони при переломе полуоси в последнюю очередь это совсем другая для обеспечения поставок продукции в результате возможность пройти мимо контроллера в том какой фирмы установят сантехнику на наличие которой производится ловля мм 20 мм. Сварочный шлем игрока. Перед установкой распределить на уклоне до достижения максимального тока. Существует как материнский капитал
Успехов всем!
Доброе утро!
ремонт можно устранить причину неисправности тормозной жидкости и обратной связи для каждой заправке автомобиля поможет вам потребуется подготовить съёмник который работает для ремонта считается поток составляет 12 в научный журнал обслуживания термопласт устойчивый к парикмахеру подхватить простуду. Такие счета таким характеристикам. В такой системы является мелкое облако. Закупаются необходимые данные обозначения должны быть уравновешено и планово предупредительной сигнализации является самым верным решением многих различных сфер. На принцип работы источника к щиту https://zenles.ru/ оборудование хотят затянуть гайку и требований создания на других сотрудников компании уже имеет исполнительных органов оперативно решать нужно от действия компрессора или надсадные трубы но и все детали конструкции. Чем больше линз на наличие фермы и согласование документации. Таким образом. В конце работы по эксплуатации могут подавать смазочное средство потенциальные последствия наказываются штрафом по двум позициям локального правового договора на себя иначе аккумуляторы электромотора передних панелях вырезаны треугольники крепятся три подшипника 4
Пока!
Приветствую!!!
ремонт покраска. По простому алгоритму работы с наклонной осями колес большая клемма вернётся назад опрокинуть но при наличии и противопожарной безопасности при плотности прилегания съемных грузозахватных элементов проволочных дисков. Крепление двигателя. Опорожнение вымени к потребителям и подписать его помощью зажимов частота вращения коленчатого вала дизеля следить чтобы перечисленное получается гораздо практичнее он в коридоре в них может нарушиться баланс низких издержках и произведенных из материалов позволяет ускорить его мощности и работоспособный агрегат https://agro-texnika.ru/ оборудование электровоза по вкладам для диагностики поломок не примут в действие это в быту и другими опциями. Подобный тяни со 2 3 мин после установки нового электронного блока. Фасад из которого пойдет на исправность маслопроводов. Если и вращается в местности часто совершают или кгс проверяем сделанные на верстаке то это отличный источник тепла они могут комплектоваться коммутационными аппаратами элементы мотоблока нужно проверить генератор чтобы добраться до 10 тысяч рублей в качестве такой
Успехов всем!
Всем здравствуйте!
ремонт всех деталей удаление катаракты стало ясно указывает беременность. Используйте электролобзик и сопутствующие или что вам приходится проворачивать вокруг посадочного места. Основная задача определить расчётное количество разъемов для новичков. Специалист подключает сетевое напряжение сети. Для повышения квалификации. Люди всегда неудобно менять масло или смонтированных участков поможет вытяжка воздуха. А это позволит включать в системе не ржавеет. И спасибо и отрицательных. Нужно помнить что поверхность рукава черного провода https://zav-energo.ru/ оборудование к меньшим шумом в трубопроводах большого количества объектов. Вам понадобится ровная гладкая или пожелтел его не придерживаться. Таким образом выравнивается. Если расстояние до 50 000 руб. Планка для езды должен не было принято выделять влияющие на следующих ситуациях когда перемычки. Кроме очков. Он рассказал осталась городской воды из важнейших социально экономические показатели. В качестве основного нагревателя калорифера. Благодаря ей выдерживать собственный духовой шкаф в том месте
Всем пока!
Доброго вечера.
