The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2020 was +0.44 deg. C, essentially unchanged from the June, 2020 value of +0.43 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 19 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.14 +1.14
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.05 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.50 +0.93 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.99 +0.38
2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35
2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.11 +0.34 +0.87
2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23
2019 09 +0.61 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.27 +0.30 -0.03 +1.00 +0.49
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.37
2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.61 +0.73 +0.13 +0.65
2020 02 +0.76 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30
2020 03 +0.48 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.16
2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.33 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
2020 05 +0.54 +0.60 +0.49 +0.66 +0.17 +1.16 -0.15
2020 06 +0.43 +0.45 +0.41 +0.46 +0.38 +0.80 +1.20
2020 07 +0.44 +0.45 +0.42 +0.46 +0.56 +0.40 +0.66
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for July, 2020 should be available within the next few days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Evidence that models exaggerate CO2 forcing:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf?
So you disagree with others here that the greenhouse effect is non-existent, and is in fact 70% of the predicted effect. I call that progress. Please inform Gordon.
Yes, radiative forcing change from +37 ppm CO2, 2002-2019 (table 1, page 5):
AIRS 10◦N-40◦S 0.434±0.047 Wm−2
IPCC AR5 ERF 0.508±0.102 Wm−2
midas…”Please inform Gordon”.
What you call the greenhouse effect can’t operate without a glass roof and walls. Since there are no roofs or walls in the atmosphere it is obvious that kind of GHE cannot work.
The real effect that has warmed the atmosphere was explained by R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2. Nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere, absorbs heat directly at the surface by conduction, and that heated air rises by convection. Since N2/O2 are poor emitters of IR, they cannot get rid of the heat till the air rises high enough and the gas expands. Then it cools naturally due to expansion.
Since the Sun only shines a certain number of hours per day the atmosphere on the side away from the Sun can cool and the 33C offered as evidence of the GHE is the resultant of the heating/cooling. There’s no need to radiatively balance energy in versus energy out, it is already balanced through solar energy raising the Earth’s temp by 33C. Solar input serves to maintain the temperature, no need to balance it radiatively.
If you had a planet with no atmosphere and oceans, like the Moon, then you could talk about a radiative balance. With an atmosphere and oceans, things get much more complex, especially when the rotational speed of the planet is just right. Kiehle and Trenberth should have known that but they were far too hung up on the notion of a trace gas causing the warming, hence a radiative balance.
If they’d understood the Ideal Gas Law better they might have arrived at a better explanation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
svante…I have not claimed at any time that the ‘average’ temperature referenced by Roy is solely due to pressure. I have offered the disclaimer that I am talking about a static, ideal atmosphere and excluding convective air flows that obviously affect temperatures within the static, ideal state.
One would not expect the temperature profile in the Tropics to be the same as the temperature profile at the poles. However, the adiabatic lapse rate cannot explain why the pressure at the peak of Everest, at nearly 30,000 feet, is 1/3 the pressure at the surface. A negative pressure gradient due to diminishing gravitational force can explain it.
And the adiabatic lapse rate cannot contradict the Ideal Gas Law in a static atmosphere which claims that at a constant volume, temperature varies directly with pressure. Based on the IGL, temperature should decrease with pressure.
This is not rocket science. As pressure decreases at higher altitudes, there are less molecules of air per unit volume. A lower number of molecules means a lower average kinetic energy and a lower temperature. How does the ALR explain that? If there was no gravity, there would be no particular reason for it, in fact, we’d have no atmosphere without gravity.
Furthermore, I don’t think there is any such thing as an adiabatic lapse rate in general. There is no way to contain a column of air without molecules mixing with adjacent molecules so in the boundary regions it is not possible.
That means, the ALR applies to limited spaces within the atmosphere and I have acknowledged that such convective flows can affect the average temperature in a region.
”
A lower number of molecules means a lower average kinetic energy and a lower temperature. ”
Huh???
You think its cold in a vacuum chamber?
I don’t have to point out that troll Nate has no understanding of physics.
I just let him to that for me.
ClintR and Gordon, perhaps you can redraw this thermosphere temperature diagram, you did such a great job on the green plate effect:
https://stratusdeck.co.uk/vertical-temperature-structure
“I dont have to point out that troll Nate has no understanding of physics.”
Well once in a great while you do need to back that up with specifics, otherwise its just bluster.
What law of physics states that ” a lower number of molecules means a lower average kinetic energy and a lower temperature.”?
The Green Plate Effect was theoretically debunked some time ago, and experimentally debunked here:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
Yeah, principia is due for the Nobel prize for their groundbreaking new interpretation of radiative heat transfer.
Like ‘troll’, apparently ‘debunk’ has lost all meaning.
They seem to think it means: pick a topic and speak gibberish about it, and repeat a dozen times.
No new interpretation, Svante, just experiments.
Svante,
You left the ig off of the nobel.
But then principia couldn’t win one of those either.
You have to at least be able to properly perform an experiment.
Empty, substance-free denigration from blob.
Sorry you don’t understand the issues with your experimental non-debunking of the green plate effect.
You know I and others have performed the experiment and confirmed that the effect does indeed exist.
Just because the clowns at principia can’t find the green plate effect, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
You want to show us your theoretical debunking again, oh you won’t because we have already torn it to shreds.
That cute little diagram that violates a number of laws of physics that you can’t understand.
Again, nothing of any substance, from blob.
“nothing of any substance”
The master-baiter is at it again.
You have seen physics-based criticisms literally dozens of times.
The flaws in the experiment have been pointed out and dismissed dozens of times.
You had no sensible answers to these criticisms dozens of times.
You made up your own fake physics and twisted yourself into a logical pretzel, literally dozens of times.
To pretend that ‘nothing of substance’ has been presented to you literally dozens of times is a breathtaking lie.
#2
Again, nothing of any substance, from blob.
Svante said: Yeah, principia is due for the Nobel prize for their groundbreaking new interpretation of radiative heat transfer.
PSI is certainly among the lowest of the low in terms of scientific integrity. The site’s owner John O’Sullivan’s personal integrity is even lower. For the details refer to the affidavits file in the Supreme Court of British Columbia under case VLC-S-S-111913. Most people will find the materials highly offensive. It is not work appropriate. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
It’s just the blog the experimental results were published on, bdgwx. Does not change the results, nor does it invalidate the process.
Swanson’s experimental results for the GPE were “published” in the comments at Dr Spencer’s. Same thing. Completely irrelevant to the validity of the experiment.
You will all have to try a lot harder than you are currently. Poisoning the well isn’t going to work.
“Swanson’s experimental results for the GPE were ‘published'” on a blog.
Yes with all the details and obvious quality controls, such as actual pressures stated.
But, no matter. Your assumption that our only source of empirical tests are these TWO experiments is ridiculous.
To pretend that we dont have textbooks galore with the correct radiative heat transfer laws which are empirically tested, and similar homework problems to the GPE, is part of your never ending denial of reality.
We have applications galore of these laws, such as multi layer insulation MLI, and even the ubiquitous IR temperature sensors.
We have the empirically-tested theory behind MLI, that none of you can dispute, but definitively falsifies the PSI GPE models.
Readers might already be aware that I no longer bother responding to Nate. Commenters like Chic and Kristian will know why.
Well when u get called out on your BS theres really not much to say about it.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Kristian is not that stupid, he calculates the same GPE temperatures as Eli and the rest of us:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344392
Not what I meant, Svante.
DT demonstrated this method yesterday…when called out on his BS, he just walked away.
I meant, Chic and Kristian have had enough long discussions with Nate to understand why I no longer bother responding to him.
Good. So long as you understand that not responding doesnt invalidate the criticisms. Your lies dont become truths simply because you dont respond..
#2
I meant, Chic and Kristian have had enough long discussions with Nate to understand why I no longer bother responding to him.
Greenhouse effect can’t operate without a glass dome. Funny, flat earthers say you can’t have air pressure without a glass dome. Maybe you should join up with them. Or have you already done that?
robert ingersoll…”Greenhouse effect can’t operate without a glass dome. Funny, flat earthers say you can’t have air pressure without a glass dome”.
Duh!!! It’s called the greenhouse effect because it’s supposed to replicate greenhouse warming. When was the last time you saw a greenhouse without a glass roof and walls?
The problem with the atmosphere modeled as a real greenhouse is the error made in presuming that IR, converted from SW solar EM by soil, etc., is trapped by glass and somehow warms the air in the greenhouse. How? How does a trace gas making up 0.04% of that air raise the temperature of the air so much.
R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2 claimed it could not warm the air like that. He thought the warming came from all air molecules being heated and trapped by the glass and being unable to release the heat due to a lack of convection. He designed an experiment to prove his point.
Wood was not a lightweight scientist, he was revered in his field and Neils Bohr consulted with him on sodium vapour gas.
The GHE theory named after the effect in a real greenhouse got the theory wrong. Trapped IR cannot raise the temperature of the atmosphere and heat dissipated through radiation from CO2 cannot cool it much. It’s obvious the cooling must happen in another manner and I offered an explanation.
Gordo is confused as usual, writing:
Wrong. Gordo’s convection cooling model does not explain what happens to the thermal energy “dissipated” to deep space above his convection loops.
Hi Gordon, you must have missed my first post on this page.
Adding 35 ppm CO2 2002-2019 cut 0.4 W/m^2 from the spectrum.
Swanson, Svante, please stop trolling.
Yeah people, stop doing that ‘trolling’ thing that has no meaning according to DREMT.
#2
Swanson, Svante, please stop trolling.
DREMT can contradict himself and post admittedly meaningless things without a care in the world….OK good to know.
#3
Swanson, Svante, please stop trolling.
Gordon, your rants on the GHE are incorrect. The definition of GHE in the atmosphere is the result of the H2O and CO2 being radiative gases plus them being at the same temperature as the N2 and O2 surrounding them.
It might help you understand the atmospheric science GHE if you consider the ‘sky’ to be an intermediate surface between the ground and outer space.
The amount of heat being radiated from one surface to another, using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is
q/a= [k/(1/ehot+1/ecold-1] x (Thot^4-Tcold^4).
The ground is at Thot due to being warmed by sunshine,
If the atmosphere was only N2 and O2, it would be completelely transparent to Infrared. The “surface” the ground would radiate to is outer space at -270 C and would be much colder than it is now. We partially see this effect when starry, cloudless nights are distinctly colder.
But CO2 and H2O readily absorb and reradiate IR. Because the H2O and CO2 are the same temperature in the atmosphere as the N2 and O2, the “surface” the ground radiates to is “the sky”, and the “sky” is much warmer than outer space. You can take an IR thermometer and typically read the temperature of clouds at about freezing and blue sky down to -80 (but $40 IR guns do not have proper emissivity settings to do this job very accurately).
Anyway my point is that the ground temp will get warmer, due to it’s daily sunlight heat source, if you do the calculation, in order for the planet to radiate the same amount of heat it receives from the sun, when there are radiating gases between the ground and outer space. It will take you a few minutes to make your own spreadsheet to confirm…
DMacKenzie, you made numerous mistakes there. I’ll just mention the first three:
1) That is NOT the definition of the GHE. The definition involves CO2 warming the surface, which is not possible.
2) That equation is terribly messed up. Where did you get such a kluge?
3) You stated: “We partially see this effect when starry, cloudless nights are distinctly colder.” The effect you see is due to “cloudless”, not CO2.
No Clint, I made no mistakes here. On Point 1, you don’t seem to understand radiative GHE at all….Point 2, any heat transfer text will give that equation for the heat transfer between parallel surfaces….Point 3, of course cloudless nights sre cloudless, I was referring to radiation to cold outer space being more apparent to your skin on starry cloudless nights..
DMacKenzie,
1) If you believe the GHE means nothing more than gases in the same atmospheric layers are at the same temperature, then I’m content.
2) If you now admit that your equation is for imaginary infinite parallel surfaces, and not applicable to the atmosphere, then I’m content.
3) If you now agree that a cloudless night sky makes the surface cooler, then I’m content.
I guess I’m content now that you’ve fixed your mistakes.
“3) If you now agree that a cloudless night sky makes the surface cooler, then I’m content.”
Well thats a new position for you. I wonder how you explain that? Radiative cooling perhaps? And how does a cloudy night prevent that radiative cooling?
Clueless Nate,
As you seem to be baffled by basic physics, a little book written by John Tyndall over 100 years ago might help. It is called Heat. A mode of motion.
It even has pretty pictures and diagrams to help those like yourself.
dmackenzie…fine Scottish name but you’re no Maxwell.
The greenhouse effect presumes several things. One is that a trace gas can absorb enough surface radiation to raise its temperature and by that action spread the heat to the 2500 molecules surrounding it. Nonsense!!
Another is that the heated trace gas can back-radiate IR to the surface, raising the temperature of the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by SW solar. More nonsense!!
Before considering quantities of back-radiated IR, one should be aware of a fundamental law in thermodynamics. As stated by its creator, Rudolf Clausius, heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a cold object to a warmer object. The GHGs back-radiating the IR are at a colder temperature than the surface therefore no heat can be transferred from them to the warmer surface that warmed them in the first place. Such a recycling of heat not only contradicts the 2nd law it is perpetual motion.
Please note, both GHE and AGW confuse IR with heat. Heat is not IR and there is a rule governing its transfer between bodies of different temperature…the 2nd law.
Yet another explanation of the GHG. Trace gases in the atmosphere slow down the dissipation of heat from the surface. You quoted S-B, incorrectly by the way, but their equation for two bodies of different temperatures make it clear that the temperature of the entire atmosphere is the factor affecting the dissipation of surface heat AT THE SURFACE, not a trace, constituent part.
The temperature of the atmosphere is determined by nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 99% of the atmosphere. That temperature is the governing factor for surface heat dissipation.
dmckenzie…”Point 2, any heat transfer text will give that equation for the heat transfer between parallel surfaces”
I have yet to see such a text offer a practical example to go along with their misguided theories. I would like to see just one of them show a REAL calculation wherein heat is transferred both ways between parallel plates. Then I’d like to see it proved by experimentation. It cannot be done.
There is a lot of rot in engineering texts that needs to be remedied. Electrical engineering textbooks have tied themselves in knots by insisting that current flows from positive to negative. They call it conventional current flow and make it clear that electron flow is in the opposite direction. That convention dates back to 1925.
I daresay that engineering texts teaching the bs that heat can be transferred both ways between parallel plates by radiation are confused about the basics of blackbody radiation. I seldom see it mentioned when referring to Kitcheoff’s theories on blackbodies that the theory pertained ONLY to states of thermal equilibrium. What they are doing in the texts is applying BB theory incorrectly by exceeding the BB theory and using S-B incorrectly.
I was just re-reading one of my old electrical engineering texts in which they showed a basic N-type Field Effect Transistor. The majority carriers in an N-type are electrons therefore they must indicate that electron flow from the source (cathode) of the FET to the Drain (anode). At the same time they are trapped into showing the circuit current flowing from the drain toward the source.
So now you have a real current of electrons flowing as they should, from source to drain in an N-type but due to their assinine paradigm insisting that electrical current flows positive to negative they must also show ‘a current’ flowing from the drain to the source. What constitutes the reverse current? Nothing…there are no positive particles in the semiconductor that can move, they are bound to the nucleus in a lattice.
The point is they cannot tell you what flows from positive to negative. There are no atomic particles that can explain it, only electrons can explain the current flow and in the field of electrons that is the established convention. So electrical engineering students are brain-washed with bs and upon graduation have to interface with an electronic/electrical industry in which current flows negative to positive.
It gets even more stupid with semiconductors where there are N-type silicon types and P-type. The silicon is doped with donor or acceptor atoms that create a surplus or dearth of electrons. A P-type has ‘holes’ as majority carriers and this is where the theory becomes absolutely stupid.
The creator of the theory, Schockley, admits that holes are abstractions to help visualize a lack of electrons then he contradicts himself by claiming holes can create a current flow. Pardon???
A hole is created when an electron departs a valence band in a silicon atom. The same can be claimed in a copper wire. If a valence electron in a cooper atom is energized it can escape the atom and become a free electron. No one explains how the free electron maneuvres between silicon or copper nucleii with their bands of electron with negative charges which should repel a free electron.
The position it vacated leaves a hole in the valence band and it can be filled with another free electron. As electrons move negative to positive, the holes they leave behind move positive to negative. However, one has to be a complete idiot to think such a hole represents a flow of current. I have always considered the current carriers to be electrons and I have encountered no problems with the practical aspects.
Although this absurd theory is still taught in electrical engineering it breaks down dramatically with certain electronic devices. The basic vacuum tube diode has a tungsten filament from which electrons are boiled off the surface by running an electric current through the filament till it glows red. Surrounding the filament is a cylindrical element called a plate and if a positive charge of several hundred volts is applied to the anode, with the whole unit in an evacuated glass tube, the electrons are attracted to the plate. If the tube is in a proper circuit, a current will flow in the circuit.
According to conventional current flow theory. there is a current flowing from the positive plate to the negative cathode/filament. What constitutes this current flow? No one ever explains that just as no one ever explains how heat can flow both ways between parallel plates.
Same thing with cathode ray tube, like the older TV and computer displays, as well as electron microscopes that rely in bombarding a target with electrons. In an electrical engineering textbook, the electrons will be ignored and some mysterious positive charge will be shown flowing from the target to the electron microscope electron source.
Moral…never trust a text book explicitly. Always ask questions and never be satisfied with no answer forthcoming that makes sense.
“Clueless Nate,
As you seem to be baffled by basic physics”
No, dimwit-troll Swenson/Flynn, point is that Clint has never acknowledged before that the temperature of the sky makes any difference to the rate of radiative cooling of the surface.
That would be new for him.
Once again, Nate misrepresents others because he can’t face reality.
Gordon,
Having used Hottel charts years ago to design fired process furnaces with the intention of preventing metal failures and fluid coking, along with sufficient thermocouples to monitor the process, I can tell you that textbook heat transfer WORKS, radiant heat calcs based on SB are more accurate than forced convective calcs based on Buckingham Pi theorem similarity experiments, and your statement that you don’t believe experimental evidence corroborating the formulae exists, is simply a testament to your lack of knowledge on the matter.
ClintR/JDHuffman/Geran busted by Nate again …
So how can clouds raise surface temperature ClintR?
Svante trolls just like Nate–nothing to offer except misrepresentations.
Two peas in a pod.
Clint/JD is the evasion king.
Never has answers, just tosses ad-hom grenades.
Straight from the troll handbook.
dmckenzie…”Having used Hottel charts years ago to design fired process furnaces with the intention of preventing metal failures and fluid coking, along with sufficient thermocouples to monitor the process, I can tell you that textbook heat transfer WORKS”
I am not arguing that heat transfer does not work. I would like to know how a two way heat transfer works in a blast furnace. Where does the heat transfer take place within the furnace? If it does not take place between the hotter flames and the cooler target, where else does it take place? Maybe between the furnace boundary and the cooler air in the room?
I am claiming, based on the work of Clausius that no heat transfer takes place between the cooler room air and the several thousand degrees of the furnace interior. I can see no possible use for equations that imply a two way transfer in such a context.
I know nothing about Hottel charts but from what I was able to learn they are nothing more than charts showing the standard emissivity of gases at different temperatures and pressure. What does that have to do with CO2 at a cooler temperature being able to transfer heat to a hotter surface that warmed it?
Radiative emissivity is not heat. During the process of emission, heat is lost as it is converted to IR. The Hottel charts are showing radiation, not heat.
You’re correct, Gordon. Hottel’s work is based on actual measurements, not related to any perversions of the S/B Law.
In addition, Hottel’s charts are for boiler firebox temperatures, which do not occur in the troposphere. Mackenzie has made another mistake by trying to use Hottel incorrectly. Hopefully he will learn.
Test
GR said: What you call the greenhouse effect can’t operate without a glass roof and walls. Since there are no roofs or walls in the atmosphere it is obvious that kind of GHE cannot work.
The effect works just fine and is exploited by NDIR sensors to save countless lives everyday. There certainly isn’t a glass roof or physical barrier of any kind between the heat lamp and sensor. Maybe there is confusion regarding how the GHE works?
bdg…”The effect works just fine and is exploited by NDIR sensors…”
Your logic is lost on me. I am not claiming CO2 does not absorb infrared energy I am claiming there simply is not enough CO2 to affect the temperature of the atmosphere. This is backed by R.W. Wood who was an expert on CO2 and other gases.
I don’t think a real greenhouse warms due to its CO2 or WV content. You could remove all CO2 and WV from a greenhouse and it would still warm the same as before. It warms because 99% of the air accounted for between nitrogen and oxygen get warmed directly by the soil and infrastructure warmed SW solar.
Same with the atmosphere. Remove all CO2 and not much would change, except to the plants. We need the WV for rain but its contribution to atmospheric temperature is insignificant.
“Maybe there is confusion regarding how the GHE works?”
Yes. Much.
Gordon writes “(bdgwx) logic is lost on me” because Gordon also writes 12:18am “I have yet to see such a (heat transfer) text” whereas R.W. Wood and bdgwx have “seen” and understood such texts.
If Gordon really wanted to know how Earth’s atm. greenhouse increased opacity warms the surface air and what would happen to surface air temperatures in the absence of CO2 grey absorber IR opacity at 1bar of pressure, then there are plenty of texts, over a century of basic experimentally driven papers on the subject, and Dr. Spencer’s atm. experiments for Gordon to discover, “see”, & learn basic physics of planetary atmospheres from 1st principles.
Gordo, as is his habit, has again flooded the blog with his usual denialist crap, claiming that R. W. Wood completely disproved the CO2/Greehouse Effect with his simple demonstration in 1909.
Wood concluded:
In short, Dr. Wood did not claim that there’s no Greenhouse Effect due to the radiactively active gases. Of course, Gordo continues to ignore my experimental efforts, the results of which demonstrate that “back radiation” from a cooler body can cause the temperature of a warmer body to increase.
Swanson, I actually went to your link. (Boy, was that a mistake.) I only made it to the second paragraph. You idiots are always confusing “heat” with “energy”.
“They [sic] claim is that ‘back radiation’ is not possible because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can not be transmitted from a body of lower temperature to another body of higher temperature in thermodynamic situations.”
A cold object can emit energy toward a hot object. That is not a violation of 2nd Law. But the cold object cannot warm the hot object.
A simple analogy is if you found a $100 bill on the ground. You went to the bank to deposit it, but you got robbed first. Your bank account will not increase by $100 just because you were headed to the bank.
ClintR wrote:
As usual, you (and Gordo) refuse to tell us what happens to the photons emitted by the cooler body which might be intercepted by the warmer one. The energy of those photons does not vanish, that would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, (aka, the Law of Conservation of Energy).
Of course, you didn’t even bother to read my post describing the Ice Plate Demo, having obviously chosen to ignore any evidence which refutes your bogus physics.
Swanson, before I even started to read your nonsense I already knew you were an idiot, from the Moon discussion months ago. You deny reality.
Then, I started to read your nonsense and saw that you were only interesting in attacking those that support reality. You tried to pervert the 2nd Law, now you’re trying to pervert the 1st Law because you don’t understand what happens to reflected photons.
Here’s an experiment for you: Turn off the light in a closed room after dark. Where do the photons go? They can’t leave the room. They were there with the light on. They were being reflected. Now, they’re gone….
Does that violate 1st Law?
You need to face reality. Then spend a few years with some good physics books.
“A simple analogy is if you found a $100 bill on the ground. You went to the bank to deposit it, but you got robbed first. Your bank account will not increase by $100 just because you were headed to the bank.”
Stupidest analogy Ive ever seen! What does this have to do with anything?
ball4…”Gordon writes (bdgwx) logic is lost on me because Gordon also writes 12:18am I have yet to see such a (heat transfer) text whereas R.W. Wood and bdgwx have seen and understood such texts”.
I have seen such drivel printed in engineering texts myself. I am claiming they are wrong based on the 2nd law.
Authors of texts have their strong points and weak points. Ergo, no text can be relied upon as a complete authority on a subject. The weak point is engineering texts that gloss over a two way transfer of heat between parallel plates in their utter misrepresentation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
The initial equation by Stefan was stupid-simple. It said that radiation for a body with temperature T had the strength (intensity) of T^4 (multiplied by the SB factor). Since that derivation from Stefan came directly from experiments by Tyndall, in which he electrically heated a platinum filament wire till it glowed different colours at different temperatures, the meaning is blatantly clear. Any heat transfer from that heated filament had to be in the direction dictated by the 2nd law, hot to cold.
Do you not understand that? An example of a heated filament device is a vacuum tube. The heater is a tungsten filament and the current running through it literally boils electrons from its surface to create and electron cloud around it. With most vacuum tubes, grasping the glass envelope around the tube elements will burn your fingers, just like a hot light bulb. The heat transfer is from the heated filament to the glass via radiation since the glass is evacuated.
Your dumb equations are suggesting heat can be transferred from the glass back to the filaments at 1400C. Where do you guys get off believing such nonsense?
Quantum theory makes it clear that cannot happen.
Boltzmann respected the 2nd law and tried to verify it statistically. He failed. That means to me that radiation or its statistical equivalent cannot replicate heat transfer. The supposition is that EM flows both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
What Boltzmann did not understand, and could not understand, was the quantum relationship between Em and electrons. The electron was not discovered till the 1890s and it was not till 1913 that Bohr worked out the relationship.
Arrogant modern scientists who obviously do not understand that quantum relationship have presumed that SB can be reversed. They understand neither SB nor the 2nd law.
swannie…”As usual, you (and Gordo) refuse to tell us what happens to the photons emitted by the cooler body which might be intercepted by the warmer one”.
I liked Clint’s analogy of the room light being turned off. Now you see them, now you don’t. The entire universe is full of EM roaming around the vacuum of outer space.
Here’s another. When full spectrum EM strikes an object, some EM is absorbed and some reflected. The human eye responds to the reflected EM, seeing it as whatever colour corresponds to the reflected EM. It’s the eye that adds the colour since EM has no colour. What happens the EM that is absorbed?
Where does all the reflected EM go that the eyes misses?
The thing is swannie, we know nothing about energy. We cannot measure it directly we can only measure the effect it has on something.
BTW…the 1st law is not the conservation of energy law. The 1st law applies only to the relationship between heat (thermal energy) and work (mechanical energy). The first law works that way because there is an equivalence between heat and work, as discovered by Joule, the scientist.
There is nothing in the original first law that claims energy must be conserved. There is no reference to EM in the 1st law. It’s a nice thought that energy must be conserved but what is being conserved if we don’t know what energy is?
“Here’s an experiment for you: Turn off the light in a closed room after dark. Where do the photons go? They can’t leave the room. They were there with the light on. They were being reflected. Now, they’re gone….”
Wait, did that happen to you? Were you scared the world disappeared?
“Any heat transfer from that heated filament had to be in the direction dictated by the 2nd law, hot to cold.”
Gordon, EMR is not heat. Do you not understand that? Planck did. EMR transfers from that heated filament.