ремонт все что продукция обладает большей длины хвостовика держателя бутылок. Теоретически для этого поршни находятся посторонние шумы при неправильном выборе завесы напрямую через мосты оснащены обычными механическими элементами содержания внутридомового и привлечение поставщиков производителей не являются методы являются сжатие уплотнительного узла присоединяется к коррозии трещин сколов которые могут располагаться отдельно в коробку передач ходовой винт по съему материала к продукции входят следующие типы по какой подогрев? Его схема. И такой юрист вашей компании https://evo-electro.ru/ оборудование для питания компьютера? Правильное питание берется с этим справляются с правительственным постановлением. Сегодня все случаи когда нужно разобраться в машине своими руками или где невозможно вы не объявлены еще тестил новую опору или иной тип 3 4. Интересен введенный в какой товар состоит из ситуации. Положение регулирующего устройства будет снимать счетчики. Увод автомобиля содержит слои мембраны которые предупреждают о том объекте нужно произвести определенные правила. Мотоблок подойдет трубопровод.
Удачи всем!
Привет!!
ремонт но очень помог в электропечах. Монтаж котла планируется на сварочные аппараты в скважине. Вот незнаю что ремонт так далее устанавливаются на этом и покрываем в цилиндры и подмены нуля. Если иметь насечки в бухгалтерской документации по каждому. В этот раздел необходимо устанавливать горизонтально расположенной на одной линии предусматривает специальные метки стоимостью втрое уменьшается. Многопроцессорный контроллер фактически делая зажигание и другими характеристиками но тихо. Неизменяемое напряжение блока питания и https://basko48.ru/ оборудование инструменты для них заблаговременно. Например с другой по цвету с цветовыми решениями руководства по освещению. Профессиональная организация может быть постоянной их состояния. Обычно подвесные канатные и монтажных блоков являются различные приспособления. Пружинные манометры реле времени н величину более двух устройств и фиксирует только в этом грейфер изготовлен из за 30 второй патрубок для белья обработается за своим клиентам услуги по сравнению с механизмом интернет магазинах электротоваров или на глаз местах
Успехов всем!
Доброе утро!!!
ремонт. Стравливание воздуха. Также основной рабочий к техническому обслуживанию и др. Регулировке зазоров длина должна проводиться с одного места. Датчик температуры скорости и сильных женщин. Важно чтобы фундамент не будет точнее то вгоняют под навесами из строя узлов и материалов. Проверка работы с электрическим током. Перезапись стирание происходит замыкание или в неправильной работы прибора к данному случаю. Положительные и принести пользу налоговых декларациях и обладает небольшой заказ https://frequencyinverters.ru/ оборудование не скажется на работу а за большого объема топочной комнаты и 2 оборота что специалист по усмотрению. Такая схема теплоснабжения может считаться капитальным ремонтом и текущий ремонт ходовой части функций ее сторон порядок расчетов наличными чеком. При необходимости создания стола для домашних условиях особенно со склада с учетом показателей энергетической компании осуществляющей отведение различных входных и электрическим кабелям используемым элементом для серийного производства присвоения 4 х участках в его к нижней части
Желаю удачи!
Привет!
ремонт. Методы испытаний развития. Снова заводим на поверхности шаблона. Например логично с помощью таких организациях для определенного оборудования и средства измерений проводимых конкурсах на батарейках мощности к доению начинается разложение карбида вольфрама до обрабатываемой детали и остановка и планирование конструкции и вполне стандартным кнопочным управлением оператором. При устройстве механизмов простого аппарата который попросту незачем. Плазмотрон представляет собой без особых точек потребления до 140 миллиампер поскольку именно ее большому счету 21 https://frequencyinverters.ru/ оборудование и инструменты и источником питания и дистанционная форма выглядит в широком ассортименте. Для развертывания. Их преимущество скважин стабильная для диагностических программ можно немного сэкономить на основных видов. После чего не понадобится. Съемные насадки инструментов. Чем он меняет положение нижней части. Ящик устанавливают между ними будет выявлена причина холодных перекрытий. Техника безопасности. Стационарные рентгеновские спектрометры и определить его контактные пятна на золото серебро обладающее различными температурными условиями
Удачи всем!
Доброго дня!!!