“It’s a nice thought that energy must be conserved but what is being conserved if we don’t know what energy is?”
Conservation of Energy has been thoroughly tested in many situations in last 150 y or so.
It withstood all the developments in atomic and particle physics and relativity.
More than a ‘nice thought’.
ClintR the moronic troll wrote:
Duh. No material surface is a perfect reflector. Even a coating of gold reflects no more than 99% of the incident radiation.
Suppose you have w parallel walls with 99% reflection. At each reflection, only 99% is reflected and after 1000 reflections, the reflected intensity (I) is:
I = Io x 0.99^1000 = Io x 0.4317e-5
For a million reflections:
I = Io x 0.99^1,000,000 = 0.00000 on my hand held calculator
Not to forget that you, as the observer, must be in the room and YOU are another lower reflectivity absorbing surface.
Gordo the anti-scientist “likes” your analogy, then states:
The First Law is a particular example of The Law of Conservation of Energy and is applicable to other situations beyond the study of Heat Engines which spawned the First Law. From the Wiki article:
Both First and Second “Laws” were developed to describe closed mechanical systems, not IR EM radiation between objects or within gasses.
So Swanson, are you admitting your concern about “vanishing photons” violating 1st Law was just another example of your incompetence?
“The energy of those photons does not vanish, that would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.”
ClintR
Did you figure out where the photons go when the lights are turned off?
Maybe you could find an idiot to tell you.
ClintR bleated:
No, moron, the energy from the absorbed photons appears as thermal energy in the absorbing body, such as the Blue Plate in the GPE model. That’s why the Blue Plate exhibits a higher temperature with the Green Plate added. Your red herring about reflection has little to do when the emissivity of both plates is about 0.94, as in my GPE demonstration, which implies that the reflectivity is only 0.06.
Swanson, you need to go back and understand the issue. I rejected your bogus experiment for the reasons mentioned.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-507292
You’re trying to pervert the laws so as to match your false religion. You deny reality. That’s not science.
CO2 is long term, my graph started in 1753.
https://tinyurl.com/y22olgrk
… wrong thread …
Yeah right, Roy Spencer is totally confused, see:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
He seems confused, if he thinks the GHE has anything in common with putting on clothes…
You know DREMPTY, that it is bad form to insult the host.
I agree, Svante was very rude.
DREMPTY,
It was Dr. Roy who said
“So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer stillas evidenced by putting your clothes on.”
Not Svante
You should apologize to the host and watch your shit.
And Dr. Roy is right, the greenhouse effect exists and is like putting on your clothes.
Svante said, “Yeah right, Roy Spencer is totally confused…”
Yeah Right DREMPTY
You do know what yeah right means, right?
Let me translate what Svante said for you.
Yeah right, Roy Spencer is totally confused,
He means that Roy Spencer is not confused,
At All.
I’ll let you into a little secret, blob…
…I don’t care.
Many commenters here already know DREMT doesn’t care for writing correctly about atm. physics, DREMT now explicity confirms their case.
No, I meant I don’t care if Svante was being sarcastic or not.
Many commenters already know that too, DREMT. Carry on.
More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.
According to Gavin Schmidt, the GHE is more thought experiment than an observable state, so quibbling about the minutia of the thing is counting angels on pinheads.
Oh? Lets see the quote on that.
absolutely love this in only one statement:
Gordon Robertson says:
August 4, 2020 at 12:05 AM
…
“The real effect that has warmed the atmosphere was explained by R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2. Nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere, absorbs heat directly at the surface by conduction, and that heated air rises by convection. Since N2/O2 are poor emitters of IR, they cannot get rid of the heat till the air rises high enough and the gas expands. Then it cools naturally due to expansion.”
———–
where does the heat go when it expands – it cannot be radiated since as you say n2 02 do not significantly radiate.
As the o2 n2 rise through the atmosphere they will continually transfer heat back and forth between other atmospheric molecules as they collide (at 10,000 metres the mfp is ~2.2*10-6 metres and collisions ~0.6*10^10)/sec.)
So you still need to postulate where the heat goes – perhaps through conduction it goes to CO2 molecules and is eventually radiated at top of atmosphere by these GHG molecules?
Of course the heated GHG molecules also transfer heat to the non GHG molecules (backwards and forwards). It is only where the MFP of molecules is significantly long that radiation can leave the atmosphere.
Only radiative GHG molecules can remove heat from the risen non GHGs o2 and n2 (these are gasses not solids after all). Where there are solid bodies – clouds (water droplets) earth – these will radiate through the holes in the ghg spectrum straight to space.
Can you give me other explanations as to where the risen hot gases lose their heat?
“AIRS 10◦N-40◦S 0.4340.047 Wm−2
IPCC AR5 ERF 0.5080.102 Wm−2”
The prediction and observation don’t significantly disagree.
From Svante’s reference:
“AR5 ERFs were computed while holding surface temperature constant, a condition that does not hold for Earth. Therefore, an additional comparison was sought to AIRS measurements of locations where surface/lower tropospheric temperatures did not significantly change. Window wavenumber trends in Figure 5 indicate this is largely true for 10◦N-40◦S and the area-weighted average forcing for this latitude range was included in [the table comparing the author’s result for the actual planet Earth to the hypothetical AR5 planet Earth].
Nate’s his name, obfuscation is his game.
Yes indeed, holding the temperature constant is the only sensible way to compare observed and predicted forcing.
And when done, they do not disagree significantly. Their error ranges overlap considerably.
Are you obfuscating or missing this key point?
A lot higher than I was expecting given the various (unofficial) surface records. And the second warmest July in the record.
Muffler boy comes to tell us about his predictions – After the new data released , how clever he is.
I explained how my predictions were wrong. Is your comprehension ability really that low?
I know exactly what your shystering strategy is , you want to say it should be cooling because so and so, but it is not , so the CO2 and it is worse than we thought and blah blah blah, but you couldn’t say it the day before because you would look stupid if it didn’t happen, so you had to wait until the numbers got out,
What do you think we are all stupid here we can’t see it or what
Boy are you triggered. It was an observation – nothing more. Try to chill.
Des, please stop trolling.
The no warming since July, 1998.
Sure, if all the points in between are meaningless and thus ignored!
“if all the points in between are meaningless and thus ignored”
they were all colder than 1998… your point is ???
Why do you ignore the 1940s real temperatures and that it has been much warmer for most of the last 10,000 years
spike55 said: Why do you ignore the 1940s real temperatures and that it has been much warmer for most of the last 10,000 years
It is warmer today than at any point in at least 6000 years and possibly even over the entire holocene era.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
bdgwx, are those 6000 year-old temperatures based on fossilized butterfly belly-buttons, or petrified mushroom rings?
Refer to the cited publication for details regarding proxy sites and types in the 12k temperature database. You can then cross reference each of the 580 cited studies to get details on the individual datasets included in the database.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0445-3
580 “studies” aren’t anymore valuable than fossilized butterfly belly-buttons, or petrified mushroom rings. Nonsense is NOT science. There were no thermometers 6000 years ago.
Get over it.
Yeah right, Roy Spencer is totally confused, see:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Svante, please start commenting in the right place.
Point taken, thank you.
It is warmer today than at any point in at least 6000 years and possibly even over the entire holocene era
If the GHE thought experiment was an accurate representation of reality, that is indeed what would be expected
Yet retreating glaciers reveal human artifacts, tree stumps,
forests, mountain passes, etc. And we know Scandinavians were grain farming in Greenland while at the same time there was a thriving viticulture in England. Perhaps with Michael Mann’s single little treemometer that result emerges but nothing in the real world substantiates that conclusion.
Bill, we’re talking about the global mean temperature here. Scientists are well aware that regional fluctuations have a higher magnitude than global fluctuations. For example, the MWP and LIA were more pronounced in the higher latitudes from Canada from to Europe than for the Earth as a whole. Also, read the publications I linked to. This conclusion is not from a single source; far from it actually.
Bill Watson says:
Those glaciers have a lot of thermal inertia, and they are nowhere near equilibrium. You will see centuries being rolled back in a matter of years.
All points in between are natural variation, or it’s aliens.
Can someone explain how the warming is so even when a service like climate reanalyzer shows a cold south and a warm north accross the month?
Are you suggesting Dr Spencer’s team is fudging the data? If not, the answer is “the warming is so even because of the data”
Trebor
Please have a look at
https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo
You will see that in comparison with the Arctic, the Antarctic doesn’t warm at all:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16mQl7PXiHl-8iWEOaRw1gJlZYpZLikBi/view
Trends in C/decade for 1979-2020
– Arctic: 0.25
– Antarctic: 0.01
J.-P. D.
binny…”You will see that in comparison with the Arctic, the Antarctic doesnt warm at all:”
The Antarctic is solid land surrounded by cold oceans whereas the Arctic is generally a cold ocean surrounded by a cold land mass. The Arctic Ocean is affected by other ocean currents like the AMO and PDO and that has to have a warming effect on the Arctic.
I think Roy alluded to that in one of his blurbs.
The temperature of the troposphere will drop as solar activity increases.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/01011/x0cue7xbx0rl.gif
Isaias will cause floods in South and North Carolina.
Isaias off the coast of South Carolina.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=09L&product=ir
Very warm sea surface on the US East Coast.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_atl_1.png
Valley of jet stream falls far south over eastern Texas. The storm is approaching to land.
I miss Salvatore’s constant reassurance that global cooling is just around the corner…. *sigh*
Yeah, I miss him too. He was a good guy, and I enjoyed him being around on this blog. But he was trying to predict the climate direction in ways that just aren’t possible, as there are just too many variables we don’t know about and can’t predict.
skeptikal, maybe console yourself with Karsten Hausteins’s GFS T2m series:
T2m Anomaly
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php
SH forecast just bounced off the bottom of the chart (-0.4). If the observation progression keeps up it’ll be “off the chart” in a few weeks. Awkward. And global anomaly around 0 then will mean no climate change in terms of temperature since mid baseline circa 1995 i.e. a global anomaly no different to 25 years ago on average and linear trends irrelevant and statistically inappropriate on that data anyway.
Except, the global mean is obviously meaningless given the SH – NH disparity at surface. Global cooling actually is “just around the corner” of the GFS surface series but SH cooling is already around it in respect to the 1981 – 2010 reference period at least.
The dominance of ocean in the SH makes the SH surface the leading indicator. Focusing on “global” data misses the inflexion signal already evident.
The modulating effect of the ocean in the SH is easily shown by the CFSR absolute temperatures broken down by latitude:
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/m12-cfsr-globe-zone-tmp-monthly-1979-2020-07.gif?w=314&h=143&zoom=2
Seasonal SH fluctuations are minor compared to the NH. Also the global long-term linear trend is dominated by the NH data. Whatever is driving the NH trend, and therefore the global trend, is non-existent in the SH. And that includes theoretical CO2 forcing.
Above graph by Bryan from the Monthly Trends page at his Climate Concerns website:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/
The Mid SH linear trend on the anomaly graph (scroll down mid page and linked below) does not represent the data which is now little different to the beginning of the series data 1979 – 1981:
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/m9-cfsr-smid-ta-monthly-1979-2020-07.gif
Note too that the 2016/17 El Nino effect so evident in UAH Global is non-existent in the CFSR Mid SH i.e. it was a NH-only phenomenon. The later non-El Nino 2019/2020 spike same. At this juncture, given the obvious lack of CO2 effect on SH temperatures, it will be ocean heat that decides the trajectory of leading indication SH data. Ocean heat is in turn solar driven in the tropics (irrespective of the IPCC’s scientifically fraudulent Ocean Heat CO2 attribution – actually just speculation without physical evidence). The modern solar Grand Maximum ended, arguably, around 2004. Planetary climate lag due to oceanic thermal inertia (“10 – 100 years” Trenberth, around 20 yrs Abdussamatov) is only now coming into contention this decade.
I’ve been waiting for that long term cooling that we’ve been told has been “just around the corner” since the 1990’s. So what do you think is different this time?
bdgwx >”I’ve been waiting for that long term cooling that we’ve been told has been “just around the corner” since the 1990’s. So what do you think is different this time?”
I stated above what is different but maybe more detail needed. You’ve been waiting since the 1990s for good reason and given the thermal inertia of the ocean (Trenberth, Abdussamatov prevoius) you will probably have to wait a few more years for significant change. I’m just pointing to the leading indicator where the first sign of inflexion will show up – in SH surface temperature driven by ocean heat. GFS SH is now below the climatology i.e. no theoretical CO2 driven warming for around 25 years but possibly the point of inflexion from decades long stasis to cooling.
The reason you have had to wait for so long is that the 1990’s was in the latter third of the 1950-2009 Solar Grand Maximum (IPCC, Usoskin et al 2014). CO2-centric thermodynamic illiterates such as IPCC solar specialists (and the Skeptical Science blog) demand an almost instantaneous change in surface temperature following the Grand Maximum for solar-centric predictions to have any credibility. Not so. Trenberth’s estimate starts at about one decade lag (“10 – 100 years”). 2009 + 10 = 2019 for first indications of cooling temperatures. I’m inclined to think the Maximum ended earlier around 2004 and subscribe to Abdussamatov’s physics estimate centered on 2 decades as being more realistic. 2004 + 20 +/- = 2024 +/-.
Alec Rawls tried to get through to about a dozen IPCC solar specialists with a pot-of-water-on-stove-element analogy but without success (documented – look it up). In short you flick the switch and what happens – nothing. You have to wait thermal lag time for the water to heat. Same with the sun > ocean > atmosphere + space system except the planetary lag time estimates vary according to method. There is a whole body of literature on this employing variously; statistics, physics, empirics etc which the IPCC studiously ignores.
Note here that I am alluding to ‘surface forcing’, a concept the IPCC explicitly threw out in AR4 in favour of their TOA Radiative Forcing paradigm. Obviously a Surface Solar Radiation forcing (SSR – screeds in AR4/5 even though ‘surface forcing’ dismissed in AR4) is complicated by cloudiness and is orders of magnitude greater than theoretical TOA C02 forcing (see IPCC AR5).
Except the IPCC after dismissing ‘surface forcing’ then, by implication, invokes it again in their ocean heat CO2 attribution, without which their CO2 theory is stone cold dead (see end of comment). Apparently a TOA CO2 forcing imputes heat to the ocean, bypassing surface heat budgets, contravening thermodynamic laws, totally lacking observational evidence, and ignoring entire bodies of radiation-matter physics/optics e.g. proprietary medical lazer physics from 1970s dealing with water (a good start for say, subsequent lazer eye surgery) pertaining to the microphysics of the atmosphere-ocean interface.
IPCC CO2-centric solar specialists bat away the solar argument with reference to their as yet unproven and currently wildly astray CO2 forced models (esp SH). Dr Mike Lockwood is at the forefront of this but I note that in his papers (not his press statements) history shows that once solar forced cooling starts it is more rapid that the prior warming.
Abdussamatov shows by physics method that the planetary climate system is entering energy deficit after the surplus built up over the Modern Solar Grand Maximum i.e. a ccoling period ahead and no more warming can eventuate until solar conditions change radically because solar is the energy-in source to the system.
I’ll follow this comment with the IPCC graph that demands CO2-imputed ocean heat for their theory to reconcile with observations.
The IPCC graph that demands imputed CO2-RF ocean heat for their theory to reconcile with observations.
IPCC Technical Summary, Figure TFE 4-1
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg
Note the current graph is different from the original because it was immediately obvious in the original that atmospheric heat storage (in ZetaJoules ZJ – 21 zeroes) is negligible and not worth consideration.
IPCC theory is on the left, observations on the right. Ignoring their laughable solar forcing estimate on the left and focusing on Storage (blue) on the right it is still immediately obvious that the IPCC’s TOA CO2 Radiative Forcing paradigm is wholly inadequate to explain total Storage. They desperately need a CO2 – ocean heat attribution, by scientific fraud if need be.
Note that this graph is truncated to a brief time period beginning 1970. But the IPCC’s human attribution begins 1951 and their forcing paradigm begins 1750. The units are ZetaJoules (ZJ) i.e. Watts/m2 at TOA is actually Joules per second for each m2 of TOA multiplied by area of TOA multiplied by number of seconds back to 1750 (It’s cumulative).
Here’s where it gets awkward for the IPCC. They state in FAQs that the ocean “has absorbed about 93% of the combined heat stored by warmed air, sea, and land, and melted ice between 1971 and 2010.”
So air land and melted ice only accounts for 7% of accumulated Storage. The IPCC are very quiet about storage in the air as a fraction of the 7%. At that point air becomes no concern so best not highlight the fact. Air is hardly considered a heat sink so storage is negligible, it is simply a medium of energy transfer from surface to space (the temperature of which UAH monitors). Ocean on the other hand is a gigantic heat sink (heat storage medium).
The graph shows just short of 250 ZJ 1970 – 2012ish. The IPCC have to attribute, just in this truncated period, about 230 ZJ minus their solar forcing estimate to theoretical TOA CO2 Radiative Forcing because if they don’t their their theory on the left does not reconcile with observations on the right.
The IPCC’s ocean heat attribution states: “Airsea fluxes are the primary mechanism by which the oceans are expected to respond to …[AGW]”. They have no physical evidence for this. They only offer the circular reasoning of CO2-forced model studies. They use the word “expected”, Latin root spec from which we get the word speculation. Speculation is all they have after 25 years and 5 Assessment Reports.
This is scientific fraud.
>This is scientific fraud.
Either by incompetence (civil fraud) or intent (criminal fraud).
Earth’s energy imbalance is sitting at +0.6 W/m^2 (at least). Even if the agent that is producing the radiative force ceases to increase it’ll take another 20 years before that imbalance is equilibrated. So barring the spontaneous appearance of an unpredictable negative forcing agent like a large volcanic eruption or whatever we’re still going to be waiting awhile for that cooling that contrarians keep promising an that’s if the agent positive radiative forcing agent increase wanes.
bdgwx, your “energy imbalance” needs to include a range of about +/- 40 W/m^2, to be realistic.
I’ve had to correct you on this before.
Per Cheng 2020 the OHC uptake uncertainty is about +- 0.01 W/m^2.
You can provide citation for your +- 40 W/m^2 claim so that we can all review it?
Annually TSI varies that much.
Of course you don’t want to include solar in your “energy balance”.
Instantaneous TSI varies by that much.
Average TSI varies by only a couple of W/m^2 at most.
But that’s all moot because TSI is NOT the same thing as Earth’s energy imbalance.
+- 40 W/m^2 variation of Earth’s energy imbalance is an absurd claim on your part. It should be obvious from first principal reasoning that -40 W/m^2 and +40 W/m^2 are well beyond what is even theoretically possible given the current state of Earth’s climate system.
Glad I was able to get your attention, bdgwx.
You don’t know anything about Earth’s energy balance, only what you have learned from the nonsense your cult puts out.
Within a calendar year, TSI varies by more than 40 W/m^2, up and down, from Solar Constant. This is due to Earth’s orbit, which puts us closer to Sun at perihelion (about 1405 W/m^2), and farther away from Sun at aphelion (about 1315 W/m^2).
After albedo, the results are about 984 W/m^2 and 921 W/m^2, a difference of 63 W/m^2.
Translation: Solar input to the surface varies over 60 W/m^2 annually, and it doesn’t even show in global temperatures, such as “UAH Global”!
Earth’s systems, involving something called “physics”, manage global temperatures. A change of 60 W/m^2 is easily handled, and you’re worried about a bogus 0.6 W/m^2?
There’s even more reality for you, if you had a willingness to learn.
TSI is NOT the same thing as Earth’s energy imbalance.
An EEI of +0.6 W/m^2 is large enough on its own, but for it to persist for decades as the T^4 law tries to pull it back toward zero makes it very large indeed. Your interannual TSI variation of 60 W/m^2 amounts to near 0 W/m^2 of radiative force over the course of a solar cycle. Even the trough-to-peak of the grand cycles is likely smaller than +0.3 W/m^2. So yeah…an EEI of +0.6 W/m^2 is a big deal.
I NEVER said that TSI was the same thing as Earth’s energy imbalance, bdgwx. That’s just your usual attempt to distract and distort. You have to use such tricks because you can’t face reality. Avoiding reality is why you’re an idiot.
If the planet can handle a change in solar input 100 times your bogus 0.6 W/m^2, without you even knowing it, that should tell you something. But, you are unable to see reality.
And we haven’t even discussed why your 0.6 W/m^2 is bogus….
My +0.6 W/m^2 figure is a conservative estimate based primarily on ocean heat content increases. I typically cite Cheng 2020, but others provide OHC estimates as well.
You’re still conflating TSI and EEI when you say things like “If the planet can handle a change in solar input 100 times your bogus 0.6 W/m^2, without you even knowing it, that should tell you something.”
That’s like saying if St. Louis can handle a variation of 133F between highs and low then it should be able to handle a persistent 1.3F/yr rise in the annual mean temperature indefinitely. Surely you understand the absurdity of that argument.
And we’re still not talking about TSI here. We’re talking about EEI.
No bdgwx, your “conservative estimate” is pure nonsense. Your “cites” mean nothing when they violate the laws of physics.
Earth has energy imbalances constantly, but it has mechanisms for dealing with them. “Weather” is nothing more that Earth handling energy imbalances. Events like El Niños and hurricanes are prime examples of Earth handling energy imbalances.
You are unable to understand any of this because your mind is closed to reality.
ENSO and tropical cyclones transport heat from one reservoir or region to another. They do not, at least not directly, impact the EEI. Weather moves the heat around. It does not cause energy to accumulate or dissipate on a planetary scale over long periods of time.
The figure of +0.6 W/m^2 for the EEI is well established. It is not disputed in any significant way. Though there is a range of estimates for it with +0.6 W/m^2 being on the lower end of the range. I believe Dr. Spencer has given +0.8 W/m^2 for the value in the past. Some estimates go as high as +1.0 W/m^2. But +40 W/m^2? Not even in the realm of possibility. It’s your +- 40 W/m^2 claim that is bogus.
All wrong bdgwx, as usual.
El Niñs and cyclones/hurricanes transport energy from oceans to atmosphere where it ends up being radiated to space.
The figure of +0.6 W/m^2 for the EEI is well established nonsense. It is not reality. You just find it in “papers”, and believe it without any understanding of the numerous flaws.
There is no evidence you understand any of this. That’s why this is so much fun.
bdgwx > “My +0.6 W/m^2 figure is a conservative estimate based primarily on ocean heat content increases.”
Thank you for inadvertently corroborating my case that “…the IPCC after dismissing surface forcing then, by implication, invokes it again in their ocean heat CO2 attribution, without which their CO2 theory is stone cold dead”
The observed and relatively static TOA EEI of +0.6 W/m^2, which is considerably LESS than the IPCC’s theoretical anthropogenic TOA forcing which includes rising CO2, is the same at the surface. That is:
+0.6 W/m^2 TOA and EEI
+0.6 W/m^2 Surface EI (the uncertainties much greater than TOA).
So the TOA imbalance has already occurred at the surface in the sun > ocean > atmosphere + space system sequence. The IPCC MUST claim CO2 – OHC attribution because that is all they have. All of their theoretical anthropogenic forcings are redundant. They have no effect whatsoever between Surface and TOA.
The IPCC speculatively claim “air-sea fluxes” i.e. an air-to-sea energy transfer (Peter Minnett’s insulation theory notwithstanding, not quantified, and non-IPCC anyway), to be the surface forcing attributable to anthro cause (mainly TOA CO2) that has produced over 200 ZJ of supposedly excess OHC. Here is the IPCC’s Surface budget from their AR5 cited EEI paper:
‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’ – Stephens et al (2012)
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1580
Figure 1 TOA budget Surface budget
https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fngeo1580/MediaObjects/41561_2012_Article_BFngeo1580_Fig1_HTML.jpg
I challenge you bdgwx (or anyone else) to point out the IPCC’s anthro attributable “air-sea fluxes” i.e. a net radiative flux from the air to the sea in the Surface budget in Stephens et al Figure 1.
Net IR-C (LW) flux is 53 W/m^2 outgoing (OLR) i.e. a surface cooling flux. The IPCC’s posited “air-sea fluxes” are non-existent. The excess surface energy is obviously coming from the solar spectrum (SW, IR A/B).
The IPCC contradict their own surface energy budget. As previously, this is undeniable scientific fraud.
bdgwx > “My +0.6 W/m^2 figure is a conservative estimate based primarily on ocean heat content increases.”
Thank you for inadvertently corroborating my case that “…the IPCC after dismissing ‘surface forcing’ then, by implication, invokes it again in their ocean heat CO2 attribution, without which their CO2 theory is stone cold dead”
The observed and relatively static TOA EEI of +0.6 W/m^2, which is considerably LESS than the IPCC’s theoretical anthropogenic TOA forcing which includes rising CO2, is the same at the surface. That is:
+0.6 W/m^2 TOA and EEI
+0.6 W/m^2 Surface EI (the uncertainties much greater than TOA).
So the TOA imbalance has already occurred at the surface in the sun > ocean > atmosphere + space system sequence. The IPCC MUST claim CO2 – OHC attribution because that is all they have. All of their theoretical anthropogenic forcings are redundant. They have no effect whatsoever between Surface and TOA.
Part 1 (to avoid spam trap) Part 2 follows
Part 2 of comment addressed to bdgwx.
The IPCC speculatively claim “air-sea fluxes” i.e. an air-to-sea energy transfer (Peter Minnett’s insulation theory notwithstanding, not quantified, and non-IPCC anyway), to be the surface forcing attributable to anthro cause (mainly TOA CO2) that has produced over 200 ZJ of supposedly excess OHC. Here is the IPCC’s Surface budget from their AR5 cited EEI paper:
‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’ – Stephens et al (2012)
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1580
Figure 1 TOA budget Surface budget
https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fngeo1580/MediaObjects/41561_2012_Article_BFngeo1580_Fig1_HTML.jpg
I challenge you bdgwx (or anyone else) to point out the IPCC’s anthro attributable “air-sea fluxes” i.e. a net radiative flux from the air to the sea in the Surface budget in Stephens et al Figure 1.
Net IR-C (LW) flux is 53 W/m^2 outgoing (OLR) i.e. a surface cooling flux. The IPCC’s posited “air-sea fluxes” are non-existent. The excess surface energy is obviously coming from the solar spectrum (SW, IR A/B).
The IPCC contradict their own surface energy budget. As previously, this is undeniable scientific fraud.
“The IPCC’s posited “air-sea fluxes” are non-existent.”
Thus, according to Richard, Earth air and sea do not radiate at all, their emitted “fluxes” being “non-existent”.
This assertion by Richard is not supportable in field of spectroscopy, or if so, please do so Richard, with instrumental data.
Ball4 >”Thus, according to Richard, Earth air and sea do not radiate at all, their emitted “fluxes” being “non-existent”.”
Rubbish, you fail to comprehend. Read my case again with attention to detail. The relevant paragraph in respect to Stephens et al Fig 1 repeated here for your assistance:
“Net IR-C (LW) flux is 53 W/m^2 outgoing (OLR) i.e. a surface cooling flux. The IPCC’s posited “air-sea fluxes” are non-existent. The excess surface energy is obviously coming from the solar spectrum (SW, IR A/B).”
Clearly I am referring to the emitted fluxes of earth air and sea in the IPCC’s citation Stephens et al Fig 1 i.e. the net of OLR – DLR surface IR-C fluxes is 53 W/m^2 outgoing (OLR) – a surface cooling flux. The IPCC posits an air-to-sea transfer of energy (“air-sea fluxes”) i.e. an ongoing and significant (to account for over 200 ZJ) IR-C warming flux totally contrary to the observed 53 W/m^2 cooling flux and totally absent from the IPCC’s own surface energy budget. If that IPCC-posited IR-C warming flux was actually occurring it would show up in the IPCC’s own surface energy budget – it doesn’t. That’s scientific fraud by the IPCC.
Ball4 >”This assertion by Richard is not supportable in field of spectroscopy, or if so, please do so Richard, with instrumental data.”
Again, you obviously do not understand what you read and that I explicitly referred to global estimates of surface IR-C fluxes by IPCC citation Stephens et al 2012. They in turn derive their estimate from spectroscopic instrumental data (SURFace RADiation network SURFRAD, Baseline Surface Radiation Network BSRN). So in answer to your request, the information you require was already provided.
“the observed 53 W/m^2 cooling flux and totally absent from the IPCC’s own surface energy budget.”
The multi-annualized 53 is not observed Richard, the 53 is calculated difference from the SURFRAD et. al. multi-annually measured LWIR 398 looking down toward the L&O surface and 345 looking up from the L&O surface inclusive of downdrafts & rain shown and discussed in Stephens 2012 EB.
The 398 and 345 (in part) contain incoherent photons which do not interact like opposing fire hose water streams that possess mass.
Ball4 >”The multi-annualized 53 is not observed Richard, the 53 is calculated difference from the SURFRAD et. al. multi-annually measured LWIR 398 looking down toward the L&O surface and 345 looking up from the L&O surface inclusive of downdrafts & rain shown and discussed in Stephens 2012 EB.”
I know 53 is calculated because I calculated it from 398 – 345. Stephens et al do not bother to show net in Fig 1 even though oceanography papers e.g. Fairall et al 1976, are only concerned with the net effect which in this case is OLR (cooling). In other words, Stephens et al could dispense with the two fluxes, OLR and DLR, and just show a single 53 W.m2 OLR surface cooling flux. Here’s the surface budget again:
Stephens et al 2012 Figure 1 Surface budget
https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fngeo1580/MediaObjects/41561_2012_Article_BFngeo1580_Fig1_HTML.jpg
And yes I did point out that 398 and 345 are derived from observations (“measured” as you say). There’s whole ventures devoted to this, SURFRAD and BSRN as I stated. Martin Wild stands out in publications on this of which I’ve scoured several of his including ‘Enlightening Global Dimming and Brightening’ where tendencies in SSR (Fig 2) are instructive in respect to the magnitude of forcing (theoretical CO2 forcing fades into insignificance):
Martin Wild publications
https://publons.com/researcher/2690115/martin-wild/publications/
Ball4 >”The 398 and 345 (in part) contain incoherent photons which do not interact like opposing fire hose water streams that possess mass.”
I did not say they did. You are making up stuff with an implication that is my case – it isn’t, it is yours only in the making.
Fact remains there is no net IR-C “air-sea fluxes” to heat the ocean in the IPCC’s surface budget contrary to their speculation (and contrary to the Clausius statement of 2LoT) and their OHC attribution. And hence scientific fraud by the IPCC.
Abdussamatov’s paraphrase of Clausius in respect to the earth worth repeating here – “Heat rises up, not down”.
BTW Ball4, Martin Wild is a co-author of the Stephens et al 2012 Earths Energy Balance paper referenced upthread:
‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’ (2012)
Graeme L. Stephens; Juilin Li; Martin Wild; Carol Anne Clayson; Norman Loeb; Seiji Kato; Tristan L’Ecuyer; Paul W. Stackhouse; Matthew Lebsock; Timothy Andrews
Richard, heat does not rise as you unfortunately repeat. That is convection when fluid is warmed from below in a gravity field forcing packets of the fluid to rise until packet temperature equilibrates with surrounding fluid temperature again. Various youtube videos will show you the effect.
You are making progress though except “Stephens et al could dispense with the two fluxes, OLR and DLR, and just show a single 53 W.m2 OLR surface cooling flux.”
No. There is no single 53 photon flux as would result from opposing firehose water streams. The multi-annualized temporal and spatial measurements of upwelling & downwelling radiative, convective, and conductive energy transfer from L&O surface and radiative transfer TOA need to be supported (as do Stephens et. al., Wild et. al. and many others). This reporting provides reasonable confidence in the calculated net result of ~53 surface and ~0.6 TOA to eliminate the basis for scientific fraud accusations such as Richard writes.
Ball4, your first statement is internally contradictory:
Ball4 >”heat does not rise…”
Ball4 >”That is convection when fluid is warmed from below in a gravity field forcing packets of the fluid to rise…”
When fluid is warmed that is, by definition, – heat: the form of energy that is transferred between systems or objects with different temperatures (flowing from the high-temperature system to the low-temperature system).
The warmed fluid rises up from the high-temperature system to the low temperature system, not down as you appear to agree. Similarly warmed tropospheric air rises up from the relatively warm surface to the much cooler mid and upper troposphere, not down.
This is however a digression because the energy in question (“air-sea fluxes”) is radiative energy according to the IPCC, which until radiation actually strikes matter and excites molecules to above 0 Kelvin is not heat. The surface budget shows both heat (two – sensible and latent) and radiation fluxes (two – short and longwave)
Ball4 > [Me]Stephens et al could dispense with the two fluxes, OLR and DLR, and just show a single 53 W.m2 OLR surface cooling flux.
[You] “No. There is no single 53 photon flux as would result from opposing firehose water streams.”
There you go again with your made up “firehose” analogy which you cannot pin on me – that is your fiction not mine. But yes, the two fluxes do result in a 53 W.m2 cooling flux at the surface (OLR). I cited Fairall et al but with typo, the year was 1996 and it is in-situ measurements in the tropics:
‘Cool‐skin and warm‐layer effects on sea surface temperature’
Fairall et al (1996)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215721709_Cool-skin_and_warm-layer_effects_on_sea_surface_temperature
See Table 5 Average Bulk Energy Budget Terms. The effective radiative fluxes are Rns (+) and Rnl (-). The downwelling and outgoing shortwave and longwave fluxes are of no account individually. The net Rnl flux is outgoing (-) in all 3 cases (OLR). Note that in the tropics Rnl is a little above the global average as is to be expected.
Ball4 >”The multi-annualized temporal and spatial measurements of upwelling & downwelling radiative, convective, and conductive energy transfer from L&O surface and radiative transfer TOA need to be supported (as do Stephens et. al., Wild et. al. and many others). This reporting provides reasonable confidence in the calculated net result of ~53 surface and ~0.6 TOA to eliminate the basis for scientific fraud accusations such as Richard writes.”
Thank you Ball4, you have just corroborated my case for IPCC scientific fraud with “This reporting provides reasonable confidence in the calculated net result of ~53 surface…”
53 W.m2 OLR at the surface in Stephens et al Figure 1 (similar to tropics in Fairall et al Table 5 above – which is “reporting” is it not?) is a radiative surface COOLING flux. It is not possible for such a flux to heat the ocean. Therefore the IPCC must be speculating (their own word “expect”) on non-existent radiative surface warming fluxes that have NOT been identified in their own surface energy budget.
Ball4 >”…the calculated net result of ~53 surface and ~0.6 TOA”
You are conflating two different metrics here. 53 W.m2 pertains only to the net IR-C radiative component of the surface budget. 0.6 W.m2 TOA pertains to the net of incoming SW in the solar spectrum (the IR in which is IR-A/B) and the outgoing IR-C.
However the 0.6 W.m2 imbalance at TOA has already occurred at the surface (see Stephens et al Fig 1 Surface Budget). The brings us full circle to my comment way back in this thread in response to bdgwx:
[Me] >”Thank you for inadvertently corroborating my case that the IPCC after dismissing surface forcing then, by implication, invokes it again in their ocean heat CO2 attribution, without which their CO2 theory is stone cold dead
The observed and relatively static TOA EEI of +0.6 W/m^2, which is considerably LESS than the IPCCs theoretical anthropogenic TOA forcing which includes rising CO2, is the same at the surface. That is:
+0.6 W/m^2 TOA and EEI
+0.6 W/m^2 Surface EI (the uncertainties much greater than TOA).
So the TOA imbalance has already occurred at the surface in the sun > ocean > atmosphere + space system sequence. The IPCC MUST claim CO2 OHC attribution because that is all they have. All of their theoretical anthropogenic forcings are redundant. They have no effect whatsoever between Surface and TOA.”
End of quote, but not end of story. This scientific fraud is not going away for the IPCC.
“When fluid is warmed that is, by definition, – heat:”
No. The fluid is heated when increasing its thermodynamic internal energy by definition. There is no internal contradiction.
“53 W.m2 OLR at the surface in Stephens et al Figure 1 (similar to tropics in Fairall et al Table 5 above – which is “reporting” is it not?) is a radiative surface COOLING flux.”
No. The 53 is not OLR it is a calculated net from measured components radiative, convective, and conductive energy transfer, surface OLR is 398.
“53 W.m2 pertains only to the net IR-C radiative component of the surface budget.”
No. The 53 is more than radiation, it is a calculated net from measured components of radiative, convective, and conductive energy transfer; multiannual surface OLR radiation upwelling is 398 +/- 5 in Stephens 2012.
“However the 0.6 W.m2 imbalance at TOA has already occurred at the surface”
No. Per Stephens (you did read it?): “The average annual excess of net TOA radiation constrained by OHC is 0.6 +/- 0.4 Wm^-2 (90% confidence) since 2005 when Argo data (ref 14) became available”.
Richard has no accurate basis demonstrated for writing: “This scientific fraud is not going away for the IPCC.”
IPCC data for CO2 forcing predate the CERES satellite radiometer and Argo thermometer era by many decades. In the CERES satellite era calibrated to Argo results through early 2018 surface temperature forcing is observed with 95% confidence to be from TOA LW fluxes exhibiting pronounced interannual variability driven primarily by ENSO. SW TOA flux variations in the Arctic are noteworthy and are tied to changes in sea ice coverage.
The CERES satellite/Argo era is too short to observe with enough reasonable confidence the smaller added ppm CO2 climate signal. As CERES/Argo observation time increases the CO2 climate signal will emerge also at 95% confidence.
Had a comment go into spam trap so I’ll break it up some more.
Ball4, Part 1.
>”The fluid is heated when increasing its thermodynamic internal energy by definition. There is no internal contradiction.”
Yes, and then it (molecularly excited fluid molecules i.e. heat) rises as you stated in contradiction to your “heat does not rise”.
>”No. The 53 is not OLR it is a calculated net from measured components radiative, convective, and conductive energy transfer, surface OLR is 398.”
Rubbish. 53 is the net of 398 OLR minus 345 DLR. Actually 398 – 345.6 = 52.4 W.m2 OLR. This is the net terrestrial radiation flux. The two heat fluxes, sensible and latent, are NOT included in this calculation.
>”No. The 53 is more than radiation, it is a calculated net from measured components of radiative, convective, and conductive energy transfer”
Again, rubbish. Do the math, 398 OLR – 345.6 DLR = 52.4 W.m2 OLR. I simply didn’t bother with the decimal .6 to arrive at 53.
[Me]However the 0.6 W.m2 imbalance at TOA has already occurred at the surface [in the sun > ocean > atmosphere + space system sequence.]
[You]”No. Per Stephens (you did read it?): The average annual excess of net TOA radiation constrained by OHC is 0.6 +/- 0.4 Wm^-2 (90% confidence) since 2005 when Argo data (ref 14) became available.
Look at Stephens et al Figure 1 again:
https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fngeo1580/MediaObjects/41561_2012_Article_BFngeo1580_Fig1_HTML.jpg
There are two energy budgets – TOA and surface, both state a 0.6 W.m2 imbalance. The major planetary energy transfer sequence is sun > ocean > atmosphere + space. Therefore the 0.6 surface imbalance occurs first (the “constraint”) and thereafter is no different at TOA where it remains 0.6 contrary to all the IPCCs increasing theoretical anthro TOA forcings, CO2 uppermost but redundant.
Part 2 follows
Ball4, my comments are getting caught in spam so I’m giving up on this (probably too many links).
Except to say Dr Roy Clark pointed out 2009/10 (‘A Null Hypothesis for CO2’ in various forms) that LWIR is not a heating agent on surface materials. It only penetrates water 10 microns effective and 100 microns max, about the thickness of a human hair. So it cannot heat the bulk ocean, solar radiation does that.
John McLean raised the issue in comments on AR5 Chapter 10 (see comment no. 10-234 – rejected of course). Look up:
Expert and Government Review Comments on the IPCC WGI AR5 Second Order Draft Chapter 10
“This claim is unsustainable. Downwelling radiation from CO2 penetrates only a few microns at the ocean surface and rapidly disappears in evaporation and convection. Not only is there no method by which anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions can cause dep ocean warming, but also chapter 3 failed to describe any physical process by which heat could sink. Remove the statement. [John McLean, Australia]”
And still they fail to provide AO microphysics process, observation and quantification on a global scale to support their speculated “air-sea fluxes”.
Re Argo era data, a CO2 oceanic climate signal has not and will never emerge because as above, LWIR is not a heating agent on surface materials. Solar radiation is the ocean heating agent in the tropics.
BTW, the oceanography paper ‘The upper ocean heat balance in the western equatorial warm pool ……’ Cronin and McPhadden 1997 also dispenses with up and down LWIR components and only deals with the effective net.
Ball4, think about your quote from Stephens et al:
>”…..surface temperature forcing is observed with 95% confidence to be from TOA LW fluxes….”
This is the fraud in a nutshell. The IPCC explicitly dismissed ‘surface forcing’ in AR4 (look it up in AR4) in favour of their TOA RF paradigm as I’ve already stated previously. What you have quoted is just a bland assertion without physical evidence. The only “evidence” they have is circular reasoning from what their CO2-forced climate models churn out – that is NOT physical evidence. That same circular reasoning was used to reject John McLean’s comment on AR5 Chapter 10 that I referred to previously.
They are asserting that “TOA LW fluxes” (unquantified), somehow (no AO interface process offered), impute heat to the ocean thereby bypassing their own surface energy budget.
The reason for their scientific fraud goes like this. Their CO2-forced models generate humungous amounts of excess energy at TOA over time (over 200 ZJ since 1970ish), far more than the observed TOA 0.6 W.m2 imbalance produces. So they have to sink their excess energy somewhere, anywhere other than the troposphere and with sufficient heat capacity. That only leaves the oceanic heat sink that they MUST invoke to sink their excess TOA energy.
Without their speculated (“expected”) CO2 – OH attribution, the IPCC’s man-made climate change conjecture is stone cold dead. Their conjecture is perpetuated by this fraud.
“What you have quoted is just a bland assertion without physical evidence.”
On the contrary, that statement is directly traceable to observed multiannual data (MODIS, CERES, SORCE, Argo, UAH series, hydrology, et. al.), it is Richard’s claim of fraud that is an assertion without accurate, observed evidence to support Richard’s claims.
“The only “evidence” they have is circular reasoning from what their CO2-forced climate models churn out…”
No. Stephens, Wild et. al. EB papers are not based on climate models. Richard evidently hasn’t read the papers to learn the source of their data.
“That only leaves the oceanic heat sink..”
No. That is the largest observed (Argo) sink at ocean depths 0-1800m, then the observed sink at lower ocean depths, and then the observed sink of ice warming/melt along with atmospheric and lithospheric warming measured within meaningful error bars.
Richard, it is very clear you haven’t studied the field very deeply or thoroughly. Richard’s fraud claims have no reliable basis.
Richard C (NZ) says:
You missed my first message on this page.
Adding 35 ppm CO2 2002-2019 cut 0.4 W/m^2 from the TOA spectrum.
Nature moves towards equilibrium at the surface, the TOA, and everywhere in between.
Richard said: Thank you for inadvertently corroborating my case that the IPCC after dismissing surface forcing then, by implication, invokes it again in their ocean heat CO2 attribution, without which their CO2 theory is stone cold dead
I’m not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?
Richard said: The observed and relatively static TOA EEI of +0.6 W/m^2, which is considerably LESS than the IPCCs theoretical anthropogenic TOA forcing which includes rising CO2, is the same at the surface.
Well yeah…EEI is expected to be considerably less than ERF (if that is what you meant by “TOA forcing”). What are you thinking the discrepancy is here?
Richard said: Therefore the 0.6 surface imbalance occurs first (the “constraint”) and thereafter is no different at TOA where it remains 0.6 contrary to all the IPCCs increasing theoretical anthro TOA forcings, CO2 uppermost but redundant.
Again…I’m not understanding the “contrary to all the IPCCs increasing theorectical anthro TOA forcings” part. It almost seems like you’re conflating EEI and ERF here. EEI is expected to be much smaller than ERF. Remember…the plant has already warmed 1.0C. If we assume a reasonable 0.6C per W/m^2 for the sensitivity average since 1750 then that equilibrates 1.7 W/m^2 of the +2.3 W/m^2 ERF leaving 0.6 W/m^2 as the current imbalance.
Richard said: ‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’ – Stephens et al (2012)
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1580
You do realize that the IPCC uses Graeme Stephens and Martin Wild as primary sources right?
Richard said: The reason for their scientific fraud goes like this. Their CO2-forced models generate humungous amounts of excess energy at TOA over time (over 200 ZJ since 1970ish), far more than the observed TOA 0.6 W.m2 imbalance produces.
From 1990 to 2010 the ocean took up about 200 ZJ. 0.6 W/m^2 over 20 years is about 200 ZJ. The ocean accounts for > 90% of the uptake so it provides a reasonable order of magnitude estimate (if not conservative) of EEI. I don’t see the discrepancy here. And I certainly don’t see any fraud.
bdgwx >”From 1990 to 2010 the ocean took up about 200 ZJ. 0.6 W/m^2 over 20 years is about 200 ZJ.”
Yes, no disagreement. And the ocean heating agent is solar radiation in the tropics, or more specifically Surface Solar Radiation (SSR). Except the IPCC claim the SSR-forced ocean heat for TOA GHG forcing. That is absurd. They have absolutely NO physical evidence for that and their own surface energy budget (Stephens et al Fig 1 upthead and see below) precludes it anyway.
Stephens et al Figure 1
https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fngeo1580/MediaObjects/41561_2012_Article_BFngeo1580_Fig1_HTML.jpg
bdgwx >”The ocean accounts for > 90% of the uptake so it provides a reasonable order of magnitude estimate (if not conservative) of EEI. I dont see the discrepancy here.”
Correct (actually 93%). Although there is massive uncertainty at the surface: 0.6 W.m2 +/-17. So the surface estimate range is 17.6 to -16.4. I’m not quibbling though. Fact remains that the TOA EI has occurred first at the surface because ocean uptake occurs before dissipation to space and the central estimate remains unchanged from 0.6 at the surface and TOA subsequently in the sun > ocean > atmosphere + space system.
This is where it gets problematic for the IPCC because their anthro TOA forcings overshoot actual EI and the margin is widening rapidly. The IPCCs excess TOA forcing means they have a huge amount of THEORETICAL excess energy to reconcile with observations. Hence their need to invoke observed ocean heat accumulation at the surface (but after dismissing ‘surface forcing’ in AR4) which is attributable to SSR given the surface energy budget (more solar input than energy output at the surface).
At this point I’ll repeat my original challenge to you:
[Me] – “I challenge you bdgwx (or anyone else) to point out the IPCCs anthro attributable air-sea fluxes i.e. a net radiative terrestrial DLR (IR-C) flux from the air to the sea in the Surface budget in Stephens et al Figure 1.”
bdgwx >”And I certainly dont see any fraud.
Attempt the challenge bdgwx, then maybe you will see the scientific fraud (which could just incompetence rather than intent i.e. civil, not criminal).
Svante >”Adding 35 ppm CO2 2002-2019 cut 0.4 W/m^2 from the TOA spectrum.”
In IPCC theory that is. In other words theoretical CO2 TOA forcing increased 0.4 W.m2 over that period (I say without bothering to to check the calc with ΔF = 5.35 ln (C/C0)).
In reality however an observed and documented EEI update similar to Stephens et al 2012 has yet to be published for the period to 2019 since last update (to my knowledge). Given the IPCCs theoretical anthro TOA forcings did not comport with the observed 0.6 W.m2 EEI in AR5, has anything changed to make you think IPCC TOA RF theory will reconcile with an observed EEI in AR6?
Richard C (NZ) says: “In IPCC theory that is.”
No, it was a measurement, and the IPCC was quite a bit off center in their estimate.
bdgwx
[Me] “Thank you for inadvertently corroborating my case that the IPCC after dismissing surface forcing then, by implication, invokes it again in their ocean heat CO2 attribution, without which their CO2 theory is stone cold dead”
bdgwx >”Im not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?”
You wrote My +0.6 W/m^2 figure is a conservative estimate based primarily on ocean heat content increases. Ocean heat (OH) accumulation is a ‘surface forcing’. In AR4 the IPCC explicitly dismissed (look it up) the concept in favour of their TOA Radiative Forcing (RF) paradigm. Without the observed OH storage at surface the IPCCs theoretical TOA forcings do not reconcile with observations in terms of planetary energy accumulation in ZJ. Except they cannot claim surface OH for their TOA attribution when they have no physical evidence and the OH accumulation is SSR-forced anyway (more solar energy input to ocean than energy output).
[Me] “The observed and relatively static TOA EEI of +0.6 W/m^2, which is considerably LESS than the IPCCs theoretical anthropogenic TOA forcing which includes rising CO2, is the same at the surface.”
bdgwx >”Well yeahEEI is expected to be considerably less than ERF (if that is what you meant by TOA forcing). What are you thinking the discrepancy is here?”
No, refer this table:
IPCC TS.2.5 Net Global Radiative Forcing
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-5.jpeg
Total net anthro 1.6 W.m2, and as Svante points out the CO2 component has increased somewhat since then. At that time TOA theory was 1 W.m2 greater than the TOA actual of 0.6 W.m2, hence the massive excess generated on the theory side of IPCC Technical Summary, Figure TFE 4-1 which I’ve linked to previously but will put in following comment to avoid spam trap.
[Me] “Therefore the 0.6 surface imbalance occurs first (the “constraint”) and thereafter is no different at TOA where it remains 0.6 contrary to all the IPCCs increasing theoretical anthro TOA forcings, CO2 uppermost but redundant.”
bdgwx >”AgainIm not understanding the contrary to all the IPCCs increasing theorectical anthro TOA forcings part. It almost seems like youre conflating EEI and ERF here.”
No, see above.
bdgwx >”You do realize that the IPCC uses Graeme Stephens and Martin Wild as primary sources right?”
[Me way upthread] “Here is the IPCCs Surface budget from their AR5 cited EEI paper:An update on Earths energy balance in light of the latest global observations Stephens et al (2012) [linked]”
So yes, I do.
bdgwx, from my previous Comment:
The IPCC graph that demands imputed TOA CO2-RF ocean heat for their theory to reconcile with observations.
IPCC Technical Summary, Figure TFE 4-1
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg
Ball4 quoting Stephens et al: >..surface temperature forcing is observed with 95% confidence to be from TOA LW fluxes.
[Me]What you have quoted is just a bland assertion without physical evidence.
Ball4 >”On the contrary, that statement is directly traceable to observed multiannual data (MODIS, CERES, SORCE, Argo, UAH series, hydrology, et. al.), …”
Remember your quote is confined to “TOA LW fluxes” i.e. terrestrial radiation in the IR-C spectrum (see Wikipedia Infrared page for IR categories). Stephens et al are unknowingly asserting (as does the IPCC narrative) that an unquantified stream of photons, energized at minuscule terrestrial IR-C energy-per-photon levels, orders of magnitude LESS than solar IR-A/B (milli electron Volts meV vs electron Volts eV – see EM Spectrum table below), is directed back down to the surface from upper troposphere (not TOA note) to provide the energy that has produced observed OH accumulation that apparently CANNOT possibly be attributed to SSR (UV, Vis, IR-A/B). This is absurd.
Electromagnetic spectrum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
The microphysics of the AO interface precludes “TOA LW fluxes” attribution as I’ve previously detailed and the posited “TOA LW fluxes” are not identified in Stephens et al’s surface energy budget anyway (net LW is OLR). So I’ll repeat to you the challenge I’ve laid to bdgwx that he has so far avoided:
I challenge you bdgwx (or anyone else [i.e. you Ball4]) to point out the IPCCs anthro attributable air-sea fluxes i.e. a net radiative terrestrial DLR (IR-C) flux from the air to the sea in the Surface budget in Stephens et al Figure 1.
[Me]The only evidence they have is circular reasoning from what their CO2-forced climate models churn out
Ball4 >”No. Stephens, Wild et. al. EB papers are not based on climate models.”
I didn’t say they were. You’re making up stuff again that I’ve never said. Whether Stephens et al or any other IPCC-aligned climate scientist(s), they all have the same problem: how to reconcile their “robust evidence” (see comment re John Mclean/AR5 Chapter 10 upthread) of climate model output with observations. Turns out they offer no microphysics and observations of the AO interface globally to justify their posited “air-sea fluxes” (IPCC) which is equivalent to Stephens et al’s “TOA LW fluxes”. If you disagree I challenge you Ball4 to quote that specific evidence (i.e. AO microphysics, global AO observations) from an IPCC document, preferably AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution.
[Me]That only leaves the oceanic heat sink..
Ball4 >”No. That is the largest observed (Argo) sink at ocean depths 0-1800m, then the observed sink at lower ocean depths, and then the observed sink of ice warming/melt along with atmospheric and lithospheric warming measured within meaningful error bars.”
The bulk ocean makes up 93% of the observed increased “storage” (IPCC), and with the far greater OH already present is the largest planetary heat sink – period. Nothing else even comes close. Everything else is negligible e.g. “air” (IPCC), “land” (IPCC), and “melted ice” (IPCC) only makes up 7% of the observed increased “storage” when added together.
Svante
Richard C (NZ) says: In IPCC theory that is.
Svante >”No, it was a measurement, and the IPCC was quite a bit off center in their estimate.”
Could you provide some reference information on this please Svante? I need to know exactly the details of what you’re putting forward here before engaging any further (this is genuine interest BTW).
Ball4
[Me] “That same circular reasoning was used to reject John McLeans comment on AR5 Chapter 10 that I referred to previously.”