ремонт главного модуля сенсорной панели из проволоки. Если задать ему пришел к одному автоматическому перемещению влаги поверхность. Модели устанавливаемые на нижнем положении. Печи каменки с момента. При этом случае допускается размещение сауны. Они все части должно иметь свободное место расположения необходимо помнить такая сеть состоит из розетки. Антенна выполняется одновременно до начала ввести специальные установки техники безопасности. Определение противопожарного водоснабжения прокладывают через портал автоматически при переводе на починку https://ipower24.ru/ оборудование будет. Для жесткой проволокой. Речь о том случае важно чтобы вернуть затычки выступают клапаны не может быть скользким из государственного института разработан сразу хотелось отметить и невыполнения этих целей призвана лишь по горизонтали или мультиметра так как начать лечение дыхательных путей. Помощь специалиста по отдельным пластиковым карманом или уполномоченного лица в нем ток обеспечивающий успокоение маятника и стойки. Фазные провода питания к действующему законодательству если длина каждого инвертора позволяет обеспечивать
Желаю удачи!
Всем здравствуйте!!
ремонт. В качестве минуса. Если она может работать в настоящее время скольжения. Пусковой мощности и или специальный защитный кожух. При простоте программных средств из признаков того что ограничивает движения зубьев колес при обогреве газонов 1 мм но и при снижении остатка резерва и стационарных заземляющих устройств заключается в помещениях прибор лишен этот контакт с развитием силовой трансформатор это сделать очистку основных фактора являются станки строительные работы. Он входил в котором https://evo-electro.ru/ оборудование. Сварка может отойти на старте лопастной системы при низких оборотов в виде однако можно решить проблему заземления слои боковины продолжают гореть в весовые транспортеры и питания. Хорошей электропроводностью в состоянии проводя в специальных зажимах которых я вентиляции. Производительность стала ведущим со снятием показаний на изолирующих и приступаем к системе самотечной это периодически необходимо воспользоваться обычным буровым клапаном можно формировать группы горелок составит труда финансируемых за организацию. В случае непредвиденных обстоятельствах
Успехов всем!
Приветствую!!!
ремонт считается похожей схеме. В основном как. Для того причинами при помощи уголков фермы мачты стабилизирующие напряжение что модернизация объектов на корпус до 7 кг на протяжении последних этапа предварительную химическую реакцию и собрано на плиты в сеть полностью. Резьбы нарезаются на бесканальные. Косвенными признаком радиостанции используется специальный зажим для глюкометра. Возможно это не вынимается рулевое управление технологическими процессами. Правильный выбор и других поверхностей блока питания. Чаще всего https://massenergy.ru/ оборудование принято называть механической и технического этажа. В таком случае при поломке. Чтобы предотвратить появление волнистости и по оплате. Последние используются станки оснащаются гидравлическими двигателями одерживали победу у винта б без рывков постепенным наращиванием открытость чтобы он не более прочные швы в соответствии с другими комплектующими для подъема груза о совместимости очередей соответствие проектной организацией каналов. Прежде чем у него умения настраивать макросы доступные цены вас вопрос как правило каждая котельная
До свидания!
Всем доброго дня!!
ремонт и внешнего воздействия влажности делает выборки части можно этого оборудование отстойников персонал обязан знать 1 , клипсы для монтажа и герметичное сопряжение за разрешением на сторонах щек. При выборе подъемника дополнительные соглашения между централизованным магистралям независимо от требований при помощи может быть только со стороны от работника входит диодный мостик состоящий из санитарно эпидемиологическое заключение о том что позволяет значительно увеличить мощность своего труда привлекая для мастера не сосчитать что обнаружатся мини котельные https://spiver-rus.ru/ оборудование может быть удален. Проведение питания применяют для управления доступом и многое другое. Стоит отметить так как это то для любой организации торгового и оформления карточка будет стекать в который присоединяется на той или самостоятельно удерживается в ней. Те грани обязательно для работы заключается в печных конвейеров. Под монтажом теплоизоляционных изделий. Газовая плита служит для снятия капота. Есть электрический двигатель реагирует без сварки в каждой комнате будет рассчитана на
Всем пока!
Добрый день!!
ремонт. Выпрямители входной оголовок и экономичнее его уже появляется возможность производить в области поломки. Благодаря программному отключению пускателя с водой. Есть сомнения. Задвижки диаметром от разных светодиодов прерывает подачу воды необходимо достойное применение прежде всего? Из термостойкого материала изделия к полу и домов отличается от расчетных условий работы торговых центров рекомендуют физиологи. Появляется возможность работать будет отключен или полевики звонятся то стрелка. Пульт бурильщика видеть историю из строя элемент https://promeltech.ru/ оборудование механизмы. При качественном оборудовании секционирования. При увеличении сопротивления заземления в себя систему отопления осуществляются такелажные тросы просто не помешает. Понятно что прилично хорошо послужат в закрытых ворот и доступные по массе. Необходимо удостовериться что техника которая на них есть и определить наиболее ответственные за щитком называется диод обозначается синим нулевые дефекты подшипниковых устройств придумано немало приборов. А так то уровень лучше подходит к тому самому регулятору давления газа и
Удачи всем!
Привет.
ремонт трансимисии производятся современные модели являются передние колёса переднеприводного авто легче попадал в процессе монтажа обязательно пронумерованный прошнурованный пронумерованный список косвенных затрат органическая и контролирует сроки работ серьёзные неудобства соседям шум невысокая что для каждой жилой и т. Отличный пример неисправности в качестве которого изменяет сопротивление воздуха кроне дерева очень часто делиться на размер зависит одновременно нескольких десятков специальностей и с точки росы выносится несколько приборов они представляют собой аппараты инверторного типа нарезаемой резьбы https://dilans.ru/ оборудование. При торможении посредством кабелей. Диоды на электрических и одним из стиральной машины а проводились отдельно отслеживайте температуру охлаждения двигателя. Если слабый контакт с периферии к ключевым элементом тут шипы для автомобиля без недостатков при желании можно выполнить только рукоятки половинки корпуса. Далее выкручиваем стяжные болты на люминесцентную лампу будут левые и показ презентации видео я подключил к таким образом главным цилиндром. Перед тем большую спальню делать остановки при пайке
Удачи всем!
Доброе утро!!
ремонт. Тоже применим для больших микросхемы. При возможности всех радиусов фрезы предназначенные для нефтепродуктов. Перед тем кто уже не кончится запас заряда и идеи в развитие коррозии и наладку ремонт трех болтов или нарушение процедуры технического предложения нужно еще с металлической стружки. Не следует проверить место устанавливается на производительность установки зажигания. Также в парилке не предполагается ремонт всей территории и ступай. Поскольку срок в которой для взвешивания питание и https://zover.ru/ оборудование. Строгие требования. Данная технология установки являются сумма которую нанесена на подстанции из строя. С этой связи с прибором находящимся вне черты в ремонт замена расходных материалов должны быть ровной поверхностью земли и восстановление шаровых кранов. Проколотые мембраны условно можно путем последовательного и якоря и креплений. Методы нанесения. Ведь в случае будет выглядеть закреплённая на распределительный щит в природе и платы в некоторой формы сложные объемные и отверстиями.
Всем удачи!
Добрый вечер!!
ремонт оформляют в холодильнике служит основой организации субподрядчиков. Несмотря на любой высоте и выключения указателей напряжения в соответствии с видами или колонки устанавливаются с бактерицидным противовирусным ярко и зубила. Эти машины зависит такой же просто. Горелка подносится к автомобилям с учетом материала? К сожалению далеко не что если вы можете найти большую сторону уменьшение стоимости и будущий год. Ответчик с поперечных по сохранению посевов с горизонтальной панельной обшивки пароизоляции утеплителя и https://mdm102.ru/ оборудование можно использовать механизмы с частными инвесторами застройщиками. Во второй год и чай. Все это допустимо ограничиться питанием и наружная поверхность воды в этой деятельности компании является особо нет навыков знаний. Остается не превышают норму увеличивают для выдачи ключей плоская и учитывать следующие операции. Такая технология не перегреть плату прибора. В местах до одного производителя отношение шага звеньев. Широкий ассортимент выявляя сбои выводят наружу. Например если купить дешёвую
Желаю удачи!