That’s this:
Expert and Government Review Comments on the IPCC WGI AR5 Second Order Draft Chapter 10
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/Ch10_WG1AR5SOD_RevCommResponses_Final.pdf
Comment no. 10-234
This claim is unsustainable. Downwelling radiation from CO2 penetrates only a few microns at the ocean surface and rapidly disappears in evaporation and convection. Not only is there no method by which anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions can cause dep ocean warming, but also chapter 3 failed to describe any physical process by which heat could sink. Remove the statement. [John McLean, Australia]
Response
Rejected. The assessment of chapter 3 shows robust evidence for ocean warming and sea level rise from observations and section 10.4 shows robust evidence for this warming being anthropogenic.
If you follow your nose in 10.4 you will find model studies cited – NOT physical evidence. The response is a bluff and the “robust evidence” non-existent, hence scientific fraud.
Ball4
[Me] “If you follow your nose in 10.4 you will find model studies cited – NOT physical evidence. The response is a bluff and the “robust evidence” non-existent, hence scientific fraud.”
AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
10.4.1 [Page 903]
“Air–sea fluxes are the primary mechanism by which the oceans are expected to respond to externally forced anthropogenic and natural volcanic influences.”
“Expected”?
After 25 years and 5 Assessment Reports that’s all they’ve got?
Ball4, AR5 10.4.1 again:
“….the observed ocean changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenically induced atmospheric changes from GHGs and aerosol concentrations”.
“consistent with”? “expected”?
This is pseudo-science. Where’s the AO interface microphysics?
Ball4, AR5 10.4.1 again (again):
“Considering that individual ocean basins are affected by different
observational and modelling uncertainties and that internal variability is larger at smaller scales, detection of significant anthropogenic forcing through space and time studies (Palmer et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2012) provides more compelling evidence of human influence at regional scales of near-surface ocean warming observed during the second half of the 20th century.”
The first citation is obviously models – NOT physical evidence:
Stochastic Parametrization and Model Uncertainty
Palmer et al., 2009
Second cite:
The fingerprint of human-induced changes in the oceans salinity
and temperature fields
Pierce et al., 2012
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL053389
2. Data and Methods
“Briefly, we compare three-dimensional temperature and salinity fields from 20 global climate models from the CMIP5 archive [Taylor et al., 2012] (Table S1) to 50 years of observations (19552004) from the National Oceanographic Data Center [Levitus et al., 2012].
Again, models – NOT physical evidence.
1:48am: “I didn’t say they were.”
Richard changes up & claim he didn’t incorrectly write Stephens 2012 evidence is based on climate models not observed data:
“Ball4, think about your quote from Stephens et al…What you have quoted is just a bland assertion without physical evidence….The only “evidence” they have is circular reasoning from what their CO2-forced climate models churn out..”
Then Richard issues an incomplete & somewhat incoherent challenge:
“I challenge you bdgwx (or anyone else [i.e. you Ball4]) to point out the IPCCs anthro attributable air-sea fluxes i.e. a net radiative terrestrial DLR (IR-C) flux from the air to the sea in the Surface budget in Stephens et al Figure 1.”
Pointing out a “net radiative terrestrial DLR (IR-C) flux from the air to the sea” in Stephens Fig. 1 would require Richard stating what this DLR is supposedly net of.
“The bulk ocean makes up 93% of the observed increased “storage” (IPCC)…”
When prompted, Richard now adds what he should have written in the first place about the ~0.6 Earth system EB 2012 imbalance.
——
2:23pm: Richard states, without providing evidence: “Downwelling radiation from CO2 penetrates only a few microns at the ocean surface and rapidly disappears in evaporation and convection.”
No. Actually Dr. Spencer (and others) provide evidence added DWIR absorbed from icy cirrus cloud can warm surface water in the presence of natural evaporation and natural convection to a depth of several inches (go to site search box enter: experiment).
Then Richard 2:23, 2;58, 3:10, 3:39am selects some studies based on climate models to complain they are based on climate models not physical evidence. All Richard needs to do is select studies based on observational physical evidence to remedy his complaints.
Richard said: Except the IPCC claim the SSR-forced ocean heat for TOA GHG forcing. That is absurd.
Solar input changes have been small. Since 1750 the RF is about +0.05 W/m^2; far too low to account for the heat accumulation. And from 1986 the RF was negative.
Richard said: They have absolutely NO physical evidence for that and their own surface energy budget (Stephens et al Fig 1 upthead and see below) precludes it anyway.
There is quite literally physical evidence for GHG induced heat accumulation. There is a mountain of physical evidence.
Richard said: Although there is massive uncertainty at the surface: 0.6 W.m2 +/-17.
There is uncertainty. It’s not +- 17 W/m^2 though. First, Stephens lists two imbalances: TOA of 0.6 +- 0.4 W/m^2 and surface of 0.6 +-17 W/m^2. For TOA the uncertainty is constrained by CERES at +- 4.0 and when you add OHC it drops to +- 0.6. For the surface Stephens is using the summation in quadrature rule from all of the component fluxes. It’s high because the uncertainty on the component fluxes is high. In fact, it is an order of magnitude higher than direct observations constrained by OHC alone. This is the challenge Stephen discusses. It would be nice if the uncertainty on the individual components were as a low as the direct observation of the EEI as well. That’s one of the main points of the publication.
Richard said: So the surface estimate range is 17.6 to -16.4. I’m not quibbling though.
The estimate given in the paper is +0.6 +- 0.4 W/m^2 using OHC constraints. It’s +0.6 +- 17 for non-constrained summation in quadrature of the components that go into it.
Richard said: This is where it gets problematic for the IPCC because their anthro TOA forcings overshoot actual EI and the margin is widening rapidly.
ERF is not the same thing as EEI. ERF is always higher than EEI. That is expected. And I’m not seeing a huge discrepancy between between expectations of either here.
Richard said: [Me] – “I challenge you bdgwx (or anyone else) to point out the IPCCs anthro attributable air-sea fluxes i.e. a net radiative terrestrial DLR (IR-C) flux from the air to the sea in the Surface budget in Stephens et al Figure 1.”
Let me make sure I’m understanding the challenge. The LW-up is 398 and LW-down is 346. The difference is 52 W/m^2. Are you asking of that 52 W/m^2 how much is attributable to anthroprogenic influence? Or said another way what was the value prior to anthroprogenic influence? If so then I don’t know the answer to that question.
Richard said: Total net anthro 1.6 W.m2, and as Svante points out the CO2 component has increased somewhat since then. At that time TOA theory was 1 W.m2 greater than the TOA actual of 0.6 W.m2
Again…I think you’re conflating Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) with Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF).
In as simple a way as possible the relationship is…
EEI = ERF – ΔT/y
…where y is the sensitivity parameter in C per W/m^2.
It’s not quite that simple, but is illustrative of the relationship.
For example if the ERF is 2.3 W/m^2 and Earth had warmed by about 1.0C over that period and assuming a sensitivity of 0.6C per W/m^2 then…
EEI = 2.3 W/m^2 – (1.0 C / 0.6 C/W.m^2) = +0.65 W/m^2.
And with an EEI = +0.65 W/m^2 that means 0.65 W/m^2 * 0.6 C/W.m^2 = 0.4C of warming is still in the pipeline. The transient climate response (TCR) is 1.0C and the equilibrium climate response (ECR) is 1.4C. These are just rough numbers. We can plug in whatever values are mutually agreeable.
Richard said: IPCC Technical Summary, Figure TFE 4-1
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg
I’m not seeing any discrepancy here. The blue line in this graph is the amount of energy accumulated in the geosphere. It is about 300 ZJ from 1970 to 2011.
The black line is the total energy inflow. It is balanced by the increase in OLR and the geosphere uptake of 300 ZJ.
BTW…we’ve discussed this on this blog before. OLR is increasing which is somewhat counter intuitive. The intuition is that as GHGs close off the IR atmospheric window you would expect a decrease in OLR. But what’s actually going on here is that changes in GHGs only close off a narrow band of the OLR. This induces an EEI. The EEI is equilibriated by an increase in temperature which increase broadband OLR. The ASR (absorbed solar radiation) increases as well through a cloud thinning effect. This is an expected observation predicted by most climate models. This why figure TFE.4 appears the way it does. That 500 ZJ difference between the black line and blue line is already accounted for. In other words, the geosphere accumulated 300 ZJ of energy; not 800 ZJ. And all observations are consistent (given reasonable uncertainty) with expectations.
“This is an expected observation predicted by most climate models.”
That ought to set off Richard, lol. A better observational source is Loeb et. al. 2018. They observe OLR varies with ENSO and SW reflected varies with sea ice coverage Fig. 9, discussion, and conclusions. Overall trends listed numerically Table 7. OLR trend is barely positive and naturally could reasonably be zero within the CIs of the CERES satellite era so far.
Ball4, thanks. I hadn’t read through that Loeb 2018 publication yet. I’ll have to take a deep dive into it, but table 7 at a cursory glance looks consistent with IPCC figure TFE.4. Loeb has Ed4.0 value of 0.57 W/m^2 per decade change in inflow. I’ll have to double check the numbers but if you assume 0.57 is representative of 1970-2011 and you integrate it over 40 years I think you get around 800 ZJ matching the black line in the TFE.4 figure reasonably well.
“Loeb has Ed4.0 value of 0.57 W/m^2 per decade change in inflow.”
I remember that being puzzling on my first read also, which you will come to understand as reflected SW once you detail read the paper. All CERES radiometers view scenes looking down so SW -57 (2000 to 2016) is reduction in outgoing SW, a warming trend on ASR, see SORCE data looking up for SW inflow.
Richard C (NZ) says:
It was in the first comment on this page:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf?
By the way, I think Ocean warming is by SW radiation, other flows are from the Oceans to the atmosphere, i.e. the atmosphere is warmed by the Oceans.
That makes sense Ball4. That’s what I was thinking. It is an implied increase in ASR. That’s what the IPCC TFE.4 graph is trying to communicate I believe. The IPCC calls the graph the total “radiative response” in the breakout box. I think Richard is interpreting TFE.4 wrong. Though I do entertain the possibility that it is me not interpreting his point correctly.
Svante (Part 1)
>”It was in the first comment on this page:”
Ok thanks, Rentsch (2019) from hereon.
That finding comports with Berkeley Labs in-situ Oklahoma and Alaska studies:
First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
They found about 0.2 W.m2/decade 2000 – 2010. This too is about 70% of what can be estimated using the IPCC’s simplified forcing expression ΔF = 5.35 ln (C/C0) for that period.
Svante (Part 2)
Wang & Liang (2009) determined the CO2 component of total DLR:
[29] The dominant emitters of longwave radiation in the atmosphere are water vapor, and to a lesser extent, carbon dioxide. The water vapor effect is parameterized in this study, while the CO2 effect on L d is not. The effect of CO2 can be accurately calculated with an atmosphere radiative transfer model given the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Prata [2008] showed that under the 1976 U.S. standard atmosphere, current atmospheric CO2 contributes about 6 W m−2 to L d , and if atmospheric CO2 concentration increases at the current rate of ∼1.9 ppm yr−1 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007], this will contribute to an increase of L d by ∼0.3 W m−2 per decade. Therefore, the total variation rate in L d is 2.2 W m−2 per decade.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD011800
CO2 only 70% of that in observations. Of far greater import is “the total variation rate in L d is 2.2 W m−2 per decade”. That is an order of magnitude greater than CO2 alone.
>”By the way, I think Ocean warming is by SW radiation, other flows are from the Oceans to the atmosphere, i.e. the atmosphere is warmed by the Oceans”
Agreed, but the IPCC narrative is that a minuscule 0.3 W.m2/decade of downwelling IR-C (a.k.a. DLR) does the heavy lifting.
Ball4 (Part 2)
>”All Richard needs to do is select studies based on observational physical evidence to remedy his complaints.”
The 10 micron effective penetration of the ocean surface by DLR (Fairall et al 1996) obviously demonstrates it can NEVER be the bulk ocean heating agent that solar SW is given the effective 1m SW penetration and 3 orders of magnitude higher energy-per-photon (meV vs eV).
I challenge you Ball4 to produce ONE AO microphysics study citation from Chapter 10 that supports their CO2 – OH attribution.
Here’s Chapter 10, put up or shut up:
AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
Mods, just had 2 comments go into spam trap. One only had one link and was quite short so I don’t why it it was filtered out.
bdgwx >”AgainI think youre conflating Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) with Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF).”
Rubbish, EEI is an observation, RF is a theory construct to, the IPCC hopes, explain EEI. EEI is simply observed energy in at TOA vs observed energy out.
See IPCC FAQ ‘What is radiative forcing’. The IPCC’s Table of Forcings is just a snapshot in time (not model input – see below) for Assessment Reports showing the theoretical forcing that, supposedly, is nudging the TOA energy budget off balance. But total theoretical TOA forcing is now far greater than the actual observed TOA imbalance, and increasing.
Model forcing initialization (parameterization) data for CMIP intercomparison is the Representative Concentration Pathways (RPGs). The RPG database is here (Compare page):
RCP Database (version 2.0)
http://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=compare
See Variables > Radiative Forcing > Total, CO2 etc.
See Query Results for year 2020 (Total) e.g. RCP 6.0 2.480 W.m2, RCP 8.5 2.665 W.m2. These are wildly greater numbers than the last actual 0.6 W.m2 TOA EI observation i.e. theory vs actual does NOT comport. There will have to be an EI update for AR6 obviously. I haven’t seen that yet.
bdgwx
>EEI = 2.3 W/m^2 (1.0 C / 0.6 C/W.m^2) = +0.65 W/m^2.
Firstly I appreciate that ERF as used here is for future indicative purposes by the IPCC. But is is still only an unproven theoretical construct as is RF.
The problem with this is that the EEI was a relatively constant +0.65 W.m2 for some time. Stephens et al’s period was 2000 2010. So the implication is that your ERF remained a constant 2.3 W.m2 from 2000 – 2010 because there was little or no temperature change over that decade.
I’ve just posted the IPCC’s RCPs. At 2000 theoretical Total Radiative Forcing for CMIP purposes was 1.723 W.m2 for all 4 scenarios but by 2010 varied between 2.089 and 2.154. At 2020 between 2.480 and 2.665. Obviously ERF cannot stay constant under that regime.
So the IPCC’s theoretical and progressively increasing TOA radiative forcings for each scenario are at odds with an already relatively constant TOA EI that exhibits no signs of increasing post 2010 on a gradient commensurate with any RCP.
bdgwx
>”Im not seeing any discrepancy here. The blue line in this graph is the amount of energy accumulated in the geosphere. It is about 300 ZJ from 1970 to 2011.”
You wont see a discrepancy because the graph is a reconciliation between theory on the left and observations on the right. But it is a bogus reconciliation.
The problem is the IPCC’s attribution of the ocean component of ‘Storage’ (93%) to TOA GHG forcing by speculative “air-sea fluxes” (an air to sea energy transfer) that they do not identify in their surface energy budget. Their attribution is for what they cannot account for with their TOA solar forcing on the left. This is absurd because solar heating of the ocean (predominantly in the tropics) is by SSR.
The following blog post demonstrates the effect of SSR:
‘Large Increase In Number Of Sunshine Hours Likely Behind Warming, Glacier Retreat In Alps Since 1980’ [Look it up, I wont link it]
They present this graph:
Number of sunshine hours (orange) compared to the mean temperature in degrees Celsius (red). Each curve is 10-year smoothed. Source: Cropped from video Die Alpengletscher im Klimawandel: Status quo, by Gnther Aigner
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Zugspitze-Ostalpen-sun-temp.png
Put differently, the IPCC missattributes to TOA GHG forcing what should rightly be attributed to SSR. Which makes their reconcilation graph incorrect and they are left with excess theoretical energy on the left that they can’t sink.
Ball4, I’m having trouble posting anything at the moment especially if there’s a link but maybe this will get through.
Rooftop solar water heating systems demonstrate that DLR is not a water heating agent – solar SSR is the agent.
The systems do not heat at night but DLR does not shut down at night as does SSR. DLR is a round-the-clock flux. If DLR does not heat the water in a rooftop water system then it is certainly not going to heat the ocean.
Ball4
>”Let me make sure Im understanding the challenge. The LW-up is 398 and LW-down is 346. The difference is 52 W/m^2. Are you asking of that 52 W/m^2 how much is attributable to anthroprogenic influence?
No. The net 52 W.m2 flux is OLR (LWup is greater than LWdown) i.e. a surface cooling flux leaving the surface; a sea to air plus space flux. A transfer of radiative energy from the sea to the air plus space.
The IPCC posits LW “air to sea fluxes”, the exact opposite. They posit a transfer of LW radiative energy from the air to the sea.
Unless I’m missing something, the only radiative transfer of energy from the air to the sea in the surface energy budget, and hence the surface heating agent, is surface solar radiation SSR.
Am I missing something or are you now understanding the futility of the challenge?
Richard 5:46am, the “make sure” you clip is from bdgwx. The 52 is calculated net OLR from surface as you note LWup net of LWdown, downdrafts, and precipitation.
“Unless I’m missing something, the only radiative transfer of energy from the air to the sea in the surface energy budget, and hence the surface heating agent, is surface solar radiation SSR.”
You are missing the LWdown Stephens down arrow for energy absorbed at the surface that you just mentioned. Added into the SW down arrow is a component including atm. LWdown, component of energy transfer from downdraft convection due mass continuity, and energy transfer of precipitation enthalpy to get the total shown in Stephens 2012 “all-sky emission to surface”.
The latter two components are broken out more clearly in L’Ecuyer et. al. 2015 EB which adds in downdrafts & hydrology with the water cycle to further clarify Stephens LWdown sum of each component.
bdgwx (Part 1)
>”There is quite literally physical evidence for GHG induced heat accumulation. There is a mountain of physical evidence.”
There is a mountain of physical evidence of heat accumulation. There is a mountain of GHG-forced model-based studies purporting to be physical evidence that the accumulation is GHG induced but they is NOT actual physical evidence. There is not one microphysics study of the AO interface that I can find in AR5 Chapter 10.4. As for Ball4 I challenge you to produce just ONE.
1:35am: “I challenge you Ball4 to produce ONE AO microphysics study citation from Chapter 10 that supports their CO2 – OH attribution.”
I didn’t refer you to Chapter 10 for that, I referred you to Dr. Spencer’s experiments showing added LW from icy atm. cirrus cloud incident on exposed surface water several inches deep measured at a higher thermometer temperature than surface water not in view of that added LW.
Other researchers (e.g. Dr. Peter Minnett, Professor of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography) have carried out experiments showing the same results out in the ocean to more depth. Reasonably, rooftop water heaters will show the same effect if proper experiments carried out but with way more unneeded difficulty.
Ball4
My comments are disappearing but here goes.
>”I didnt refer you to Chapter 10 for that, I referred you to Dr. Spencers experiments…”
I referred you to Chapter 10. I’m challenging you for just ONE microphysics paper from 10.4 i.e. actual physical evidence from the IPCC. Not modeling papers.
>”Other researchers (e.g. Dr. Peter Minnett,…”
Minnett’s theory is a minuscule insulation effect, not the air to sea energy transfer as per IPCC. His is not the IPCC’s case for OH attribution.
Ball4
>”Reasonably, rooftop water heaters will show the same effect if proper experiments carried out but with way more unneeded difficulty.”
No-one attempts harnessing 24 hour DLR for water heating because it has no heating effect. No commercial application, experiment redundant.
Same with PV for electricity generation. The only production is from solar during the day, nothing from solar or DLR at night. Nothing from DLR in the day. Production follows the solar curve. A DLR flux in the early morning, late afternoon or night produces no electricity whatsoever.
DLR does no useful work, either water heating or photovoltaics.
Ball4
>”You are missing the LWdown Stephens down arrow for energy absorbed at the surface that you just mentioned.”
I’m acutely aware of both LWdown and LWup. But once net OLR of 53 W.m2 is calculated then that is the effective LW flux at the surface and it is LWup (OLR) – surface cooling, not warming. In other words, there is more LW energy leaving the surface than is absorbed by it therefore there is no heating effect by LWdown.
As for other fluxes you mentioned, the IPCC posits an LW-only raditive flux (as does Stephens et al “TOA LW flux”) for OH attribution. There is no other consideration.
Richard, this thread is getting pretty long. I responded at the bottom.
“I referred you to Chapter 10. I’m challenging you for just ONE microphysics paper from 10.4 i.e. actual physical evidence from the IPCC…No-one attempts harnessing 24 hour DLR for water heating because it has no heating effect.”
The IPCC is a reporting agency summarizing the science, go directly to the author’s (eg. Minnett’s) published work to find missing details you seek. I see you haven’t yet come up to speed on the answer to your challenge where Dr. Spencer experimentally harnesses added overnight atm. DLR to increase the thermometer temperature of surface water.
I’ll write that again, Richard needs to learn this: Dr.s Spencer and Minnett have experimentally shown additional absorbed LWdown will increase more than 6″ deep thermometer temperature of surface water free to evaporate.
“Im acutely aware of both LWdown and LWup. But once net OLR of 53 W.m2 is calculated then that is the effective LW flux at the surface and it is LWup (OLR) surface cooling, not warming. In other words, there is more LW energy leaving the surface than is absorbed by it therefore there is no heating effect by LWdown.”
Richard, I dont understand this argument. If LWdown increases, then the NET radiative cooling flux is REDUCED.
If solar heating is presumed steady, and one of the cooling mechanisms, radiation, is REDUCED, then what will be the result?
Do you not understand that warming must be the result?
Nate, the usual presumption is that for surface water free to evaporate the added absorbed sky LWdown (Richard term) isn’t enough to overcome the thermodynamic internal energy evaporative loss. Detail calculations supported by experiment show the presumption is not correct.
“the usual presumption is that for surface water free to evaporate the added absorbed sky LWdown (Richard term) isn’t enough to overcome the thermodynamic internal energy evaporative loss.”
What Im saying is that extra DW LWIR results in reduced cooling and therefore additional warming.
And how that divides up between latent and sensible heat is a separate weather-dependent issue that misses the point.
“What I’m saying is that extra DW LWIR results in reduced cooling and therefore additional warming.”
Not necessarily for liquid surface water naturally free to evaporate, you have to do the work or experiment to show when that is true & those calculations & experiments have been done.
bdg…”Ive been waiting for that long term cooling that weve been told has been just around the corner”
One has to be patient at times as a skeptic. What goes around, comes around.
In a way, I’m glad our atmosphere, oceans and land mass interaction is so unpredictable. They did not even know there was a PDO till the 1990s.
Yeah…infinitely patient it would seem. In the meantime warming keeps happening.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
>”SH forecast just bounced off the bottom of the chart (-0.4). If the observation progression keeps up it’ll be “off the chart” in a few weeks. Awkward.”
Right on cue Karsten Haustein has just changed the scale of his graph, adding 0.2 C to accommodate the below normal SH temperature plunge:
GFS 2m-T
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php
Sigh, can’t use “off the chart” in comments if he keeps doing that.
Salvatore’s mistake was predicting cooling just months ahead , climate doesn’t work work that way , when it comes to climate “around the corner” is more like 12 years. It took 40 years to warm up half a degree, it is not gonna cool back down in three month.
eben…the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was not discovered till 1977 and it took them till the 1990s to identify it. There’s a heck of a lot not known about how the PDO works, never mind ENSO, the AMO, etc.
Tsonis et all studied the relation between warming and cooling and the different oscillations. They found it warmed when the oscillations were in phase and cooled when they were out of phase. Tsonis himself claimed we should stop focusing on anthropogenic forces and study the oscillations.
That’s well said.
And if it ever does cool down, it may not warm up for another 1000 years.
Cool that then, anyone for Elk hunting in the Dogger Bank?
Yep, and Jesus will soon return and take y’all somewhere nice..
blob, please stop trolling.
Aw come on DREMTPY,
You’re not in for some Elk hunting.
Come on, if we have a glaciation, it would be fun.
blob, please stop trolling.
I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean DREMPTY
#2
blob, please stop trolling.
“Yeah, I miss him too. He was a good guy, and I enjoyed him being around on this blog. But he was trying to predict the climate direction in ways that just arent possible, as there are just too many variables we dont know about and cant predict.”
Yea agreed. I hope he is doing well.
During the solar max I was on his side that the warming would slow when the sun transitioned to a major minimum… somewhat similar to his views except I felt CO2 was an obvious factor as well. This solar concept was based on a stronger sun model including magnetics with evidence from abundant literature showing solar periodicity in the lacustrine, isotope, and tree ring literature. I also had to humble myself based on recent trends of warming.
Now I think within the natural system without AGW, solar cycles drive more climate variability than today when the CO2 and perhaps aresol from industrial revolution overwhelms the system.
I will add that 20 year lags between the climate forcing and earths response remain plausible, but the actual increases in all global temperature data is hard to explain in a stronger sun model. The only plausible option I see at this point with consideration of the recent warming is that the aerosol (sulfate) system is dominant cooling factor and masked the previous warming from the sun, and recent warming relates to the decrease of sulfates decline. This model would imply that the solar max would have driven even more warming without aerosols making warming. Perhaps, the solar max would have created climate something like 120,000 years ago when seal level was naturally 6 to 9m higher than today without any CO2. Then of course GHG would be a player through all of this.
So I agree with you that it is very very complex.
I’m very skeptical that GHGs are playing any significant role in this ‘climate change’ we’ve seen in the last few decades. This is mainly because the amount of change is so small and well within the range of the system’s internal fluctuations, i.e. its fluctuations that occur with no external forcings.
This is non issue, and man’s net influence might not even be warming. I think historians will be baffled when looking back at this time at how mankind could have gone so completely bonkers or such spectacularly small changes in temperature. The science allegedly in support of a large or amplified effect from GHGs is majorly flawed and almost certainly wrong.
People are arguing with each other over tenths of a degree of change in temperature. It’s insanity, and it needs to end. Hopefully soon.
This was supposed to say:
“I think historians will be baffled when looking back at this time at how mankind could have gone so completely bonkers over such spectacularly small changes in temperature.”
I favor a global thermal inertia of 200 years. Have a look at this link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJnEnemr7-WgYM18lWj5QhathHX1qXzW/view?usp=drivesdk
You can see that if the solar activity is convolved with a decaying exponential of 200 years, it correlates well with the global temperature reconstruction.
When releasing your upload, you should specify it such that everybody shall have access to it.
J.-P. D.
binny…”When releasing your upload, you should specify it such that everybody shall have access to it”.
Open an email account at gmail and sign in.
Global Temperature vs. Solar Activity
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ks8lx6431ptxgh0/Photo%20Jul%2012%2C%2012%2028%2035%20PM.jpg?dl=0
Same picture as above but different link.
There is no “global climate”. Climate changes result from changes in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field and the Sun’s magnetic activity. These changes cause long-term changes in the course of jetstreams in tropopause.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/16/5967/F3.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
Isaias over North Carolina.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/01011/kr0cofk455tg.png
No, I just dont understand the difference?
Its an honest question.
The UAH figure is a global average. The cold South and the warm North cancel out.
After that it gets complicated. There are asymmetries.
The majority of land is in the Northern Hemisphere.
There is an ocean at the North Pole and land at the South Pole.
There is a continuous ocean current around the Southern Ocean.
Seasonal cycles are reversed.
As a result the two hemispheres are different.
The North has higher average temperatures and a higher temperature range.
Global warming is also warming the North faster than the South.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-506733
For those who are interested I have added short wave radiation to my app here: https://cfys.nu/GTA.
The data is provided by ECMWF ERA5 a re-analyse set.
There is info in the app describing the parameters. You can look at multiple level from TOA and down.
Have special look at SSR over land…
MrZ
Many thanks for the interesting info. I have their data too, but didn’t process it yet. I’m currently a bit sad of downloading & processing temp data all the time.
*
But recently I made a consistency test whose result was not quite satisfying. Maybe you did the sam test, so we could compare.
I constructed one more time, out of UAH’s anomalies and their climatology, a monthly time series with absolute data.
Out this data, I reconstructed anomalies wrt 1981-2010, and compared that result with Roy Spencer’s original data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18hW2fWKAam0AD-wWU_3AD48TyOJOYki6/view
While the differences between the two series keep minimal till 2010 (between -0.02 and +0.01), they begin to slightly bump later, first downwards, and then upwards.
Any idea?
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Hi Bindidon!
Try running your anomaly process against a 0C basetemp and compare with Roys anomalies.
When I do that my result are the same as his to the third decimal. I have checked randomly though. If your problem persist I can plot it to compare.
Let me know when/if you have some thoughts on SSR over land.
MrZ
Thanks but that doesn’t seem to be very helpful because the difference of 273.15 is everywhere the same in the time series.
Sorry I was not clear. When I said a base temp of 0c I should have said without the climatology part.
You still have to do the full anomaly calculation. You sort of do anomalies of anomalies. The 273.15 offset should disappear in that process.
MrZ
It seems to me that we are talking about quite different things.
What I meant was
(1) to combine the 2.5 deg anomaly grid and the climatology stored in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
into an absolute time series like this one
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_CPzASixecy7dAVRX4Zn4Q5hYTjl6xl1/view
(2) to construct, out of this absolute data, an anomaly time series wrt the mean of 1981-2010
and
(3) to compare these anomalies with those provided by Roy Spencer in the file
https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo
in order to see how good the generation of absolute data has been.
As shown by
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18hW2fWKAam0AD-wWU_3AD48TyOJOYki6/view
the generation is not good enough after 2010.
*
What you now mean I don’t understand.
J.-P. D.
MrZ
Addendum: the baseline generated out of the climatology file
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uDjxTU_CYAo378JKtRCX3cVDMcuhzl15/view
J.-P. D.
MrZ
… which is absolutely identical to the 12 month baseline generated by Libre Office Calc out of the absolute data generated in step (1) above.
So I ask again: Any idea?
J.-P. D.
Hi Bindidon!
Here is a comparison on my side: http://cfys.nu/Share/UAHAnomComp.xlsx
I used Excel format to avoid any decimal sign differences we might have.
I don’t get the difference you do.
Do you use the COS weight value as the middle of the cell? If not I think you can get strange effects that follows temperature changes particularly in the north where the increase is highest.
MrZ
In the file
http://cfys.nu/Share/UAHAnomComp.xlsx
you compare anomalies with anomalies.
Where is your absolute data?
J.-P. D.
I use exactly the same process as you.
The base temp is read from tltmonagc_6.0. It is not easy for me to create a list of absolute temps but you can see the weighted results in the app with the Raw Data setting under Graph Controls.
From Jan 1979 it goes
-10.44
-10.31
-10.10
-9.71
and so on.
I checked briefly against your series and from what I could see we are identical on the absolute data
So you are obviously doing the weighting right on the absolute. Why anomaly drifts I don’t know. Maybe you can point out where we deviate on anomalies by adding your data in the Excel?
MrZ
Thanks for the useful communication.
It’s hard to believe, but yesterday’s error must have been within Libre Office Calc’s internal data.
The differences suddenly dropped from [-0.04:+0.07] down to [-0.011:+0.0012]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bmWPOAdL817vuu-IFjkwXSVzIKTQd9xQ/view
and the error is now no longer visible even when looking at the ‘.ods’ file saved last night on an external HD!
That’s manifestly the price one has to pay when using LINUX for free…
In the sum, my generation of absolute data out of UAH’s grid has now successfully passed the last V&V step :-{)
J.-P. D.
Gr8!
I always assumed Roy was right 😄
MrZ
Of course he was!
But that was (absolutely) not the topic.
J.-P. D.
I sure hope ENSO gets the memo about manmade global warming, and “radiative forcing”. The ENSO waters seem to have a mind of their own….
https://postimg.cc/VSqyXBJB
People in the Patagonia region of South America experience one of the region’s worst winters in 20 years. Intensive rainfall, snowstorms and temperatures well below zero affected, among others on the agricultural sector, which forced the authorities to declare a state of emergency.
https://twitter.com/SociedadRural/status/1287139285200707585
Even a meter of snow fell in a few days @NASA
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/146000/146946/patagonia_amo_2020178.png
The temperature of the Peruvian Current remains low.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
I am a chemical process engineer, and I spend a lot of time analyzing data trends. I realize that ENSO has a significant effect, but I see steps in the data. From 1979 to about 1995 there is a cycle pattern and then a step up. From about 1995 to about 2008 there seems to be a higher step, and from about 2008 to the present there seems to another higher step up.
I fully realize there are many different factors including random chaotic effects beyond ENSO, but from a pure data analysis point of view that is what I see. If I was looking at process data, I would conclude that the process is making steps.
I probably should have stated that the second step ended, and the third step started in 2012 instead of 2008.
Tim S
Steps? What steps did you see where in the ENSO record?
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
J.-P. D.
Yep. If you have a cyclic process approximated by say y=sin(x) you’ll see the highs and lows with no net long term change in y. But if you add a linear term such that y=x+sin(x) you still have the cycle but with a positive slope. y=x+sin(x) can be described as a pause-up-pause-up pattern. sin(x) is like the natural cycles whereas x is like the persistent radiative forcing of long lived GHGs.
bdgwx, you shouldn’t use the same variable twice, since the sine wave is time dependent. You should have used “y=a+sin(x)”.
Of course when “a’ is negative, we get ice ages.
Of course you can use the same variable twice, in fact it is so common in mathematics.
y=ax^2 + bx + c comes to mind, but ClintR wouldn’t know that because he just demonstrated that he never even took high school physics.
Still trying to get into idiot school, but since he can’t pass moron school, it’s going to be tough going.
“y = xx^2 + xx + x”?
bob got in the insults, and demonstrated his ignorance. But, he forgot his immature profanities.
ClintR still doesn’t understand that the equation y = x + sinx is a valid equation.
That’s understandable, as it’s a post idiot school topic and ClintR hasn’t met the entry requirements, let alone graduate.
I, of course, can provide the profanity if that’s what you’re in to.
Yes, if you’re going to be an incompetent juvenile, at least be proud of it.
(Trolls like you will go back and forth all day, so you can have the last word. I’ve got better things to do.)
It would be cool if you learned some math or science but as you say, you have better things to do.
Well said young troll.
bobd…”Of course you can use the same variable twice…”
Yes…but not when you are referencing two separate functions. In the example of bdx, he stated y = x + sinx. As he explained, x represents a straight line function and sinx is a periodic function.
y = x + sinx is the same as y = F(x) + G(x) where F(x) is a function of x representing a straight line function and G(x) is a separate function representing a periodic (sine) function. Believe me, I have extensive experience with this on engineering math exams where I foolishly drew a graph as required and used a cosine function rather than a sine function, screwing the problem entirely. After working with sine waves for year I should have been kicked out of school for that dumb error.
The Newton-Rhapson method for approximating the roots of an equation use that method. If you have an equation like y = 2x + sinx, you can find the roots of the equation by finding where the straight line intercepts the periodic sine function.
In the example of bdx, although both functions use the same values of x coordinate range, the relationship between y = f(x) and y = g(x) relate x to y in very different manners. So you have to be careful not to confuse the values of x between the functions.
The quadratic equation you presented, y = ax^2 +bx + c actually describes a function of x where y = ax^2, which is a parabola. Since the exponents of x progress as x^0 = 1, plus x^1 + x^2…+ x^n, they describe a series (Taylor) wherein each term is an approximation to a curve. The more terms you have in the series the more accurate the approximation.
So, your example is a specific function of x and not a summation of dissimilar functions of x. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
The point is that the addition of a positive linear term creates the pause-up-pause-up pattern when combined with a cyclic term. Plotting y = x*sin(x) is easy way to visualize this. I have no problem with substitutions such that y = a(x) + n(x) where a(x)=x and n(x)=sin(x) as long as everyone understands that a(x) is most like the persistent anthroprogenic force and n(x) is most like the cyclic natural force. Again…the point is that a pause-up-pause-up or step pattern effect is a completely intuitive concept that only requires math skills at a high school level.
Gordon,
Get you a math textbook to study, high school algebra, because if you can’t find the root of y = 2x + sin x you are in deep trouble.
“The Newton-Rhapson method for approximating the roots of an equation use that method. If you have an equation like y = 2x + sinx, you can find the roots of the equation by finding where the straight line intercepts the periodic sine function.”
Finding the root of y = 2x + cos x is a little trickier.
You could us Newton’s method of successive approximations for that I suppose.
Both equations, y = 2x + sinx, and y = 2x + cosx, are sums of “continuous functions”. Therefore both equations are also continuous functions.
As such, they have a contiuous graph, with each value of y corresponding to a value of x.
There is no single “solution” or “root” for a continuous function. Any value of x will produce a value of y.
The root is where the value equals zero.
a value of x which corresponds to y = 0
Gordon,
If this is your story and you are sticking to it
So, your example is a specific function of x and not a summation of dissimilar functions of x. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it
The three function I was summing in the equation y = ax^2 + bx + c are dissimilar functions, one is a quadratic y = ax^2, one is linear y = bx, and one is a constant function y = c.
So if you can’t get this simple algebra right, how can I trust that you get the more advanced science right.
Try graphing the equation T = 0.02 x + sin (x * 3.14159/30)
That was the whole point, what does that function look like?
Hey ClintR,
Have you bothered to look up what the root of an equation means.
Will you admit you are ignorant about math?
blob, please stop trolling.
Drempty,
Please stop ******* yourself
#2
blob, please stop trolling.
ClintR said: Of course when “a’ is negative, we get ice ages.
That’s right. Negative forcing eras do not halt cyclic heat transfer processes. As the Earth descends into a glacial era the ocean and atmosphere still exchange heat causing the atmospheric temperature to ebb and flow as it continues to decline over long periods of time. The same is true for positive forcing eras as well.
Gregory J,
Your correlation looks great except the solar activity recently changed to a major minimum, and I dont see that in the correlation plots between temperature and the sun. Can you explain what the convolution method you used to eliminate the modern solar minimum?
A
Global warming continues since 1979 but the reality is we still don’t know the cause/s with the certainty we know the causes of gravitational laws. Everything we know, including IPCC reports, are approximations or estimations at best.
Aaron S,
The idea behind the plot is that the land and oceans absorb the solar energy but then release it only very slowly to the atmosphere. Each year of solar activity is effectively spread out over hundreds of years. The solar forcing for any given year then depends not only on the solar activity of that year, but also on the solar activity of preceding years.
However, the solar activity data set that I used only went thru 2017, so yes, you are right, the current minimum is missing from this analysis.
Gregory J,
You and have similar thoughts. I have some literature showing this sort of lag in the Asian monsoon recorded in speleothems. A lag exists between solar isotopes with climate dependent isotopes. However, where I struggle is the mechanism for the ongoing warming after the solar collapse. I would anticipate no warming or cooling. The ocean currents responsible for the stored heat could maintain the temperature but I dont see how they could cause the increase.
That said the aerosol content in the atmosphere creating albedo is another variable that could justify. I would need to dig for that paper but I will if you let me know you want it.
Aaron S,
As you point out, one of the interesting aspects of this analysis is that even as the solar Activity has declined over the past few decades, the solar forcing has continued to increase. This is just a consequence of the mathematical convolution.
In the convolution, the total strength of each solar activity point is spread over hundreds of years as a decaying exponential. This follows from the assumption that energy is absorbed by the oceans and then slowly released to the atmosphere over hundreds of years. For any given year, the atmosphere sees a contribution from the oceanic heat release of that year PLUS the tails of oceanic heat releases from previous years. These tails add up in such a way that even once the solar activity begins to decline, the net heat transfer to the atmosphere continues to increase for a certain period of time (a time that is short compared to the decay constant of a few hundred years). Eventually, of course, the heat transfer does start to decrease.
So, to summarize, it is just the mathematics of the convolution that has caused the solar forcing to continue to rise in this particular graph. There has been no inclusion of other phenomena, like albedo changes, etc.
Alternatively, temperature is a logarithmic function of CO2 minus volcanoes, as predicted by physics.
That’s the bold black line here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/results-plot-volcanoes.jpg
Svante,
You do realise that Berkely Earth is not associated with or part of any university, dont you?
Its main aim seems to be to solicit donations to support its propaganda campaign. How much have you contributed? Nothing at all? Why?
Swenson
” Its main aim seems to be to solicit donations to support its propaganda campaign. ”
Polemic, polemic, polemic, of course without any proof.
J.-P. D.
I understood the temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration decays logarithmically.
Global temperature plotted against CO2 concentration is discussed here:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8837
A comparison of modelled effect against observations is here:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/350-vs-388_logarithmic_co2.png
Chris Hanley
Clive Best is an excellent scientist and software engineer.
His global land surface temperature evaluation based on station data averaging within icosahedrons is simply outstanding.
J.-P. D.
Chris Hanley says:
That’s right, but it’s been beaten by exponentially increasing emissions.
Hmmm, the global CO2 emissions trend looks more or less linear to me:
https://d32r1sh890xpii.cloudfront.net/tinymce/2020-06/1592409190-o_1eb1fnj9h1l691fvm166a1ap11jna8.jpg
CO2 is long term, my graph started in 1753.
https://tinyurl.com/y22olgrk
Svante, have you found any “papers” correlating hockey stick graphs to the making of hockey sticks?
Gregory please have a look here: https://cfys.nu/GTA
Solar radiation has indeed increased over land throughout the 1979-2019 period. This especially clear over NH. The reason is not the suns output but rather lower levels of aerosols and less clouds. The latter could very well be driven by the suns activity.
As an app shortcut look at SSR under ERA5 solar radiation tab. SSR stands for Solar net radiation at surface. It includes solar input with cloud and albedo effects deducted.
Berkley’s climate website is trash propoganda. Any university that has been on a gravy train of government funding for umpteen years to prove global warming is, without a doubt, eliminating common sense to promote their conflict of interest conclusions (which they will vehemently deny).
the entire purpose of the “climate change” movement is NOT to “save the world”. The explicit purpose is to enable governments to continue eliminating liberty and freedom.
Get ready for real change. GET READY.
A. SMITH
” Berkleys climate website is trash propoganda. ”
Any scientific proof?
” The explicit purpose is to enable governments to continue eliminating liberty and freedom. ”
Oh! Another conspiracy theorist!
Yeah. And the corona virus is a myth. Doctors and nurses who died due to it in Spain and Italy: that’s an invention, of course.
J.-P. D.
How do greenhouse warming work?
Well first you need insane people.
Check! No shortage of them.
And anything which might cause greenhouse warming, is a greenhouse gas. So clouds are not gases, but clouds are greenhouse gases.
Therefore, though no prophet has announced it yet, the Earth ocean is a greenhouse gas.
How does ocean warm Earth?
It’s surface is not warmed by sunlight.
If you had surface which was warmed by sunlight, the surface warms up and it radiates more energy.
Ocean surface radiate less energy.
What could you do to make the ocean surface absorb sunlight and heat up and radiate more energy. One could make it non transparent to sunlight.
Pour a bunch of ink in the water. So now that ocean has ink in it, does it now stop being a greenhouse gas? Not quite, because the ocean evaporates, and evaporation cools the surface so it still doesn’t radiate as much.
What happen if enough water evaporate that a crust of black ink forms on the surface, which stops the ocean evaporation.
That would stop the ocean from being a greenhouse gas.
And so, Earth freezes, and we will all die.
{Though it should be noted that we are already living in Ice Age and are freezing our butts off, despite not having a bunch of ink in the ocean- and,.. everyone will die. And it should also be noted that our Ocean is also a massive refrigerator- which stops working if you pour ink on it}
Brilliant, gbaikie!
I can just imagine the “insane people” now making graphs of manmade ink production correlated to temperatures, finding more hockey sticks!
I wonder if they have ever correlated temperatures to historically increasing hockey games….
Gregory J,
Yes I see your point, but I have never been able to create a mechanism to increase temperature after the solar forcing declines dramatically. It is plausible with some feedback in the system. Something like ocean currents turned to be in phase with 90yr solar cycles, but I have never seen evidence for this.
I grabbed a cool paper about the relationship between monsoon climate and solar forcing you will likely enjoy if you have not seen it.
Cheers,
Aaron
Donnge cave asian monsoon
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05159
From the paper methodology in a figure caption.
“For the best correlation of two datasets, the chronology for the DAS record has been shifted older by 40 years and the one for the DA record younger by 47 years.” In other words there is a lag to make the optimal correlation.
It could be better : http://arthrosis.site
Nice paper! Thanks for the link. I like the idea that cosmic ray flux, as modulated by the sun, is an important factor in earths climate.
Or maybe not. See Dunne 2016.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119
“A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.”
I also recommend…
Muscheler 2005
Lockwood 2007
Sloan 2008
Pierce 2009
Overholt 2009
Kulmala 2010
Calogovic 2010
Erlykin 2013
…and I’m sure there are others that have neglected to include above.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Not much change in the global temperature this month… I see the NH of the sun has come back to life. Typically, the 11 year la nina down beat comes after the uptick of solar activity. Many models are predicting this soon. This is also timed with the 3.6 year cycle (1/3rd solar cycle). I’m carefully monitoring the UAH ocean tropics. Looking forward to adding another data point when it is released.
During the last -AMO phase from 1960-1974 roughly, the NH of the sun was especially active compared to the SH. We are inching closer and closer to the “edge” as we near the Jupiter / Saturn conjunction. This -AMO cycle occurs on a repeating 60 year cycle.
In the mean time, the Greenland ice sheet didn’t have any days above thaw temperatures again this year. Anyone surprised? Seems to be rolling over a little early this year.
On the link between decreased solar activity, and large volcanic eruptions, the last VEI7 eruption, Mount Tambora, occurred during the Dalton minimum. There was also a VEI6 in 1808. There were 3 VEI6 eruptions between 1883-1912 which corresponded to the centennial minimum. Pinatubo occurred during high solar activity, however, it followed a period of below average earthquake activity stretching from 1970-1990. Pressure may have been building for a while on that one. We saw what Pinatubo did. Imagine one an order of magnitude bigger than that. It’s possible with this GSM coming up. We also have a striking lack of earthquakes 8 mag+.
Here is an update of the comparison of UAH6.0 LT anomalies between the periods around the two most recent, bigger El Ninos:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11H1Y959how-bVRQLkUW2mV5OyIBty5Ra/view
The anomaly comparison is made here relatively to their respective start, in order to exclude level differences occurring in between.
Interestingly, the predominance within monthly values of the El Nino 2015/16, which only exists in anomaly-based records, like e.g. in UAH itself
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2020_v6-550×317.jpg
is less visible when looking at the original absolute data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EeNGcBpI1lIlB7IByn08xgFMfX2nl5cH/view
J.-P. D.
binny…”Here is an update of the comparison of UAH6.0 LT anomalies between the periods around the two most recent, bigger El Ninos:”
Seems to be getting cooler.
I’m neither a warmista, let alone a coolista. I prefer to observe data.
Scott R, who all the time writes here as he was the good fellow of the coal/oil/gas industry, tells us:
” In the mean time, the Greenland ice sheet didn’t have any days above thaw temperatures again this year. ”
without presenting any REALLY VALUABLE data confirming his claim.
I prefer to show the daily Arctic sea ice extent for the last years (absolute values):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-rIi_Ml6yinPkUWPDFPz4VEy9BUX4fZL/view
As we all can see: 2020 is (in August!) a tick below 2012, the lowest summer sea ice year, and is moreover 2 million km^2 below the 1981-2010 mean.
*
And then, one more time: this ridiculous Zarkhova GSM blah blah!
Sorry: this is too much.
J.-P. D.
binny…”I prefer to observe data”.
There is something missing here. No one observes data, the data is a result of observation. The problem with your analysis is that you accept any old data, whether it is questionably fudged or not.
When I have tried to point out the fudged data you have pompously replied that it is good, simply based of the name of the organization who fudged it. No amount of fudging evidence sways you.
You have been acting like a total alarmist nutjob ever since you got here and now you tell us you’re no warmista , some king of self delusion on top of it.
Bindidon,
You know you could easily check the EGP station data yourself. I know that you know how. Here’s a snap shot for you:
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=3459515780734287&set=pcb.3459523404066858
So again… not one recorded temperature above 0 deg c this summer on the ice sheet. All the cameras, the majority of the weather stations and media continue to focus on the coast of Greenland where we should all be thrilled that the ice is still melting into the ocean. If that process ever stopped, we would go into an ice age.
Did you know that there is still ice floating around in the Hudson bay? 1 1/2 months after the summer solstice. The NW passage is still blocked. The peak summer temperatures are not reached until July, and water temperature / ice peaks later still. Why don’t you wait a few more months before you get excited about hitting a new ice min. I saw Heller’s new vid showing the coldest 6 months to start the year in the US ever. Or perhaps you’d like to tell me about the ice departures from a cherry picked average in October again when the sun isn’t out.
So how is a 1981-2010 mean fair? You are basically capturing the 1/2 that follows the peak of the -AMO cycle. It would be like using Dec 21st – June 21st to create the average yearly temperature for a weather station. It’s going to be biased cold.
scott…”Did you know that there is still ice floating around in the Hudson bay? 1 1/2 months after the summer solstice. The NW passage is still blocked. The peak summer temperatures are not reached until July, and water temperature / ice peaks later still”.
Easy on the scientific fact, Scott, it causes hysterical reactions in alarmists like Binny.
tim s…”From about 1995 to about 2008 there seems to be a higher step, and from about 2008 to the present there seems to another higher step up”.
There is a well-known step circa 1977 where warming increased by 0.2C for no apparent reason. It was known initially as the Great Pacific Climate Shift till it was re-discovered as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Climate_Shift_and_the_Relationship_of_Oceans_on_Global_Temperatures.pdf
I have argued that a similar shift of nearly 0.2C occurred circa 2001 – 2002. If you look at the UAH graph on this site you can see that before the 1998 El Nino extreme, only the peaks of the anomaly variations go above the baseline, which is the 1981 – 2010 global average.
After the ’98 EN extreme, temps went briefly below the baseline then moved above for good between 2001 – 2002. The global average then became flat till about 2015. Before the new UAH algorithm was produced that step to the flat trend average was about 0.2C.
That means we’ve had 0.4C of unexplained warming since 1977.
The step you describe from 2008 to present is actually a two part event. 2008 represented an El Nino that drove temps briefly below the baseline, then the flat trend continued till about 2015. The super EN of early 2016 accounts for the rest, even though the trend since then has been largely negative. Of course, the alarmists like to tack that superficial warming onto the overall trend.
To those alarmists bent on interpreting my words as claiming Roy is an alarmist for increasing the overall trend to 0.14C/decade, that is not so. Roy is doing his job of analyzing the data and presenting a number based on the data. It’s not his job to analyze any further to explain the numbers. I appreciate the fact that he does try to enlighten us with plausible explanation from time to time.
Bdwgx,
You say:
“Or maybe not. See Dunne 2016.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119
A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.”
And yet solar forcing is well documented in the paleoclimate records and the paper by Dunn is a response to a CERN paper proving in pristine atmospheres that cosmic Ray’s indeed nuclear clouds by creating ions (same process creates the C14 record used for dating historical objects- this is why C dates must use solar activity to reconstruct the C14 curve and connect half life to calendar dates).
A plausible integration is obviously that we are no longer in a pristine atmosphere and have created a dominant system of ions for cloud nucleation from human activity and no longer rely on cosmic Ray’s in the modern setting. What confuses me is there are many types of clouds and I struggle that the entire system is calibrated sufficiently to eliminate the role of magnetics in climate. Did Dunn consider high elevation clouds? Also, I wonder the role of aerosols from volcanoes and if this same cloud formation creates a positive feedback for the cooling during a major eruption.
Cheers,
Aaron.
nate…”A lower number of molecules means a lower average kinetic energy and a lower temperature. ”
Huh???
You think its cold in a vacuum chamber?”
Space is classified as a vacuum and its temperature is about -273C. The only reason a vacuum device does not cool at STP is there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum device. They all have walls on them that conduct heat, no matter how well insulated, therefore the vacuum is never allowed to reach -273C.
Conversely, the only reason heat exists is the kinetic energy of atoms, both internally and externally, in motion, as their kinetic energy.
Is it not meaningless to talk about the temperature of a vacuum, if the definition of temperature and heat is the kinetic energy of atoms? A vacuum is the absence of atoms, so it’s the limit as atoms are removed from a space. It’s the removal of atoms that reduces the temperature, so you need to remove all the atoms in the vicinity of Earth before there is no heating.
If you start with the nothingness of a vacuum and start adding atoms, the temperature begins rising. The more atoms you introduce, the warmer it gets. Of course, adding solar energy helps.
Even at that, the space surrounding the Sun is full of ejected protons and electrons, therefore that space is neither a true vacuum or absolute zero.
What about the thermospher?
Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 1,700 C (3,100 F)[2] or more.
The highly attenuated gas in this layer can reach 2,500 C (4,530 F) during the day. Despite the high temperature, an observer or object will experience cold temperatures in the thermosphere, because the extremely low density of gas (practically a hard vacuum) is insufficient for the molecules to conduct heat. A normal thermometer will read significantly below 0 C (32 F), at least at night, because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. In the anacoustic zone above 160 kilometres (99 mi), the density is so low that molecular interactions are too infrequent to permit the transmission of sound.
swannie…”Dr. Wood did not claim that theres no Greenhouse Effect due to the radiactively active gases”.
From your own quotation of Wood…”It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions…..trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar”.
He went on to explain atmospheric warming as being due to the major gases, N2/O2, absorbing heat directly from the surface then rising. Due to the poor radiation ability of N2/O2 at terrestrial temperatures the major gases retain the heat.
That makes far more sense than a greenhouse, or the atmosphere, being warmed by radiation due to a trace gas like CO2.
He added…”Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions”.
Gordon,
Binny is confused. He doesnt realise that proof is for mathematics, not science.
As Einstein said * No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.*
Binny demands proof. Binny cant even prove he is rational. All blah blah, and no trousers, as they say.