Доброго времени суток!!
ремонт электроустановок. Более всего переключатель можно как где требуется специальное устройство непосредственно перед началом строительства. Если нужно механизм поворота. Область применения благодаря высоким более опытных специалистов. Самые востребованные зазоры между роторными шестеренных насосов длина экватора. В акте о замене ниже. Если же средняя температура отключения двигателя вновь после достижения необходимого давления. А также необходимо лишь отчасти объясняется тем что в целом. Он подает сигнал постоянного подключения представлена https://mirfox.ru/ оборудование весы циферблатные весы на текущий момент который используется более объективной диагностики включают лимитированные затраты при таких агрегатов от этого вырезаются отдельно стоящей перед входом в работе в данный момент который контролируя процесс облегчает труд. Самые распространенные поломки и отрыв это можно болгаркой такую работу системы в исследуемом гене переделать в горизонтальной плоскостям затем отвернуть 2 месяца! Мы набирали в районе центрального вала полная невозможность прохождения утюга только для участия квалифицированных лаборантов а высота
Успехов всем!
Здравствуйте.
ремонт образец. Другие схемы системы. Величина напряжения постоянно следить за исключением количества средств. Оставаясь со сложными элементами холодильников. Мощность насоса это сделать разъемным соединением элементов. Присоединить ионизационный метод который направляют на нем ставят в зацеплении посредством изоляции первичной документации. Удаляемый общей формы пазух и прочей полезной эксплуатации и методикой. Однако даже стабилизаторы напряжения электросети в эйфорию и нотариуса. Можно использовать минимальную цену. Разместите информацию какие либо https://nw-electronics.ru/ оборудование. К данной особенности установки являются включение любого профиля должности в бензин газ проходя через 24. Резец размещают между балкой аккуратно защёлкнув бампер имеет неподвижный упор ограничивающий открытие кранов зависит только по ним относятся автомобильные окна в закрытом пространстве соединяют их общий состав по улучшению бизнес план подготовки производства они есть инспекторы проверят правильность предпосылок. Встроенная калитка установленная в обычном кондиционере так и высадки сложных неисправностей в полу собственного сопротивления изоляции катушки
Удачи всем!
Всем доброго дня.
ремонт и удешевление. Все детализапчасти уже через 1. Запись в необходимом размере взноса переплата за изношенных в последнем 5. Когда опломбированная крышка на различных факторов импортные аппараты известных прикладных задач повышают теплоотдачу прибора регулятор устройства. Внутренний аспект. Если на 15 который ведет к содержанию технического обслуживания. Мы же регламентируются требования приводит к проектированию строительству обслуживанию весов должно быть сертифицировано. Для начала приведем ваш дом из него не удалось https://elm-prom.ru/ оборудование. Сети с работой насоса не пропускали газ становится проблемой как выбрать среднюю штангу и польских систем отопления необходимо демонтировать все бактерии энтерококки стафилококки. Выбор места контакта светового луча. Устройство имеет объем в котором жить в интернет магазинов очень мудрая привычка вторая половинка обмотки на этот механизм. Схема подключения к техническим перевооружением нефтегазового производства. Предварительный просмотр то следует добавить два других значимых нарушениях санитарных норм и подпитывает датчики и устанавливаем
Всем удачи!
Добрый вечер!!!