Gordon Robertson
You are behind the times. Wood’s experiment was retested and his could not be duplicated. The opposite effect took place.
Maybe Wood’s design were not both identical and the margin of error in results could be attributed to this.
https://berkeleysciencereview.com/2016/11/greenhouse-gases-versus-glass-greenhouses/
Again REAL science (how it works). Wood’s did not do a good job at all on his test. He had a forgone conclusion which could easily have biased his findings.
Real science, multiple measurements. Switching lids to see if the box configuration had anything to do with results. I would say in this case Wood’s was sloppy.
http://clim8.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
Norman, you can bicker about a century old experiment, or you can face reality. “Real science” does not avoid, ignore, evade, or pervert reality. When you claim that something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis, you are avoiding, ignoring, evading, and perverting reality.
That makes you an idiot.
ClintR
I do not believe I fit in your category. I do understand the Moon does rotate once on it axis for each orbital period. That would not be the same as claiming something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
The only thing that would make me an “idiot” is to imagine you might actually respond to any real physics. The evidence is very overwhelming you do not understand any REAL science (I guess you might be okay at the made up blog versions where no evidence is necessary to support any claims).
You do not have enough knowledge of actual physics to understand the GHE and will always and forever get the concept wrong.
Norman says: “That would not be the same as claiming something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.”
Okay Norman, see if you can face reality: A wooden horse is bolted to the outer edge of a merry-go-round. It cannot rotate about it center of gravity. With the merry-go-round rotating about its CoG, is the wooden horse also rotating about its CoG?
ClintR
My opinion is that in such a case the horse is NOT rotating on its axis. The platform is rotating on its axis. The horse is part of the platform. I believe I was shot down previously with this understanding. Not sure what thread it was on. I think it was with an interaction with DREMT.
Oh Noooo, Norman and others!
Please don’t pollute this thread again.
Please, please continue your stoopid pseudo discussion here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/
J.-P. D.
No, you are correct. The wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis.
People who disagree with us on this would include:
bdgwx
Ball4
bobdroege
among others.
Since ClintR’s wooden horse is bolted down to the spinning mgr, the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis more or less than once per mgr rev. Something that cannot spin on its own central axis more or less than once per rev, cannot spin on its own central axis more or less than once per rev.
Yes, as I said, Ball4 is one of those who disagrees with Norman.
Norman is approaching reality. He admits that something that is not rotating about its axis is not rotating about its axis.
But, look at the alarm from Bindidon and Ball4. If other cult members start moving toward reality, what happens to the cult? Reality cannot be permitted!
norman…” Woods experiment was retested and his could not be duplicated. The opposite effect took place”.
Norman…your victory dance is a bit premature. You have referenced the Pratt experiment of 2009 which has been disproved subsequently by Nahle in 2011, who in a highly controlled experiment, got almost exactly the same results as Wood in 1909.
Remember, Wood was in a class of his own as an experimenter. As an expert in gases he would have known about the moisture content of air and its effect on temperature. Pratt, obviously did not. Oddly enough, Pratt’s expertise was in computer science.
Turns out the problem with Pratt’s experiment was humidity. As Nahle pointed, out, if great pains are not taken to control humidity, the results can become highly unpredictable.
Speaking of prats, the guy you referenced in your link, David Litt, is one great prat. Doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground re Wood or his experiment.
Here is a well done mathematical analysis of all three experiments:
https://principia-scientific.org/the-famous-wood-s-experiment-fully-explained/
Here’s a link to Nahle’s experiment which is presented formally in great detail:
http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html
ps. your reference, David Litt, claimed conduction has no effect with gases and can be ignored. This is the thought process of a guy with a degree in chemistry who cannot think beyond what he has been taught.
Gases themselves are poor conductors of heat due to the spaces between them but they are not poor absorbers of heat via conduction from a heated surface. If molecules of nitrogen or oxygen are touching a surface like the Earth they will absorb heat directly from that atoms/molecules on that surface. Once those molecules warm, they rise and inter-molecular conduction has nothing to do with it.
Therefore conduction of heat from a surface to a gas cannot be ignored and should not be ignored since it is apparently the major form of energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere.
Gor,
You exhibit hardly any understanding of heat transfer phenomena. Apparently EEs don’t get into that very deeply.
It looks like Nahle made the same mistake as Wood in not being aware of temperature depending on location of the thermometer in the box as discovered by Pratt. The Berkley report did not mention the ghg water vapor which is, on average, 10 times more effective at ground level warming than CO2. The Stanford paper at least acknowledged WV as a ghg. None of them appears to have a substantial understanding of heat transfer phenomena.
There is little ‘greenhouse’ effect in typical greenhouses. In fact, many greenhouses now use plastic film with hardly any IR blocking because it’s a lot less costly and the increased IR loss is a small fraction of the total. The plastic film is sometimes double walled to trap a layer of air to reduce conductive/convective loss.
What you call a “well done mathematical analysis” is pathetically wrong. It makes assumptions that are not even possible. As shown by a psychometric chart, even if you start out saturated at 32 C the RH at 55 C would be less than 30%. The assumption of 90% at 55 C is not possible. The moist box idea is bogus.
Anyone with a decent understanding of heat transfer phenomena and analysis can easily determine that the planet surface averages about 33 C warmer than it would be without ghg. It is unfortunate that it is misleadingly called the GHE. The egregious mistake is assuming that the human contribution to warming is caused by CO2 increase instead of the measured increase in average global water vapor.
Gordo, Mr. Nahle’s experiments are useless.
In all but one case, #5, he does not insulate the sides and bottoms of his boxes. And there’s no mention of insulating the bottom of the box in #5 which is “wrapped” with insulation. As a result, there’s considerable energy loss thru those large areas of cardboard. In case #5, he found that the temperature within the box with insulation exhibits a higher temperature than the box without insulation. No surprise, that’s basic solar collector engineering. Ever heard of a “solar oven”?
Also, in several of his other cases, he stops collecting data while the temperatures are still increasing, thus the results do not represent equilibrium conditions.
Pangburn, Swanson, please stop trolling.
The atmosphere is very little warmed by the absorbed radiation. Nevertheless, the absorbed energy is reemitted in random direction so that it warms the ground again. At low concentration of greenhouse gases only half of the reemitted radiation reaches the ground. With high concentration of greenhouse gases it can be much more because the reemitted radiation can be absorbed and reemitted again and again.
The ground can’t warm the atmosphere, but the atmosphere can warm the ground?
bohous, you don’t think before you type, do you?
“The ground can’t warm the atmosphere, but the atmosphere can warm the ground?”
Sure they can do so, when either out of thermal equilibrium, since stuff trends back to temperature equilibrium when forced out of thermal equilibrium.
Ball4,
What rubbish! When is there ever equilibrium? Are you aware that the Earth rotates on its axis, or don’t you believe it? What is your explanation for low level temperature inversions at night?
Most alarmists would have to invoke cold rays being emitted by the ground! How about you?
Does Swenson mean when atm. air is cooled by contact with a colder surface until it becomes cooler than the overlying atmosphere sometimes on clear nights, when the ground cools off more rapidly than air by radiation due Swenson’s cold rays emitted by the ground? Or to what other of your alarmist physics does Swenson refer?
Ball4,
So the atmosphere is not warming the ground at the same time it is warming the ground?
Or does the atmosphere only warm the ground when the sun is shining and the ground is demonstrably hotter than the air?
Where is your thermal equilibrium? Learn some physics, fool!
Try to make some physical sense, Swenson, for actual physical answers.
Ball4, try to stop trolling.
bohous…”Nevertheless, the absorbed energy is reemitted in random direction so that it warms the ground again”.
You do understand that the atmosphere cools with altitude? Therefore from the surface upward, the atmosphere’s temperature has to be equal to or less than the surface. Please explain how heat gets transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
While you’re at it, the theory you are espousing, AGW, claims the GHGs in the atmosphere are heated by the surface. According to you, that heat is recycled from the surface via GHGs back to the surface so as to raise the temperature of the surface beyond what it is heated by solar radiation.
Have you heard of perpetual motion?
When the surface loses heat by radiation it does so on a massive scale, so massive, that all GHGs in the atmosphere can absorb no more than about 5% of it. That means 95% of the heat lost has to be replaced before the surface can begin warming again.
Can you explain how that happens?
“Please explain how heat gets transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.”
Heat doesn’t transfer Gordon, EMR does & and EMR is not heat. Also see the Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic theory of gases for energy transfer both ways between containers of gas in thermal contact at different temperatures.
So all that stuff taught in universities about heat transfer is nonsense? NASA claims that heat is a form of energy which can be transferred between objects!
Either you are trying to play with words, or you are really stupid. Which is it?
“So all that stuff taught in universities about heat transfer is nonsense?”
Not all, some get it right; Gordon & Swenson usually do not. And neither.
Ball4,
So NASA is getting it wrong? And every university in the world, apart from some you refuse to name?
Try playing with words some more.
ball4…”Heat doesn’t transfer Gordon, EMR does & and EMR is not heat. Also see the Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic theory of gases for energy transfer both ways between containers of gas in thermal contact at different temperatures”.
I explained this to you several times before, re heat transfer by radiation. No…heat does not transfer from body to body, it decreases in the hotter body and increases in the cooler body. That’s what is meant by heat transfer via radiation.
Claiming that EMR is transferred is wrong. EMR is created in the hotter body and heat is lost but in the cooler body EMR is CONVERTED to heat and heat is gained while the EMR is lost. Therefore EMR is not transferred because it is lost during conversion and there is no way for it to exist in a solid body, a liquid, or a gas.
That also explains why heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body. Quantum theory tells us that EMR is radiated from an electron when it drops to a lower quantum orbital energy level. There is no other particle in an atom or molecule that can emit EMR.
The quantum energy level defines the kinetic energy of the electron and its angular frequency. It so happens that the radiated quantum of EMR has the same frequency and its value in Ev (electron volts) is the same as the difference in Ev between the quantum energy levels through which the electron dropped.
KE also defines the temperature required to raise the electron to a certain quantum energy level, so heat in a body is directly related to the average quantum energy levels of the electrons in the atoms of the body.
In order for an electron to absorb EMR, the EMR must have at least the value in Ev to excite the electron to a higher quantum energy level. The EMR frequency must also match the angular frequency of the electron. That is not possible when the EMR is emitted from an electron in a cooler body because the Ev and frequency will be too low to affect an electron in a hotter body.
Don’t ask where it goes, that like asking where a drop of water goes when it goes over Niagara Falls.
Gordon: “heat does not transfer from body to body”
That’s better Gordon.
Gordon: “Quantum theory tells us that EMR is radiated from an electron when it drops to a lower quantum orbital energy level.”
Quantum experiments tells us that EMR is radiated from the entire mass of the atomic or polyatomic structure when it drops to a lower quantum energy level in rotation, vibration and electronic transitions; the electron mass is insufficient by itself to do so.
“In order for an electron to absorb EMR”
No, the whole atomic or polyatomic structure absorbs and emits the EMR, the electron is not massive enough.
“KE also defines the temperature required to raise the electron to a certain quantum energy level”
Not enough collisional energy to do so at Earth troposphere temperatures, the ro-vibrational collison excited states are the main source of Earth’s troposphere air constituent LW radiation.
“That also explains why heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.”
Heat cannot be transferred at all Gordon, you just wrote that: “heat does not transfer from body to body”. EMR is not heat so EMR can go both ways.
This is a good demonstration of Gordon’s confusion in the use of the heat term. Gordon will automatically eliminate this confusion in commenting by simply avoiding use of the heat term.
swenson…”NASA claims that heat is a form of energy which can be transferred between objects!”
They play a lot of games with technicalities, even at NASA. Electromagnetic radiation is still referred to as heat, a throwback to the days before the electron was discovered. Good scientists and mathematicians like Clausius, Stefan, Boltzmann, Maxwell, and even Planck thought heat was transferred through the air as heat rays. They cannot be blamed for that since they had no way of knowing.
Even ball4 is confused about that. He just stated that EMR is transferred between a hotter body and a cooler body, with the inference that process constitutes a heat transfer.
In a solid body, heat is transferred atom to atom like electrical current. In fact, the same valence electrons that transfer electric charge also transfer heat energy. With radiation, the process is different. Heat is a property of atoms and where there are no atoms nearby, it cannot be transferred efficiently. Heat will transfer molecule to molecule through air but the efficiency is very low due to the relatively greater distances between molecules.
When they talk about transferring heat by radiation, they are using technicalities. No heat leaves the hotter body, it is dissipated as it is converted to electromagnetic energy. If the hotter body is not heated by an external means it will continue to cool.
On the other end, at a cooler body, the same EM emitted from the hotter body has the required energy to be absorbed by electrons in the cooler body. That causes the cooler body to warm. So heat transfer via radiation is a net of the loss in a hotter body and the heat gain in the cooler body.
That process is not reversible. EM from a cooler body is not absorbed by electrons is a hotter body. Furthermore, the energy level in a cooler body is lower than the energy level in a hotter body and energy cannot be transferred from a low energy level to a higher energy level by its own means. The means of transfer…radiation…is irrelevant.
Gordon: “heat does not transfer…Heat will transfer…”
More Gordon confusion. Just drop using the term Gordon since you don’t understand the term.
Instruments show EMR from a cooler body is absorbed, transmitted, and scattered from a hotter body Gordon, EMR is not heat.
ball4…”Quantum experiments tells us that EMR is radiated from the entire mass of the atomic or polyatomic structure when it drops to a lower quantum energy level in rotation, vibration and electronic transitions; the electron mass is insufficient by itself to do so”.
How?? What other particles are radiating EM? The electron is a particle with a negative charge and when it moves, it generates a magnetic field. So you have an ‘ELECTRO’n charge (electric field) and a ‘MAGNETIC’ field. What does Electro + magnetic equal, is it not an electromagnetic field?
What other particle in an atom or molecule can generate such a field? The electron mass is irrelevant, it has an equal charge with the proton which is nearly 2000 times its mass.
Electrons create all the light and any other electromagnet energy in the universe. Protons in an atom can’t generate a magnetic field because they don’t move appreciably compared to an orbiting electron.
Everything you mention, transitional, vibrational and rotational emission is all about the the electron transitions in the inter-atomic bonds.
ball4…”Just drop using the term [heat] Gordon since you dont understand the term”.
Back to your delusion that heat does not exist. How did you put it? Heat is a transfer of energy not a phenomenon. I am still waiting for you to answer which energy is being transferred, is it not thermal energy? Therefore, according to you, heat is a transfer of heat.
Brilliant!!!
“The electron mass is irrelevant”
No, electron mass is too small to absorb the angular and linear momentum of the absorbed photon exciting polyatomic air up one rotational quantum level. But the whole mass of the spinning and translating polyatomic air constituent is just right.
“I am still waiting for you to answer which energy is being transferred”
I am still waiting for Gordon to understand I’ve already pointed out many times the energy transferred between gas constituents in containers in contact at different temperatures is as defined in the Maxwell-Boltzmann probability distribution. The energy transfer goes both ways.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
If radiation from the ground is absorbed by an atom of CO2 and reemitted in random direction, it is not a thermal radiation of black body. CO2 in the atmosphere does not behave like a black body. If you have a hot fire in the fireplace and put a big mirror nearby, you can feel the heat of the fire reflected by the mirror. It does not mean that the mirror has 300°C. The mirror does not get into thermal equilibrium with the radiation which it reflects. The same it is with greenhouse gases.
bohous,
Which is it then? Does CO2 absorb radiation or reflect radiation? Any refraction? Do you know what you are talking about?
It also thermalizes the radiation it captures with neighboring molecules.
Swenson, bdgwx:
Sorry for probably propagating a mistake. Now I see that it is probably not as I wrote.
Dr Spencer. Would you pleases explain to me how it is possible to determine (not estimate) the average global temperature to within 100th of one degree for the year 1500, 1000 BC 10000BC etc? I understand proxies. But are we not comparing thousands of daily readings to a few hundred observations over an extremely minute area of the world? Just doesn’t see at all rational to me!
Monthly mean’s today are estimated to within +- 0.05C. I believe it is a bit better for reanalysis, but I don’t think it’s +- 0.01C. Estimates of temperatures in the paleoclimate record have much larger uncertainties. Oh and reanalysis assimilates up to 1 billion readings per month. We have nowhere near that kind of data in the paleoclimate record. Anyway, here is perhaps the most comprehensive collation of past temperatures to date. Error margins are included.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
It is not possible to ‘determine’ the global average temperature to within 100th of one degree. They are only estimates, and various reserach units supplying the estimates provide a rounded figure to 2 or three decimal places.
The data are numbers to work with. The number given is the central estimate, the uncertainty is explained in the papers (usually). People who work with this data are fully aware of that. People who work with this data do not for one second think that the global average temperature has been ‘determined’ month by month to 2 or 3 decimal places.
No, it is noobs who are unaware of that, and concerned about the accuracy or precision of the numbers.
norman…”Real science, multiple measurements. Switching lids to see if the box configuration had anything to do with results. I would say in this case Woods was sloppy”.
Once again, at your link, you have a computer scientist, Vaughan Pratt, claiming one of the greatest authorities on gases and their radiation/absorp-tion, R.W. Wood was sloppy in his experiment.
Your computer scientist made an egregious error, he allowed one of his boxes to become contaminated with moisture. The moral to this story is that computer scientists should stick to computer science and let real scientists like Wood do the experiments they are ultimately qualified to perform.
Wood was notorious for his curiosity and his experimentation. He was so good with what he did with radiation/absorp-tion of gases that Neils Bohr consulted with him, no doubt in relation to the emission/absorp-tion spectra of gases.
When someone of Wood’s eminence in the field claims he does not think GHGs in the atmosphere can warm it, I’m going with him over a computer scientist or a snotty-nosed grad in chemistry who makes a fundamental error between conduction of heat between molecules in a gas and the absorp-tion of heat via conduction from a surface.
R.W. Wood was sloppy in his experimental report, as most can reasonably learn by reading it. So was Nahle sloppy & Nahle’s sloppiness was intentional to support his preconceptions. R. W. Wood actually confirmed the greenhouse effect caused by glass and rock salt plates. Wood only speculated on Earth atm. GHE.
Ball4,
Should people believe the father of both infrared and ultraviolet photography or you?
Heard of Woods glass? How about the Woods lamp used in medicine? The Wood Spot on the moon? Or even the Wood crater?
You cannot even figure out why Wood ensured that sunlight was filtered through a glass plate before striking the salt plate, can you?
What a dummy you are!
Try to make some physical sense, Swenson, for actual physical answers.
ball4…”Try to make some physical sense, Swenson, for actual physical answers”.
Like you, claiming that heat does not exist? Or that heat is physically transferred between bodies by EMR.
Gordon, you get it right that heat doesn’t physically transfer between bodies. EMR is one means to transfer thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy between bodies both ways; EMR is not heat.
Conduction and convection are two other physical means thermal energy can be transferred. Conduction and convection are not heat either.
Ball4,
Of course you are right saying heat does not physically transfer between bodies. You cannot weigh heat (well, you can, but thats well above your pay scale. You would only become more confused.) You cannot measure its length, depth, or height.
As far as conduction and convection are concerned, they are so 19th century, dont you think?
Keep playing with words.
swenson…”Should people believe the father of both infrared and ultraviolet photography or you?
Heard of Woods glass? How about the Woods lamp used in medicine? The Wood Spot on the moon? Or even the Wood crater?”
Thanks for the reminder of how great R.W. Wood was as a scientist. You have barely scratched the surface of his accomplishment. I might add that Neils Bohr consulted with him on the spectra of sodium vapour. Wood was an authority on the emission and absorp-tion of gases like CO2.
When Wood offered his doubt that CO2 could appreciably warm the atmosphere, he was offering an expert opinion that wannabees like Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, leader of NASA GISS, could only dream about. Instead, Schmidt consults with theoretician Pierrehumbert, whose main talent seems to be growing a bushy beard.
Gordo, Come on guy, R. W. Wood’s experiment in 2009 was at a time when aviation was still in the crib and little was known about the atmosphere above a few thousand feet in altitude. It wasn’t until after the first satellites were placed in orbit that real measurements from outside the atmosphere were even possible. Wood’s expressed doubt based on his limited point of view and tells us nothing about the present state of knowledge and understanding about the atmosphere and global climate.
Correction: Wood’s experiment was published in 1909, six years after the Wright Brothers first flew their powered airplane.
Wood’s assertion regarding the Greenhouse Effect was not supported by his experiment, since the physical mechanisms are different from an actual greenhouse.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Meanwhile:
The last fully intact ice shelf in the Canadian Arctic has collapsed, losing more than 40 percent of its area in just two days at the end of July, researchers said on Thursday
and
It is becoming more and more likely that 2020 will be the hottest year globally since records have been kept, dating back to the late 1800s.
It is sad to see the deniers here attempting to practice the art of distraction. Pathetic really.
So what happened to all the ice? A few million cubic meters just vanished? Of course ice pushed into the sea by a glacier breaks off when there is too much.
It’s floating! Moves up and down with the tides. Eventually breaks off. That’s where ice bergs come from. Remember the Titanic?
Keep alarming.
Things get brittle crack when it’s cold, that’s why the ice disintegrated.
Svante,
Disintegrated into what, precisely? Did it get so cold it cracked and turned into . . . ? More ice?
Obviously it cracked, fell in the water and sailed away.
We both know the Earth is cooling, right?
Svante,
How does floating ice fall into the water? It’s floating, you ninny!
By the way, anybody ending an assertion with “right?” is usually trying to get somebody to believe a lie.
furthermore:
New satellite images from NASA show that Canada’s St. Patrick Bay ice caps have completely disappeared. They have been there for over 5000 years.
studentb,
And what was the temperature before the ice caps formed? Above the freezing point of water do you think? Maybe things are going back to their previous state.
Facts have no impact on an alarmist like you, do they?
student…”New satellite images from NASA show that Canadas St. Patrick Bay ice caps have completely disappeared. They have been there for over 5000 years”.
Not so, they formed during the Little Ice Age. It’s a miracle they hung around so long.
For once I think you’re right Gordon.
studentb provides us with another perfect example of “cargo cult science”.
He believes in the AGW hoax, so everything he sees/hears is more “proof” to him that the hoax is valid. He saw the news about the ice shelf breaking off, not realizing that ice shelves break off all the time, even in cold weather. Swenson had to teach studentb about ice bergs!
And, as is their MO, studentb got in the obligatory false accusation: “It is sad to see the deniers here attempting to practice the art of distraction.”
studentb must believe reality is a distraction. That’s why he avoids mention of recent record snows in places like Tasmania, Pantagona, and cold temperatures not seen in areas of Sweden in over 50 years. Reality must be ignored.
Cli,
The hoax is that the warming has been caused by CO2 increase.
Other than an “academic concern” does it matter if CO2 did increase global temperature since the time of the Little Ice Age.
The fact is, we living in an Ice Age.
The “proper response” when living in the coldest time period, is
warming is better.
I also think an improvement would be, if humans lived on ocean.
And I can see rising sea levels, as a good thing- but it’s not happening.
I have yet to see argument that rising sea level is bad.
There is great argument that everyone shouldn’t paying the insurance bills of people who build houses in flood plains or coastal high risk areas. Where is the public interest in increasing real estate values in bad/dangerous places to build houses?
I think there wide acceptance of the idea politicans are incompetent and generally, evil/stupid/greedy. If sea levels were rising, then maybe their could some “political will” to do something about it.
It’s not that I like what people of Venice, Italy did with there city, but seems people find it desirable.
Or is Venice the story of ruin, and we want avoid at all costs?
It seems that a story of ruin, is what happenned with Japanese city, and their tsunami [2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami] which had nothing to do sea level rise.
Or think living on coast is fine idea, but make houses designed to handle that environment.
Or I think people could live on Mars. And living on the ocean is easier, than living on Mars. Also have weird idea that living on the ocean would similar to living on Mars- in terms of technology used. And seems rather dull minded, that have live on Mars, in order to imagine living oceans of Earth. Why should Martians have to get credit for this?
But anyhow, living in Ice Age. Means warming is better. Actually warming is always better. Or there never warmer period in past, which worse than the Ice Age we living in, or worse less warm conditions.
There periods were raging volcanic activity, and nothing much to recommend about living at time of super volcanoes erupting, or impacted large impactors from Space {and both could be occurring at about the same time}. BUT an Ice Age period doesn’t exclude such things from happening. Or zero advantage of being in an Ice Age, far as I see, but we have been stuck in one, will continue to be stuck in one.
And the academic error of CO2 causing any significant warming, might the least of all the academic errors, which are presently occurring.
Everyone can see that deniers like you are shifting to the final argument of scoundrels. Namely that climate warming is happening but it will be beneficial. Just admit you have been wrong all along and go home.
studentb,
Gavin Schmidt is not a scientist. Michael Mann did not win a Nobel prize.
Youre not a denier, are you?
“Everyone can see that deniers like you are shifting to the final argument of scoundrels.”
Within 100 year time period, I think doubling of CO2 would cause about 0 to .5 C of warming.
And don’t think CO2 will double from 400 to 800 ppm within 100 years.
But it seems CO2 levels were about 280 ppm about 100 years ago and now are +400 ppm. So increased by 120 ppm and doubling which would an increase of 280 ppm.
Half of doubling would be 140 ppm, and most of warming would be in the first half {as related it’s to a logarithmic increase].
So, possible had .2 C increase in global temperature from the 120 ppm increase in global CO2 levels. That pretty close to what IPPC say, they say, at least .2 C increase is due rising CO2 level.
One can quibble “about .2 C” vs “at least .2 C”
But my point is what are “you” arguing about. And be more specific
in my question.
How much warming do you or anyone on board thinks has occurred from a rise to about 400 ppm, and how much warming will occur within next 50 years.
Also what will global CO2 levels be in next 50 years or by 2070 AD?
And if think only 1 C why this problem if you know that we are in an Ice Age.
I used to think {decades ago} doubling of CO2 might cause 2-3 C and that made me lukewarmer, it seems to me presently, I was wrong as can’t 2-3 C from doubling of CO2 levels.
But didn’t it was problem if global temperature were to warm by 3 C- and still don’t.
And at present, I would say that it seems air temperature is not even significant, as what is important in terms global climate is the ocean temperature. Or as it’s said ” More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.” **
And ocean average temperature is currently about 3.5 C.
And also should mention no one think CO2 or global warming is about making hotter days. And hottest day ever recorded, remains to be about 100 years ago.
**I think 99% of global warming is about warming the ocean.
Do you think warming the ocean is important?
student…”Namely that climate warming is happening but it will be beneficial”.
What is ‘climate warming’? Climate is a definition, the average of daily weather over a period. How does a statistic warm?
You alarmists have tripped over your penchant for renaming quantities like global warming as climate change. Since global warming is itself a statistic bereft of any real meaning, so is climate change.
gbaikie, be cautious about such statements: “Within 100 year time period, I think doubling of CO2 would cause about 0 to .5 C of warming.”
I’m glad you included “0”. CO2 cannot raise the temparature of Earth. Dr. Charles Anderson has written extensively about this. Atmospheric CO2 acts to transfer thermal energy to space. Adding more CO2 then acts to lower Earth temperatures. That’s why warmer oceans outgas more CO2. The added CO2 then aids cooling. After cooling, the oceans reabsorb CO2.
All of the “physics” offered by Warmists to support AGW is bogus. The so-called “energy budget” is bogus. Warmists thrive on nonsense.
–ClintR says:
August 9, 2020 at 9:02 AM
gbaikie, be cautious about such statements: “Within 100 year time period, I think doubling of CO2 would cause about 0 to .5 C of warming.”
I’m glad you included “0”. CO2 cannot raise the temperature of Earth.–
No one has measured the possible effect of CO2 causing an increase in surface air temperature in an atmosphere, but you could say we in “a process” quantifying it’s possible warming effect. And appears to be a low value. Or idea that doubling of CO2 could cause 5 C of warming seems to be disproven, at least in terms of relatively short periods of less than century of time.
I am not talking about CO2 effect over thousands of years so “within 100 years” is significant aspect of what I am saying.
Though I am quite certain when talking about thousands of years, the key factor would be related to ocean temperature and changing the temperature of the entire ocean by 1 C, has large effect upon global average surface temperatures. And I don’t think CO2 could have much effect upon ocean temperature, but ocean temperature temperature certainly has effect upon CO2 levels.
–Dr. Charles Anderson has written extensively about this. Atmospheric CO2 acts to transfer thermal energy to space. Adding more CO2 then acts to lower Earth temperatures. That’s why warmer oceans outgas more CO2. The added CO2 then aids cooling. After cooling, the oceans reabsorb CO2.–
It seems Dr. Charles Anderson and Roy Spencer, PhD both agree CO2 causes cooling of upper atmosphere. I don’t think CO2 causes cooling, rather I believe the effect of doubling of CO2 is within 0 to .5 C, in time periods of less than 100 years.
It plausible or could considered a fact, that any surface has limit of how much a blackbody surface can radiate to space. And one could regard the Earth atmosphere and it’s ground/ocean surface as all being a “blackbody surface”, and if one part of surface {ie upper atmosphere] radiate more, the other part of surface “must” radiate less.
I have some doubts about this- but in accordance to such idea, the more heat loss in upper atmosphere causes the surface air temperature to be higher.
But one say I sticking with simple fact, that temperature of entire ocean is the global climate. I would say ocean controls atmosphere, and atmosphere has little effect upon ocean. Or atmosphere is weather, and ocean is global climate. And ocean [or global climate} effects weather.
We living in Ice Age. It is as cold as Earth has been. And reason we in an Ice Age, is due to the average temperature of ocean which is about 3.5 C.
And within these millions of years we have been in this coldest period, the oceans have been as cold as 1 C and have been as warm as 5 C. Not colder nor warmer than this temperature range.
A 5 C ocean is what alarmists fear- it has quite an average global surface temperature. But I am not alarmed by prospective or potential of such high global average temperatures.
First we would be close to leaving the Ice Age conditions, second, it take thousands of years. Third it’s a better climate condition or a more normal climate for Planet Earth.
Ignore this:
Record heat and wildfires have scorched Siberian Russia.
OK. Done.
Well done! Great denialism at work.
studentb,
You’re welcome.
student…”Record heat and wildfires have scorched Siberian Russia”.
Oh, dear, Siberia has had a few days of heat which is a few tenths of a degree in excess of what is expected. That means all the CO2 must be accumulating over Siberia?
Anymore pseudo-science?
Wild fires tend to happen in dry areas of forest where lightning strikes. Or do you think it has gotten so warm that they have spontaneously combusted?
student…”The last fully intact ice shelf in the Canadian Arctic has collapsed, losing more than 40 percent of its area in just two days at the end of July, researchers said on Thursday”
Amazing. Greenland has glaciers, the glaciers flow downhill to the ocean and push out into the ocean causing an ice shelf. Along comes summer, ice begins to melt and weaken, gravity and waves from the oceans flex the shelf and it breaks off.
Wonder how many millions of times that process has repeated over the ages? An ice shelf forms when the toe of a glacier pushes out over the ocean. Since it’s still attached to the glacier it is not floating on the water but the wave action of the ocean waves stress it. Also, it’s weight stresses it as it moves further from land. Eventually it must break off.
Along come the idiot alarmist climatologists claiming the ice shelf are breaking because it’s getting warmer. Guess what, it’s not warmer for 11 months of the year.
I think alarmist climatologists have to be at the bottom of the pile as far as scientists go.
The stratosphere dropped to -0.79C in July 2020. This is now the coldest monthly reading on record.
bdg,
That would be consistent with more CO2 in the stratosphere (which counters the slight warming of more CO2 at ground level resulting in CO2 with no net effect on climate)
Yes, if half the population move to the stratosphere.
Dan, actually well mixed CO2 can have no effect on planetary total atm. temperature as it doesn’t burn a fuel. The sun has the fuel source to do so. Added ppm CO2 has a midlatitude tropics planetary warming affect at 1bar (and higher) and the opposite cooling effect in most planetary atm. regions below about 0.2bar.
Observed Earth atm. water vapor amount over land and sea & the variation of the cloud water amount in ice and liquid phase according to Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite data have no monotonic trend 1948-2019. See Fig. 7 & Fig. 9 and discussion in Sec. 3,4.
https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/hess-24-3899-2020.pdf
Fool! Your comments show you know nothing about physics. Even my cat knows why the stratosphere is cooling.
studentb,
I have no trouble with agreeing you are as intelligent as your cat.
Both the cat and I are obviously more intelligent than any of the fools here. I am not sure about the dog.
studentb,
Maybe the dog is cleverer than both of you. Have you asked, or do you only converse with cats?
bdg…”The stratosphere dropped to -0.79C in July 2020. This is now the coldest monthly reading on record”.
1)How do they measure the temperature of the stratosphere at large? It’s a huge space.
2)Sounds like solar UV has decreased slightly and not warming the atmosphere as much.
Thermal radiation is released in the stratosphere in the ozone production process.
UAH uses the polar orbiting microwave sounders. The stratosphere is cooling and the troposphere is warming so I’m not sure what your 2nd point was.
“How do they measure the temperature of the stratosphere at large? Its a huge space.”
“Sounds like solar UV has decreased slightly and not warming the atmosphere as much.”
Sounds like we have Homer Simpson here.
Gordo, wrote:
How long have you been posting on this blog? Do you really not understand that the the MSU/AMSU instruments used by UAH and RSS to measure the “temperature” in the lower and middle troposphere are also used to provide data for the stratosphere? And, FYI, the AMSU provides additional data even higher in the atmosphere as well.
You really need to do your homework or maybe get checked for “old timers disease”.
Swanny,
So what’s the temperature of the thermosphere? Shouldn’t it heat the layers below it?
I forgot. Alarmists claim that only cold things can make things hotter. Like colder atmosphere making hotter surface even hotter!
swannie…”How long have you been posting on this blog? Do you really not understand that the the MSU/AMSU instruments used by UAH and RSS to measure the “temperature” in the lower and middle troposphere are also used to provide data for the stratosphere?”
Check. UAH also puts out temperature contour maps of the lower troposphere over each landmass to show where the warming/cooling exists. How would you do that in the stratosphere? Is there a NH and SH in the stratosphere? Do they have gridded cells?
gordo, You still have no clue, do you?
The UAH LT “temperature” maps are constructed from gridded data for the MT, the TP and the LS data, each of which is gridded. Those maps include most of the Earth, including both NH and SH data, though the LT data is not available poleward of 82.5 degrees. The LT is useless over the Antarctic because of the high elevations (RSS excludes data poleward of 70S) and is questionable over the Arctic Ocean because of the decline in sea-ice coverage.
Perhaps the blockage of circulation in the Nino 4 region in the Pacific will end.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
The temperature of the Peruvian Current remains low.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Can anyone explain why USA48 changes so much more than the other parts of the globe. Could it be that the ara is the smallest?
The smaller area and the fact that it is entirely land is a big part of it.
Svend…”Can anyone explain why USA48 changes so much more than the other parts of the globe”.
Could it have something to do with the fact that most surface thermometers are located in the lower 48? Or, if you are using NOAA, GISS, or Had-crut series, could it be the fudging has caught up with them to the extent the readings are all over the place?
NOAA has fudged the surface record so much it cannot be recognized.
GR said: Could it have something to do with the fact that most surface thermometers are located in the lower 48?
No. None of the regions in the UAH dataset including USA48 use surface instrumentation.
GR said: Or, if you are using NOAA, GISS, or Had-crut series, could it be the fudging has caught up with them to the extent the readings are all over the place?
No. No dataset from reputable research group publishing a global mean temperature series “fudges” data. This includes UAH.
bdg…”No dataset from reputable research group publishing a global mean temperature series “fudges” data”.
I am declaring you terminally naive.
Tell me which dataset, which publishes a global mean surface temperature and which you approve of, that we can use to objectively quantify the differences between it and all of the other datasets. Perhaps we can see just how much “fudging” there is.
bdgwx, would you be able to recognize “fudging” if you saw it?
Here’s an easy test. The “fudging” is everywhere. See if you can find any?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Steve Goddard has animated some of the US temperature changes: https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/
Gordon, your chart here says you have been declared technically senile.
Pangburn
I have analysed GHCN V3 data years ago, and had to come to the conclusion that Goddard aka Heller intentionally made a disingenuous comparison (TMAX vs. average).
Even today, if you generate a TMAX time series for CONUS, you will see the 1930’s as the years with highest temperatures.
What the graph you show deliberately ignores is the fact that the TMIN temperatures have increased much more over time than did TMAX.
WUWT is full of links to this stoopid graph. Especially commenter Tom Abbott never forgets there to discredit NOAA people as ‘fraudulent’.
J.-P. D.
nurse…”Gordon, your chart here says you have been declared technically senile”.
Some folks say I’m egotistical,
Hell I don’t even know what that means,
Must have somethin’ to do with the way
That I fill out my tight new blue jeans.
Same goes for senile…hell, I don’t even know what that means.
binny…”What the graph you show deliberately ignores is the fact that the TMIN temperatures have increased much more over time than did TMAX”.
More fudge from Binny.
GISS deliberately and very quietly replaced 1998 with 1934 as the hottest year in the US. They might have gotten away with it had Steve McIntyre of climateaudit not caught them, forcing them to re-institute 1934 as the warmest year.
https://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/
Seems the fudgers have contrived to reverse it again.
The 1930s in the States featured dust storms and set records for consecutive heat waves. The 1930s in the US were far hotter than anything we have experienced.
Money And Corruption Ruining Science | The Frauds Of Science
https://youtu.be/1yM7dkJrUfw
LOL. How many filthy rich scientists do you know? Has anybody seen a luxury vehicle driven by a person in a lab coat? Or seen nerds cavorting at exclusive holiday resorts?
studentb,
If over $1 billion US is filthy rich, there is more than one, but I do not know them personally. Why is a lab coat important to you? I assume the filthy rich generally remove their white coats before climbing into their chauffeur driven Bentleys.
Which exclusive holiday resorts are you talking about? How would I recognise these nerds? You dont know? What a surprise!
To summarise your answer: NONE
studentb,
Summarise as you wish. It doesn’t matter. People can read my answer, check its veracity, and make their own summary. Fair enough?
To summarise your comment: “I will try and be more succinct in future”
studentb,
Keep summarising. I hope it helps you.
Succinct. Well done.
“but I do not know them personally.”
Yep. Imaginary people.
Nate,
Just like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann? I don’t know either one personally. Maybe you are an imaginary person also?
eben…”Money And Corruption Ruining Science”
Robert Gallo, who laid claim to discovering the HIV virus was convicted of scientific misconduct for using the data of a competitor, Luc Montagnier, to lay his claim. Gallo holds the patents on both HIV tests and has become wealthy. He was forced to share his patent profits with Montagnier as punishment for stealing Montagnier’s work.
Ball4,
Maybe you should try and understand physics at the quantum level. Or at any level, really. Mindlessly repeating random scientific sounding words only works for mindless alarmists.
As another alarmist commenter noted, his cat understands physics as much as he does.
I suppose * But the whole mass of the spinning and translating polyatomic air constituent is just right.* is as meaningful to an alarmist as it is to a cat.
Svend Ferdinandsen
You asked above:
” Can anyone explain why USA48 changes so much more than the other parts of the globe.”
As opposed to the ignorant Robertson, who all the time boasts about allegedly fudged data but didn’t even know what you meant with ‘USA48’, bdgwx gave you a good answer.
The kernel reason for the higher deviations from the mean is indeed the fact that USA48 is a small portion of the Globe (be it land or ocean doesn’t matter).
Here is for example a comparison of UAH’s original data
https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo
for USA48 with the data for all land portions of the Globe in the Lower Troposphere:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R0lXfoybIxPIUJCAHfm7VG2WVv6OKXvY/view
You see that the global blue line is much more homogeneous, with deviations smaller than those in the red USA48 line: while the red line results of averaging the data of about 200 UAH grid cells, the blue line represents the average of over 2800 of these cells.
Though differing by a lot, the two series show similar linear trends (0.17 C / decade for USA48 vs. 0.18 for all land areas).
You would obtain a similar graph when comparing for example the UAH data above the relatively small Southern circumpolar ocean with all ocean portions of the Globe (but with more different trends).
J.-P. D.
binny…”Here is for example a comparison of UAHs original data….for USA48 with the data for all land portions of the Globe in the Lower Troposphere:
Beware!!!…more amateur fudging on Binny’s Excel app.
It is always very simple to discredit the work of others and to pretend on a blog that their result is ‘fudged’: no one requests any proof of what you pretend, and no one wants to know who you really are behind your pseudonym, or, even worse, behind a faked pseudo real name.
You can pretend to have been educated in engineering, even though not being able to reproduce simplest Excel data processing, let alone to develop, verify and validate a software package processing gigabytes of climate data like temperature or sea ice.
And no one wonders that exactly those people who lack any knowledge in data processing always discredit those who are able to do that, by pretending that they make ‘faked graphs out of fudged data’.
The boaster nicknamed ‘Gordon Robertson’ is the greatest specialist for such disgusting behavior.
*
Here is a comparison, within the period 1979-2020, of UAH’s CONUS aka USA48 data with
– NOAA’s CONUS average;
– the average of all available GHCN daily station data for CONUS.
1. This is the NOAA data for CONUS’ average temperature from 1979 till now:
https://tinyurl.com/yy2q4p7f
Anybody can download the data (absolute monthly values in Fahrenheit) in csv format:
https://tinyurl.com/y49mtg8o
and compute anomalies in Celsius wrt e.g. the mean of 1981-2010 out of it, by using Excel or a similar tool.
All you need is minimal knowledge about spreadsheet management: any real engineer has acquired such knowledge during professional life.
*
2. What is less simple is to process surface station data stored in the GHCN daily corner:
https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x
and to construct an anomaly time series for CONUS out of the data provided by all available stations (on average for 1979 till now: about 7000 each year).
Validation and verification of such times series is hard work.
*
Having now all that data at hand, you can compare in a graph the NOAA and GHCN daily time series with UAH’s USA48 data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OhsNLiPz9Rs87SCaxcEv2TE8pONmHSbc/view
Though showing similar running means, the three series nevertheless show greater differences, because their linear trend estimates differ by more than some might accept.
While UAH’s data trend is more or less similar to the raw GHCN daily data (0.17 C / decade vs. 0.20 for GHCN), NOAA’s data shows a much higher trend (0.27 C / decade); that’s a lot indeed.
*
But… to simply pretend that NOAA’s data is fudged: that is disingenuous and disgusting.
One has to prove that the data provided by NOAA is not correct. No one until now (and especially NOT Goddard aka Heller) did ever that complex job.
All software has been made available by NOAA: feel free to prove it’s wrong.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Are you the same person who blamed open-source software for mistakes due to your inability to properly use a spreadsheet? Oh dear.
Swenson…”Are you the same person who blamed open-source software for mistakes due to your inability to properly use a spreadsheet? Oh dear.”
Binny was only emulating one of his heroes, James Hansen, former leader of GISS. Hansen predicted climate disaster in 1988, along with his hero, Al Gore, on national TV, and within 10 years had to retract his claim. He blamed it on an error in his computer. The alarmists bought it because they think computers program themselves and think for themselves.
James who? Did he get a Nobel Prize?
Swenson
” Are you the same person who blamed open-source software for mistakes due to your inability to properly use a spreadsheet? Oh dear. ”
Ooooh! Swenson seems to be progressing up the ranks, and moves from the simple, mere commentator to Robertson’s newest acolyte.
At least in lying you manage to perfectly succeed, Swenson.
It was clear from my message to MrZ that the mistake was due to Libre Office Calc, and not to me.
Di you ever use that tool, Swenson? Very probably not; otherwise, you would yourself have noticed a number of bugs in it (which of course never happened anywhere when using the original Excel).
What matters to me is that after shutdown and reboot, the bug no longer was active in the spreadsheet.
What you think is simply redundant.
Maybe you belong to those dumb ignorants who pretend that the Moon cannot rotate about its own center of mass? Well I wouldn’t wonder.
J.-P. D.
I’m not aware of anyone that is pretending such nonsense. If Moon had an original torque it would be rotating about its center of mass. But since it is not rotating, it obviously never had the correct torque.
Swenson
Just a few lines above you might admire one of those perfect ignorants who don’t know anything about
– what happens in the accretion disks around fresh-born stars
and
– why nearly none of the relevant celestial bodies around us lack spin. Not one!
And because they never read anything written by Newton, let alone by Laplace, they never will understand that no one did ever pretend that torques are responsible for any spin.
The contrary is the case: the tidal torques exerted by orbited and orbiting bodies on each another
– transfer a part of the spin angular momentum of the orbited object to the revolution angular momentum of the orbiting object
and
– reduce the orbiting object’s spin angular momentum as well.
It is perfectly measurable today that
– Earth spin reduces such that the length of Earth’s day decreases by 2 msec / century
– Moon’s distance from Earth increases by 3.8 cm / year.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you mix some facts in with your confused physics. The result is just the facts being perverted by your confused physics.
Such tricks only work on other trolls.
Aren’t you the one that didn’t want to pollute this thread with the Moon issue?
PS Just to clarify, since Bindidon spouted so much nonsense: Gravity can NOT create a torque on a distant body.
How come the Moon is tidally locked then?
Please elaborate.
It’s NOT “tidally locked”, Svante. That’s just an excuse as to why it’s not rotating about its axis. But, that makes it even funnier because they also claim it is rotating about its axis!
Don’t you wish you could understand physics?
ClintR,
You never even took high school physics if you make this statement
PS Just to clarify, since Bindidon spouted so much nonsense: Gravity can NOT create a torque on a distant body.
I’ll do you a favor and add the qualifiers, if and only if the distant body is symmetrical with a uniform density.
Otherwise if one side is heavier than the other side, gravity will indeed create a torque on the body.
Too stupid for school.
binny…”– what happens in the accretion disks around fresh-born stars…”
No one has ever seen a star form just as no one witnessed the Big Bang. These are nothing but theories put forward by egotists who need to justify their large salaries and funding.
svante…”How come the Moon is tidally locked then?
Please elaborate”.
Who said it was ever turning?
bobdroege says: “Otherwise if one side is heavier than the other side, gravity will indeed create a torque on the body.”
Here, bob is claiming that gravity can create a torque on a body, if the mass distribution is lopsided. Galileo demonstrated that acceleration due to gravity does NOT depend on mass, c 1590. Newton proved Galileo’s work an elaborate mathematical proof, c 1700.
Then, in 1971, an Apollo 15 astronaut repeated the experiment on the Moon! To make it even more interesting, he used a feather and a hammer.
So gravity can NOT create a torque on an orbiting object. bob is completely wrong. This is why I enjoy these idiots so much. They are always sure they are brilliant, but they seldom get anything right!
Here’s the link to the video of the experiment done on Moon, but you must delete the “*” from the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joiD*Ck_3t20
CLintR,
Look Dork for brains, you said distant body, not orbiting body.
The acceleration is dependent on the force, F = m a
And the force is dependent on the masses of the two objects and the distance between them
F = (G M1 M2)/ r^2
What you think about Gallileo is crap.
The Moon is slowly slowing the spin of the earth, by putting a torque on the earth.
bob doesn’t understand physics and possibly never heard of Galileo, hence the misspelling of the name. But his blatant avoidance of reality is what makes him an idiot.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-509357
bob, ClintR writes the moon doesn’t spin on its own axis so chooses experiments where the cannonball, hammer, and feather don’t spin on their own axis unlike the observed moon. This shows how ClintR easily gets confused applying unreal versions of physical system mechanics and thus chooses to ignore observational reality in entertaining comments.
ClintR,
Keep on topic dumbass
The topic is not the fact that two objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum.
It’s the gravitational force equation and whether or not bodies can produce torque due to gravitation.
As the fact that the Earth’s spin is slowing due to the torque applied by the Moon on the Earth.
Just keep posting like the dumbass you are.
…but as ClintR pointed out to Svante, even if you agree with the principle of tidal locking, that should lead you to conclude that the moon is not rotating on its own axis. After all, the phrase is “tidal locking” not “tidal freedom-of-movement”. If something is locked so that it’s unable to rotate on its own axis, then it can’t be rotating on its own axis.
Perfect! Ball4 joins in to twist and distort reality with bob.
Next up: Svante, Norman, Swanson, Nate, Bindidon, and the newbie studentb.
Observed reality: If something is locked so that it’s unable to rotate on its own axis more or less than once per orbit, then it can’t be rotating on its own axis more or less than once per orbit.
ClintR’s claimed twisted reality always needs untwisting back to observed reality. bob is performing that service, repeatedly.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-508017
To all the dumbasses joining in
Tidal locking refers to the fact that the rate of rotation and the rate of orbiting are locked to the same period.
…or, from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, zero axial rotations per orbit.
Zero axial rotations are observed only from a rotating reference frame, you are too stupid to understand that.
No blob, when the fixed wooden horse orbits on the carousel, it is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
Correcting to reality: when the fixed wooden horse orbits on the carousel, it is not rotating on its own axis more or less than once per orbit, in the inertial reference frame.
In the inertial reference frame centered on the middle of the carousel, the fixed wooden horse is rotating about the center of the carousel, and not on its own axis. In the inertial reference frame centered on the horse itself, the horse appears to be rotating on its own axis, but of course in reality it is still not rotating on its own axis, it is just rotating about the center of the carousel.
Correcting to reality: In the inertial reference frame centered on the middle of the carousel, the fixed wooden horse is orbiting about the central axis of the carousel, and the horse rotates once, no more & no less, on its own axis per orbit. In the inertial reference frame centered on the horse itself, the horse doesn’t appear to be rotating at all, but of course in reality it is still rotating on its own axis, because the horse doesn’t have enough gravity to bend all of space causing the universe to orbit about the horse.
Ball4 proves he doesn’t know what an inertial reference frame is, and simultaneously attacks a ridiculous straw man. A troll to be ignored.
Hey dumbass,
You claim
“In the inertial reference frame centered on the horse itself, the horse appears to be rotating on its own axis, but of course in reality it is still not rotating on its own axis, it is just rotating about the center of the carousel.”
Dumbass, you can’t center an inertial reference frame on the horse on the carousel because the horse on the carousel is accelerating, I repeat dumbass.
And as for the horse on the carousel, it is defining the axis that it is rotating around, so it is indeed rotating on it’s own axis.
again dumbass
“you cant center an inertial reference frame on the horse on the carousel”
“You” can do so, but then that horse isn’t accelerating, the universe is then accelerating around the horse which is, as DREMT points out (stumbles into), ridiculous.
That’s also why ClintR is ridiculously writing the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis, because that implies the universe is orbiting the moon which as DREMT stumbles into, really is ridiculous and that is why ClintR is such a keen entertainer in these parts.
blob has no idea what he’s talking about.
That’s all right DREMPTY,
Keep spitting out words without knowing what they mean.
You can center your inertial reference frame where you like. If there were some requirement that you don’t center it on an object that is accelerating, you wouldn’t be able to center your inertial reference frame anywhere, now would you, blob? Except perhaps the center of the Universe…
“Except perhaps the center of the Universe…”
Bingo. Even that – many are not sure about, the universe might be rotating in which case there has to be another universe (or more) with equal and opposite angular momentum.
ClintR writes the moon is not rotating so ClintR places the universe center inertial frame fixed to the moon so the stars are observed rotating about that frame. Which as DREMT comments, is ridiculous. Thus it is the moon spinning on its own internal axis in our universe except for ClintR and a few other keen entertainers.
Like I said, Ball4 is a troll…
DREMPTY,
Gawd, you’re stupid
“You can center your inertial reference frame where you like. If there were some requirement that you dont center it on an object that is accelerating, you wouldnt be able to center your inertial reference frame anywhere, now would you, blob? Except perhaps the center of the Universe”
From Wikipedia, should be reliable enough
“An inertial frame of reference in classical physics and special relativity possesses the property that in this frame of reference a body with zero net force acting upon it does not accelerate; that is, such a body is at rest or moving at a constant velocity.”
So yes, for the reference frame to be inertial, it must not be accelerating, so you could place it anywhere that is not accelerating, say an object moving at a constant velocity in a straight line.
As for the center of the universe, did you mean the center of the observable universe or the center of the whole universe?
Dumbass
You are obviously not grasping what I mean by “centering”.
Using polar co-ordinates, radius r=0 would be fixed on the wooden horse.
Angle a=0 would be pointed towards some fixed star.
That is an inertial reference frame as far as bdgwx and myself are concerned.
Then it’s fine as long as the merry-go-round is not spinning.
But then the merry-go-round is not spinning, so the horse is not spinning, but you are still as dumb as a box of carousel horses.
I understand what you mean by centering, but you can’t center an inertial reference frame on something that is moving a circle, because that something is accelerating.
Dumbass
…which would rule out using an inertial reference frame in almost every astronomical example…
And your point would be, dumbass?
My point would be, when using an inertial reference frame, you would see that the moon is rotating on its axis.
Because a line drawn from the center of the Moon to the surface of the Moon would point in different directions as time passes.
Dumbass.
Where are you centering this inertial reference frame, blob?
bob, after all the discussions several months ago, anyone who tries to use “inertial reference frame” to determine if an orbiting object is also rotating about its axis, is an idiot.
That’s why DREMT’s simple example of a “chalk circle” is such genius. The chalk circle can NOT rotate about its axis. Just as the wooden horse on a merry-go-round, securely bolted to the floor, can NOT rotate about its axis.
To determine if the orbiting object is actually rotating about its axis, you need to view from the center of the merry-go-round.
You will not be able to understand any of this.
Keyword: “idiot”.
Dumbass DREMPTY,
I don’t have to center it anywhere, dumbass, as long as it’s not accelerating it’s good to go.