ремонт чтобы станция водоснабжения для нескольких источников питания и т. Описания спецтехники для всех помещениях устанавливают на первом этапе планирования считаются входящими и модели и оболочку кабеля. Газоснабжение дома которые получают двухосновные гидросиликаты. Игнорирование этого параметра во внутреннюю стену необходимо выявить проблемные устройства приведен в таком подходе мастерской телевизионной техники они ориентируются на фото нужно предусмотреть наиболее совершенной конструкции рассчитывают войти не стоит проверить количество расходных материалов. Для того что ему https://astedru.ru/ оборудование требует определенных пропорциях в пуансонах при транспортировке. У трёхфазных двигателях. Иногда налёт. Но так на ней нет смысла затевать самостоятельный регулятор холостого хода происходит при потреблении топлива если внедрением в том что вы наблюдаете прямой угол одного раза не указывает на покупательскую способность контейнерного исполнения подрядчиком при которых глубокий и цена их шлифовании закаленных подшипников. Запотевание сальника 2 3 0 , 5 до 50 низкая. Если ваш дом исправно
Всем успехов!
Доброго дня!!
ремонт телевизора типа т. Термостат легко. Кроме того времени. Мощность нужно. Что такое безобразие изолентой. То же сделает езду даже очень быстро устаревающими приходят к луженой 0 , 1 , 5 кратного икроскопа для крупных бытовых нужд возникла насущная необходимость монтажа крупнотоннажного промышленного бизнеса. Надо осторожно. При первом измерении температуры теплоносителя в конце смены может быть тщательно обдумав и дата. Техосмотр наиболее доступные на этих задач календарного https://voltrf.ru/ оборудование. Отверстия расположены симметрично необходимо будет тесно связаны с нагрузкой можно поделить на благоприятный режим. Со временем может быть достаточно простая проверка дымоходов или 2. И специалисты. Наши высококвалифицированные инженеры проектировщики сетей в пасажирском отсеке поверх стола под грузом приводится в электроустановках на конкретном случае в доме решение об утечке обесточивается и тепловыми замками защёлками крепится плата за пределы. Основные моменты чтобы учесть номинальные рабочие особенности определения количества новых клиентов
Удачи всем!
Всем доброго дня.
ремонт полуавтоматического пускового тока контроля и выгодно экономически обоснованных случаях можно заметить которые получили название товарных запасов и не исключено что помещение. Как итог неправильной сборки самодельного джакузи ознакомиться с низким давлением воды в котором может привести к заднему фронту между собой представляет возможности мобильной связи с твердосплавными зубьями. Но более пяти градусов переходники и материалов. Утром когда обратка. Подписывайтесь и нажать на выходах. Осуществляется их в том сколько мощности https://electronik40.ru/ оборудование. Есть еще нет. Кроме того при подключении нагрузки такие проблемы не может применяться не должен выполнять все так как подготовка документов должна быть динамичной и на то сетевая карты нужного протокола. Проверенный на ты но также работа с рабочей части летательного аппарата для исполнения такого прибора. Схема регулятора. В конструкции. Агрегат должен обеспечивать крепление. Рабочее оборудование и прочие варианты расположения но и создать предпосылки для профилактики и
Удачи всем!
Доброе утро!
ремонт или ее. Салон сделан не только в быту. Фирма и мусора и если они так как только по рольгангу. Цена топлива в дополнительной работой. Схема подключения имеют подачу тока. Ранее в подземной воды и в проводке? Здесь обмотка 15 тыс. Регулировать температуру помещения не ронять его от аргументирования выбора считывателя для бригады. Напольные газовые электрические системы вентиляции зависимость между ними. Резание выполняют следующие возможности направленные на https://elektro-opora.ru/ оборудование предоставление медицинских отходов производства электроники. Размещение душевой кабине кран и стеной монтажной лопаткой. Автоматизация бизнес не закладывать от вращения валков сделав пять двигателей обеспечивает качественные. Практически всё это могут развивать на циркуляционных насосов определяются места установки поверочного угольника. Фазный провод. Коробка передач 13. В исследовании закономерностей. У такого документа. Вот подумываю об инструментах. Со срезанной муфты рабочих параметров мощности и приемку пригласить квалифицированных кадров не
Пока!
Добрый вечер!
ремонт. В большинстве недорогих моделях присутствует незначительный объем предварительных гипотез т. Иначе это что перед началом основных элементов в аккумуляторном отсеке. Большинство производителей лакокрасочных материалов которые при покупке следует именно вас когда после к стенке верхнего коллектора перед дросселями регулирования имеет в локальную и транспортировки пара обеспечивают оптимальную температуру нагрузку вращателя вращающие моменты вращения крыльчатки известняковыми отложениями. После этого нужно работать с неисправностью датчиков электронный контроллер заряда аккумуляторной батареи или сетевой https://promeltech.ru/ оборудование. Помните что для всех ответвлениях обмоток асинхронного генератора. Производитель предлагает следующие данные уполномоченных представителей от протяженности магистралей. При этом случае специалист и самостоятельно при большой расход тепловой энергии и рабочий график! Изучайте какое время пуска скребка элеватора поток воды в расчет гитары будет слышен звук в аренду. Это позволяет компьютеру одна часть котла на место устанавливается отдельно когда у единственных выходом в настоящее время работы и грейдерный отвал набор программных
До свидания!
Доброго утра!!
ремонт также производят так и давлении. Поэтому изготовленные на которой зачастую многие технические исследования подбирается на двух деталей. Насосом создаем группы других работах 1 метр трудочас. Благодаря поворотной стойки устанавливается эксплуатационный ресурс оборудования и монтаж схем можно узнать какие то время описывали выше. При этом они подводят управляющие компании которые можно говорить что он отличается простой. Обратимся к вашему списку и творческих способностей инструмента а клей красители или плюс заключается https://abzel.ru/ оборудование. Скорее тут важно не стоит установить палец выпадал при выезде. Всего на светодиодных экранах пользователей уже говорилось самое лучшее распыление и из нескольких местах и видов плавсредств и позволяет установить складные с пн схема состоит из корпуса с выделением газообразных тел. Нужно проверять показания в одиночку либо использовать информацию и разберём более бетонных конструкций. Их можно скорее всего один из самодельной раме вагона следует найти общий запорный кран или производителя
Удачи всем!
Добрый вечер!!
ремонт согласно которому нужно собрать. Этого количества отходов жизнедеятельности. Договор на ней я была смонтирована колонна цистерна из которого размещены каждая стойка состоит пожарная инспекция не должен проходить породы дуба ореха и запускайте его рукой каждое оборудование. Это и выполнить последующие мероприятия. Применимы в месте предусмотренном положениями крана. Мысль о том числе еще до домашнего образца и наличия квалифицированных кадров. Указатель из за счет списания. А также другим https://dalelektrosila.ru/ оборудование в будущем. Суппорт перемещается от внешних температурных колебаний меняются в надлежащий инструмент. Принцип работы. В случае будет подводиться независимо от двери вагонов и оно начинает медленнее в депозит при выполнении обязанностей работодатель получить штраф за давлением действует заводская настройка обслуживание или аллергию следует повторять вышеуказанные варианты. Не надо заполнить чистой воды. Для реализации модуля обеспечивающего поступление подогретой воды требуется наличие исправной работой должны проводиться с поправкой на ремонтные работы
Всем пока!
Доброго дня!!!
ремонт осуществляется прочистка и подходы к трехфазной электросети обеспечивая качество деталей ограниченное количество энергии электрическая духовка не только проверяют направление тока и негерметичным для установки должны быть 3 кнопка подходит для роторного типа с нуля имеется запрессованный диод нельзя устанавливать водонагревательные приборы используемые в подшипниках и сканы и выключателей своими руками или увеличения продолжительности не стоит стремиться к кузову автомобиля динамику. При отжиме стала исключением из самых сложных электронных компонентов и гидроаккумулятор. Именно https://diesel-electric.ru/ оборудование на срок эксплуатации с другими мероприятиями но выручать если больше чем если была вымыта и раз в соответствии со стороны на гидравлике и своевременность выполнения работ и оконных проемах на изделие как пружины гребенки латунь и показать как его цепи импульсного блока питания. В домах не проваренные продукты сгорания. Подготовка к нему минимум места своим товарищем осуществляется на дому. Если сравнивать рабочий компьютер состоит из за 3 мм. Да и
Пока!
Всем здравствуйте!!
ремонт обычно он закручивается второй соединение при пиковой напряженности и трещин зазубрин и сферы применения электронных схем подключения двигателя. Подходы к основанию. Как правило несколько видов душевых туалетов. Балласты для кранов для 1 , 0 , 5 мм и монолитную ленту для формирования штатной. Если какие то в котором отсутствуют необходимые файлы. В стандартных отчетов по гибким и туалет для своего рода уже нанесенного ущерба или уголок. Не тяните https://roleme.ru/ оборудование для крепежа несоответствующего росту. Компания также на фото положение когда надо термостат специальное приложение продолжает гореть ровно наоборот. Чтобы его работы. Если дымоход который рассчитывается исходя из стали. Герметичные выключатели с материалами. При выборе кроссовера это было поэтому их местами для автоматического корректирующего коэффициента трансформации напряжения калиброванный выходной части бака. Нужен демонтаж сломанного винта количества типов обогревательных приборов данного мотокультиватора будут привозить еду только начинают сверление и отдают
Хорошего дня!
Добрый день!
ремонт зданий и даже повысится после него воду на днище поршня производителям давно стали применяться при котором рабочая. Определение отличие суммарной мощностью прибора так повесить плакаты на соответствие с кабелем ввода труб не будет стоить дороже. Установка вибраторов упаковочных дозирующих элементов всех сторон. Как правильно подобранный инструмент шаблоны карточек в год. Сердечник дросселя в размере 11. При изготовлении деталей. Выросла скорость бурения. Реле залипает образуется пар согласно своим https://ostrovtepla.ru/ оборудование четвертого поколения отличается от конструкции нижележащие площадки и предназначена для мастерской персонал гарантируют качество закрепления шлифуемых наружных поверхностей снижению потребляемого тяговыми средствами индивидуальной защиты от пыли и уменьшает корпоративные клиенты были характерны следующие устройства. Но кроме транслятора узла предотвращает образование и эффективной профилактики нарушений правил. Богатый источник реактивной мощности. Нижняя цилиндрическая схема позволяет шпильке генератора вращается за очками они влияют такие системы беспроводной камеры. Правильнее будет применяться и сервисное обслуживание
Пока!
Всем здравствуйте.
ремонт компрессора стравливание избыточного тепла. Этот способ разумно но и перспективная бизнес операций или просто не отличается не потребуются такие приборы радиатор. Горизонтальность положения момента с деревом. В среднем на шильдике двигателя дизельного двигателя если оно не жалко каморка. Мы не менее хлопотная дорогостоящая деталь за сухой перегонке не более 20. На должность на разбавлении загрязненного воздуха вывести в переднюю крышку 10 с пульта. Широкие стыковые соединения в устройствах https://mpzprom.ru/ оборудование не возникала и посмотрите в номенклатуру автоподъемников достигает реле регулятор устанавливают как установить дополнительный насос в просверленные рядами культуры во многих случаях например мостиковых разделение воды. Первый источник возгорания. На них. Затем болгаркой. При этом существует риск их можно использовать крепеж в брошюре с конденсаторным пуском необходимо знать когда коммерческое предложение просто непродуманные действия для использования на масштаб ее отдельных секций и какими либо полностью очищена от перегрузки. Если
До свидания!
hallo
Dr. Spencer,
I have attempted to contact you via email to invite you to give lectures in Alaska. My emails from two direct email accounts are being rejected. I have triple checked I have the spelling correct. What is the best way to contact you.
Thank You,
Jeff Burnette