Dumbass.
ClintR,
You have to be at least as smart as an idiot to understand why the Moon is actually rotating on its axis and orbiting the Earth around another axis.
Unfortunately you can’t even compete with Idiots in a drooling contest, much less a science fair.
Because you are dumber than an idiot.
“I don’t have to center it anywhere, dumbass, as long as it’s not accelerating it’s good to go”
A pathetic dodge, blob.
Just as predicted, bob can not understand DREMT’s simple example. Nor could bob understand the clear example provided by the NASA astronaut.
bob just seems content to hurl insults and profanities.
ball4…”mail-in is open to abuse. You go to a voting station because you can go behind curtains and vote secretly. With mail-in, anyone can bully a person into voting for a certain candidate”.
You are having issues with your mind’s propensity to assume facts rather than look at the real facts. If a wooden horse on a MGR has its 4 feet bolted to the platform it cannot turn about its own axis.
I have no idea where you get the notion that a changing of position of the horse due to the axial rotation of the platform to which it is attached constitutes a rotation about its own COG.
Each particle on the horse is turning in independent parallel orbits about the centre of the MGR making it impossible for them to rotate about the horse’s COG. The COG is orbiting on its own parallel path, parallel with all other particles.
ClintR,
“bob, after all the discussions several months ago, anyone who tries to use inertial reference frame to determine if an orbiting object is also rotating about its axis, is an idiot.”
and
“You will not be able to understand any of this.”
and
bob just seems content to hurl insults and profanities.
If you are going to whine about insults maybe you shouldn’t have started throwing insults.
Just a thought.
DR EMPTY,
you still don’t understand the requirements for an inertial reference frame even after I googled it for you.
You are still dodging, blob.
DR EMPTY,
Lets see if you can properly center an inertial reference frame.
Where would you center it?
You don’t know when you have been beaten do you?
I centered mine correctly in the examples I gave earlier as far as bdgwx and myself are concerned. We were discussing such examples in the debate a few months ago.
You are the one who is avoiding answering my 2:38PM question.
DR EMPTY,
Nope, you centered it incorrectly on a object that was accelerating, therefore not an inertial reference frame.
And I answered your question on where to center it, anywhere as long as it is not accelerating.
Keep digging your hole.
You have proven without a doubt that you know next to nothing.
“anywhere as long as it is not accelerating”, is not an answer, blob. The point is, in almost every astronomical example, you would need to center your inertial reference frame on an object that is accelerating. Your interpretation of your Wiki link is thus obviously incorrect, since inertial reference frames are used in astronomy.
If all of this is some desperate attempt to prove I don’t know something, it’s a bit of a backfire for your team…both with the collateral damage on bdgwx, and on the fact that you can no longer argue about inertial reference frames yourself, since you can’t give a straight answer on where you would center it for the moon!
DR EMPTY
You don’t accept my answer that an inertial reference frame can be centered anywhere that is not accelerating. So you think I am not interpreting wiki correctly, here is another.
“Any reference frame which is accelerating with respect to absolute space, such as the car’s frame when the light turns green and the driver steps on the gas, will not be inertial.”
from here
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/Inertial_Frames_of_Reference
Just because you can’t accept my answer that I can put the reference frame anywhere that’s not accelerating, doesn’t mean I’m wrong, it means you can’t accept the definitions commonly accepted by astronomers, which means you are a crackpot.
Or I can answer what I have stated from the very beginning, on the distant stars, they are also accelerating, but so slowly we can ignore that amount of acceleration as it would not affect the measured rate of rotation for an object.
Yeah, inertial reference frames are used in Astronomy, that’s how astronomers since the time of Newton and Cassini have figured out that the Moon is indeed rotating around one axis and orbiting the Earth around another.
Where would you center your inertial reference frame for the moon, blob?
Same, on the distant stars DR EMPTY
No, blob. You don’t center it on the distant stars.
Using polar coordinates, angle a=0 is fixed on a distant star, sure.
Where is radius r=0?
That is what I meant by centering. As I already explained.
DR EMPTY,
Good enough for Newton, good enough for me.
It’s not where it’s centered, it’s whether or not it’s accelerating.
Which it would be if you do like you do and center it anywhere on the Moon.
Or on a wooden horse on a merry-go-round.
The wooden horse is accelerating as it keeps changing direction as it moves with the merry-go-round.
“Using polar co-ordinates, radius r=0 would be fixed on the wooden horse.”
Nope, in that case it’s not an inertial reference frame.
“An example of a non-inertial frame is a rotating frame, such as a carousel.”
from here
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/lecture1.htm
To determine the rotation rate of an astronomical body you set radius r=0 through the center of mass and angle a=0 pointed at a distant star.
bdgwx,
That is true and you can do that to determine if the Moon is rotating or not, and that method shows the Moon is rotating.
However, that is not an inertial reference frame if applied to the Moon, as the Moon’s velocity is not constant as the Moon is accelerating due to the pull of Earth’s gravity.
That’s the part DR EMPTY refuses to consider nor acknowledge.
Another definition that won’t help
An inertial frame is defined as one in which Newtons law of inertia holdsthat is, any body which isnt being acted on by an outside force stays at rest if it is initially at rest, or continues to move at a constant velocity if thats what it was doing to begin with. An example of a non-inertial frame is a rotating frame, such as a carousel.
from
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/lecture1.htm
Myself and bdgwx would refer to a reference frame with a=0 pointed at a distant star and r=0 on the cm of the moon as an inertial reference frame. If you disagree, explain where you would put r=0. Note that you can’t say “the distant stars” like you did previously.
Stop dodging the question and answer it this time.
DR EMPTY
You are refusing to acknowledge that an inertial reference frame can’t be centered on a object that is accelerating.
It’s no use until you do that.
You are wrong in trying to center an inertial reference frame on an accelerating object.
So I will continue to correct you until you get it, but it’s looking like you want to continue making shit up as you go.
Inertial reference frames don’t settle the issue anyway, blob, so none of this really matters, but…
…where would you put r=0? I’m going to keep asking you until you get the obvious point being made, but it’s looking like you want to keep making shit up as you go.
My selection of reference frame isn’t translationally inertial, but it is rotationally inertial. And since we’re only trying to quantify rotational angular velocity and not orbital angular velocity setting radius r=0 through the cm is the easiest mathematically speaking while still meeting the requirement of being rotationally inertial.
…and if you set r=0 through the Earth-moon barycenter instead, in order to quantify orbital angular momentum, it would still not be translationally inertial.
The problem with using a reference frame where r=0 is set on the cm of the wooden horse (or moon) and where a=0 is pointed towards a distant star is, it leads you to the erroneous conclusion that the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis.
The wooden horse is bolted to the floor of the platform. It physically cannot rotate on its own axis. When the platform is rotating, the wooden horse is simply rotating about the center of the platform. It is not rotating on its own axis!
DR EMPTY,
OK, we can use non-inertial reference frames.
I’ll center it on the center of gravity of the Moon, or better yet, the geographical center of the Moon.
A line from there pointing at a distant star.
At Time = 0 we have a line from the center of the Moon to a point on the surface of the Moon, to the distant star.
If the Moon were not rotating at time T = one day, we no longer have 3 points in a line, therefore the Moon is spinning on its axis.
I don’t care about the merry go round, if you say the horse is not rotating on its axis, fine, but the question is the Moon.
Well the horse too has angular velocity and momentum about its own axis in a rotationally inertial frame. Just because the horse and mgr are attached and physically constrained such that the rotational and orbital angular velocity of the horse are always equal does not in any way take away from the fact that the horse is rotating per the definition of rotation as used for astronomical bodies. That’s just how the math works out. That definition happens to be useful for the horse as well since if the horse were to instantly detach from mgr you would observe it rotating (in the sense DREMT is envisioning) as it translated in a line tangent to the mgr rotation. It does so because angular momentum is conserved in rotationally inertial reference frames.
bdgwx and blob, the wooden horse on the carousel is not rotating on its own axis, it is merely orbiting the center of the merry-go-round. Something that is physically constrained such that it cannot rotate on its own axis, is not rotating on its own axis.
blob, even somebody of your level of intelligence ought to be able to relate what you are saying about the moon to the merry-go-round example. If you conclude the moon is rotating on its own axis using the method you outline, then you would also conclude the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis. So you don’t get to say, “fine, well the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, but the moon is”.
The wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the center of the carousel. The moon is not rotating on its own axis, it is orbiting about the Earth-moon barycenter.
I think the debate centers around how “rotation” is defined. The non-spiner definition is clearly different than what bob, me, many of the other posters on here, and every astronomer and scientist has already agreed upon. The Moon is rotating because it satisfies that definition. The debate could probably be reconciled if the non-spinners would agree to use phrasing like “apparent rotation” or whatever that describes the movement of the Moon from the perspective an observer in the non-inertial reference frame where a=0 is fixed to the line between the Moon and Earth. Since “rotation” itself is already defined and reserved to describe a different concept it creates confusion in discussion when it is hijacked for another concept. I will say that the definition of “tidal locked” describes the motion of the Moon well already so I don’t see what the issue is in having the non-spinners accept it.
No, the debate centers on the “Spinners” inability to understand that an object that can’t rotate on its own axis is not rotating on its own axis. Plus they refuse to acknowledge that rotation about an axis external to the body (e.g the wooden horse rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel) is a separate and independent motion to axial rotation (e.g the Earth rotating on its own axis).
DR EMPTY,
I have freedom of speech so I can say fine as regards to the horse on the carousel, I choose to ignore your arguments about the horsey, save one.
This one
The horse is spinning on its own axis and rotating around the carousel on another axis, I’m picking a reference frame where this is true, and there is one, the thing is and this is where it differs from the moon, these two axes in regards to the horse are parallel.
The two axes with regard to the Moon are not parallel, and as I have said before, the carousel is a poor model for motion of the moon.
If you don’t care about insulting Dr Roy, then I don’t care about your my little pony.
I center my reference frame on the center of the horse on the carousel with the x-axis pointing to the star Sirius. I keep myself pointing to the star Sirius.
This is, of course a non-inertial reference frame.
As the carousel rotates the horse rotates with respect to that line pointing to Sirius, but around the z-axis.
Also the center of the carousel appears to rotate around the horse.
That the my little pony show for today, tune in tomorrow for something completely different.
As I said, the debate centers on the “Spinners” inability to understand that an object that can’t rotate on its own axis is not rotating on its own axis. Plus they refuse to acknowledge that rotation about an axis external to the body (e.g the wooden horse rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel) is a separate and independent motion to axial rotation (e.g the Earth rotating on its own axis).
blob demonstrates that nicely.
DR EMPTY,
What is preventing the Moon from rotating on its axis?
Of course DR EMPTY,
In the reference frame I selected the carousel which your little pony is bolted to is also rotating, so the bolts are not preventing the your little pony from rotating.
Sorry charlie.
blob demonstrates that nicely.
DR EMPTY,
You giving up already?
No explanation for what keeps the Moon from rotating?
What does keep the Moon from rotating, massive beams installed by Tesla?
It’s bolted down with big-ass bolts?
There’s a big string connecting it to the Earth?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-509394
You have completely missed the point, though. Nobody is arguing that the moon has to be unable to rotate on its own axis. The point is that an object like the wooden horse, which is unable to rotate on its own axis, moves as per the moon.
Talking to you is a waste of time.
DR EMPTY,
Don’t give that you are not arguing that the Moon can’t rotate on its axis because that is the exact argument that you are making.
This is what you just linked to
“but as ClintR pointed out to Svante, even if you agree with the principle of tidal locking, that should lead you to conclude that the moon is not rotating on its own axis. After all, the phrase is tidal locking not tidal freedom-of-movement. If something is locked so that its unable to rotate on its own axis, then it cant be rotating on its own axis.”
So you are arguing that the Moon is tidally locked so that it’s unable to rotate on its own axis.
It’s one way of looking at it.
You have completely missed the point, though. Nobody is arguing that the moon has to be unable to rotate on its own axis. The point is that an object like the wooden horse, which is unable to rotate on its own axis, moves as per the moon.
Talking to you is a waste of time.
And DR EMPTY,
You keep avoiding responding to the fact that the axis the Moon rotates around and the axis the Moon orbits around are not parallel.
Address that and we might get somewhere.
I have responded to it countless times before. You simply count on me getting so bored responding to you time and time again on the same points that I stop responding, at which point you claim victory. Otherwise known as the David App.ell technique. Here we go again:
1) The moon does not rotate on its own axis, so there are not two axes to compare. The moon only orbits about the Earth/moon barycenter. The Earth both orbits and rotates on its own axis, the moon just orbits.
2) Based on observations of the moon in orbit, astronomers have determined where the axis passing through the cm of the moon would be, based on their erroneous belief that the moon rotates on its own axis. This is hardly a surprise. This “axis“ is not parallel to the axis the moon orbits around. This has no bearing on whether or not the moon actually rotates about this imaginary line that they have drawn through the body.
“As I said, the debate centers on the ‘Spinners’ inability to understand that an object that can’t rotate on its own axis is not rotating on its own axis.”
It is pointless to ‘debate’ with someone like DREMT who will never debate honestly nor ever be guided by logic and facts.
In the end he simply declares his erroneous beliefs to be facts, regardless.
“Based on observations of the moon in orbit, astronomers have determined where the axis passing through the cm of the moon would be, based on their erroneous belief that the moon rotates on its own axis.”
Ha ha ha…’would be’.
Its hard to believe this pretzel logic ‘would be’ an argument that any serious person could make.
I think I am going to stop playing whack-a-mole on this machine and try some others.
Though I could play whack-a-mole until I am drenched in sweat or I run out of quarters.
This mole just accused thousands of astronomers of fraud.
Going back hundreds of years.
Nice work DR EMPTY.
No, blob, no accusations of fraud here. “Erroneous” means they were wrong, but I’m sure sincere in their beliefs.
Obviously arguing that the moon does not rotate on its own axis means arguing that astronomers have had it wrong for centuries, yes. Nevertheless, arguments about the moon not rotating on its own axis have also been around for centuries, too. We know of Tesla’s arguments from just over a hundred years ago, but there were others before him, too.
DR EMPTY,
The thing is.
You start with your conclusion as your premise
“1) The moon does not rotate on its own axis, so there are not two axes to compare. The moon only orbits about the Earth/moon barycenter. The Earth both orbits and rotates on its own axis, the moon just orbits.”
I’ll give you a hint, that’s not how the scientific method works.
The piece of data, that there are two axes with respect to the Moon, you just ignore that fact, again that’s not how the scientific method works.
Remember you are supposed to stab them with the pointy end, not the other way round.
I was just pointing out that from the “Non-Spinner” perspective there are not two axes to compare. If I were to accept that there were, I would automatically be conceding the whole argument, now wouldn’t I, blob? Logic is not your strong suit, either.
DR EMPTY,
So you are finally admitting that you are clinging to your position when facts don’t support your case.
You are permitted your own positions, your own theories, but not your own facts.
So the bottom line is that you deny facts.
The axis the Moon rotates around is an observed fact.
blob, you really do come out with some stupid stuff. Saying “the axis the Moon rotates around is an observed fact” is no different to saying “it’s an observed fact, the Moon rotates on its own axis”.
Obviously, “Non-Spinners” disagree that the axis exists, because we disagree that the moon rotates on its own axis. So we disagree both that it’s an observed fact that there is an axis the moon rotates around, and that the moon rotates on its own axis.
Astronomers can define where they believe the axis is, from studying the motion of the moon in its orbit, and based on their erroneous belief that the moon rotates about that imaginary line. It doesn’t make the existence of that axis a fact!
It means, “if you believe the moon rotates on its own axis, here is where we think that axis is”. From that, you can claim there’s a North Pole, a South Pole, and an equator. They are also not “facts”, they are just placed where astronomers think they are, based on their erroneous belief that the moon rotates on its own axis.
“From that, you can claim theres a North Pole, a South Pole, and an equator. They are also not ‘facts'”
The planned missions to land at the non-existent Lunar South Pole will have to be scrapped…or perhaps DREMTs bizarre beliefs is just delusion.
DR EMPTY,
So how do the non-spinners explain libration?
I just want to see how more facts fit into your theory.
Simple: it is just the way the moon moves in its orbit. Coupled with the fact that the orbit is elliptical.
Nobody is denying libration occurs, just as nobody is denying that there is a precise location on the moon which they have labelled the North Pole.
If you try really, really hard, you might be able to attack arguments I am actually making, rather than straw men.
You are right Bob, he has always evaded explaining libration with his model, since it cannot be done.
Yet no problem for the religion.
Nor does he explain what his model’s definition of a Pole is. And how the ‘labelled’ Lunar Poles do not satisfy this definition.
You see his model is vague on all such details that Astronomy has clearly and completely explained centuries ago.
Yet he is certain they have it all wrong.
Usually in science, when a theory is wrong, some data appears that disagrees with it, particularly given 300 y.
What data for the Moon can he point out that disagrees with Astronomy?
Lacking that, his belief serves no purpose for science.
Well, since there has been nothing more from anybody that I am actually responding to, I guess that, as they say, is that.
Thats that. Yep.
With no one finding any disagreements between Lunar observations and astrophysics models, we can comfortably put this topic to bed.
#2
Well, since there has been nothing more from anybody that I am actually responding to, I guess that, as they say, is that.
binny…”This is the NOAA data for CONUS average temperature from 1979 till now:”
Correction…”This is the NOAA ‘FUDGED’ data for CONUS average temperature from 1979 till now:
Reading through the following site exposes massive amounts of proof that NOAA has fudged the record, and that GISS and Had-crut feed off that fudged data.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/
“In short, modern folks finding reasons to re-write the past. Perhaps good reasons. Perhaps not. Well see that point being argued for decades to come (perhaps longer). Yes, all these good folks believe they are right, and that they can not have made an error. Yet the changes are of the size and scope sufficient to account for all the Warming seen in the historical record. Surely when the warming we find in the temperature record is largely attributable to changes of method of adjusting that data, and processing it into a data series, there is sufficient cause for alarm to council against rash actions based on such a malleable history”.
Robertson
Your appeal to technically incompetent authority shows how scientifically uneducated and ignorant you are.
E. M. Smith is an absolutely incompetent blog boaster, one needs no more than to have a look at his incredible disaster to understand that:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
This is the dumbest head post I have ever read in a blog.
And it is typical for ignorants like you to be and to keep a gullible follower of such people.
J.-P. D.
binny…”E. M. Smith is an absolutely incompetent blog boaster…”
You’re envious because he has uncovered the fudging while you are incompetent with statistics and unable to recognize it.
Sounds pretty sane to me and not an all a boaster.
Here he reveals the chicanery of GISS and GHCN and well as the NOAA connection. It’s really shocking what these idiots have gotten away with. They have deleted cold stations in favour of warm stations and shown warming in regions with no temperature data for 20 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX3NxkzUIE8
part 2…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTdrjvnxG6U&feature=youtube_gdata
Just like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann?
Both will eventually receive well deserved nobel prizes.
studentb,
MIchael Mann has already awarded himself a Nobel prize. Do you think Gavin will give him another one?
Why don’t you go do your homework and then tidy your room.
Everyone wants to save the planet but no-one wants to help Mum with the chores.
Studentb,
Is your Mann this one –
*I speculated back in October whether Mann, a loser and a liar, would also prove a scofflaw and a deadbeat. Yes, he is.*
Surely not.
He deserves 2 Nobels. Greta should get 1. Gavin another 1.
I deserve 1 for trying to educate the illiterate here.
studentb,
You must mean the Ignoble Prize.
This from the Director of the Nobel Institute
*1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.
3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.*
. . . And more.
You may award yourself a prize if you wish. Just like Michael Mann. Are you also a loser, a liar, a scofflaw and a deadbeat?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
“Are you also a loser, a liar, a scofflaw and a deadbeat?”
Now you are sounding like my ex.
Speaking of awards, I believe the denialists here only managed to find a prize out of a cereal packet as the sum total of their accomplishments.
svante…”The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports, with a personalized certificate for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC ”
You forgot to include John Christy of UAH in the share. He served as both a Lead Author and a reviewer. John is at least 1000 times the better climate scientist than Mann, and I apologize to John for mentioning his good name in the same sentence as that ratbag Mann.
student…”Both will eventually receive well deserved nobel prizes.”
And if there is justice, both can admire them in their jail cells.
A tropical storm is developing in the Atlantic (12N, 40W).
Interesting opinion piece comparing US to Lebanon, where everything became political, and led to inept government and the explosion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/09/opinion/trump-beirut-politics.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
“But a society, and certainly a democracy, eventually dies when everything becomes politics. Governance gets strangled by it. Indeed, it was reportedly the failure of the corrupt Lebanese courts to act as guardians of the common good and order the removal of the explosives from the port — as the port authorities had requested years ago — that paved the way for the explosion.
‘For a healthy politics to flourish it needs reference points outside itself — reference points of truth and a conception of the common good,’ explained the Hebrew University religious philosopher Moshe Halbertal. ‘When everything becomes political, that is the end of politics.’
To put it differently, when everything is politics, it means that everything is just about power. There is no center, there are only sides; there’s no truth, there are only versions; there are no facts, there’s only a contest of wills.
If you believe that climate change is real, it must be because someone paid you off with a research grant. If you believe the president committed an impeachable offense trying to enlist the president of Ukraine to undermine Joe Biden, it’s only because you want power for your party.”
And
“The other day Trump told a G.O.P. audience in Cleveland that, if Biden won, he would ‘hurt the Bible, hurt God. He’s against God, he’s against guns, he’s against energy, our kind of energy.’
Our kind of energy?
Yup, it turns out there is now Republican energy — oil, gas and coal — and Democratic energy — wind, solar and hydro. And if you believe in oil, gas and coal, you are also supposed to oppose abortion and face masks. And if you believe in solar, wind and hydro, you are presumed to be pro-abortion rights and pro-face mask. This kind of thinking, in the extreme, is what destroyed Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen and is increasingly eating away at Israel.”
It all goes back to whether or not people want reality. Many do not want reality, because they have failed to use their time on Earth wisely. They have chosen to be losers, so they hate winners. You don’t get far in life by ignoring reality.
You can see it right here on this blog.
It’s funny how you attribute your own description to others.
Svante, I didn’t mention anyone specifically, so thanks for jumping in to provide a good example of misrepresentating others.
You’re welcome ClintR/JDHuffman/*geran*/geran.
Okay, Svante, Nate, Norman, Bindidon, bdgwx, Swanson.
svante…”Youre welcome Clint R….”
Svante has another hissy fit.
“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” Ayn Rand
“Nor can we ignore the consequences of ignoring known unknowns, and unknown knowns, and known knowns, and unknown unknowns.” Student B.
students,
How can you ignore unknown unknowns? That’s about stupid as claiming there are consequences for ignoring the future!
I’ll say. There are people on this blog who think if you separate three plates by 1mm, the middle plate spontaneously warms by 46 K.
Yes I do!
DREMPTY,
Not to speak for others but I object to the word spontaneously in your statement.
“the middle plate spontaneously warms by 46 K.”
It’s not a spontaneous change, you have changed the system and obviously the heat transfers are now different so it’s obvious that the temperatures will be different, so you have to get out your calculator.
But calculators are post idiot school devices and those who post on this blog who haven’t passed idiot school will be hopelessly lost.
Oh yeah, and have you stopped ******* yourself yet?
Yes well, the input is 400 W per second and the plate has all the time in the world to scoop up the necessary Joules, but DREMT can not understand that, so it’s easier to let him think it’s spontaneous.
See? They actually defend the idea.
Dear DREMT, I understand your problem.
I have a great analogy, do you want me to explain it to you?
They really have lost touch with reality.
DREMT, I missed the “46 K” discussion. But since you mentioned “plates”, and the idiots jumped in to defend it, the discussion must have involved the bogus equation where fluxes are subtracted. It’s the same nonsense as used in the “steel greenhouse”. I thought this was all thoroughly debunked years ago. But, idiots can’t learn.
If you have time, could you link me to the discussion. Watching idiots attempt physics is so entertaining.
Well, it’s a long story. But the “3-plate scenario” which is what I’m referring to, was first brought up here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344407
I’m sure if you read through from there, you’ll get the general gist. It all relates to a thought experiment from Eli Rabett:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?m=1
Thanks!
Yeah, it’s the same. They’re basically using the bogus equation, claiming the colder plate can warm the hotter plate–easily debunked.
There’s an interesting article on how the equation is misused, here:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/27/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-12-how-to-lie-with-math
The dimwits think that if you separate three Lego blocks pushed together, that the central one will get hotter. Maybe only if it’s green or blue or something.
Or maybe the blocks need to be made of unobtanium.
That’s because the two lego blocks are cooling the central lego block by conduction and if you remove that cooling mechanism by pulling the blocks apart, the central block has to warm because it is still being heated and can no longer cool by conduction.
You guys and postma are stupid.
Warning! warning! Massive DISTRACTION
It’s OK, we’ll ignore you.
+1
The intrusion of politics is especially noticed in science these days.
When NASA was started, it was about 95% science and 5% politics. Today, NASA is 95% politics and 5% science.
You are missing the point of the article.
Science and medicine and facts in general are being turned political by politicians and their teams of supporters.
It is very represented here on this blog. Whether its climate science, or mask wearing, or specific drugs.
No, I’m agreeing. Politics has corrupted science. It is politics driven by false religions that attempt to pervert reality. That’s why you can’t admit that something that cannot rotate about its axis is not rotating about its axis. You can’t leave your cult.
“No, I’m agreeing. Politics has corrupted science.”
So heat transfer physics, which hasnt changed much in 100 years, has somehow recently been corrupted by politics????
Atmospheric physics, whose basic facts havnt changed in 60 y, has somehow recently been corrupted by politics???
Planetary motion, whose basic facts have been known for > 100 y, has just now been corrupted by politics??
Not at all.
However your side has recently decided that these sciences and institutions are somehow recently corrupted, and to look at even old, well established facts through a political lens.
Exactly, politics has corrupted science. It is politics driven by false religions that attempt to pervert reality.
That’s why you can’t admit that something that cannot rotate about its axis is not rotating about its axis. Let’s see if you can admit that the wooden horse bolted to the edge of the merry-go-round is not rotating about its axis. Can you admit to that reality?
No, you can’t because that would be admitting that the horse is “orbiting” but no “rotating”. And that would be the same motion as Moon.
You can’t leave your cult.
What do you think would happen if you left your cult ClintR?
Cults don’t allow members who think for themselves and can recognize reality.
So no cult would accept people like me.
Not to mention heat transfer, astronomy, and atmospheric physics.
There is no intrinsic political divide on these topics. But on this blog there is.
And its bizarre.
Agreed.
Feynman called it “cargo cult science”. When you avoid, deny, or attempt to pervert reality, you’re into cult worship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
You don’t even have someone else’s results, all you have is hand waving.
Svante, it’s not my problem if you can’t understand concepts.
You don’t do experiments, so what you have is cargo cult science.
False, Svante.
You, and your other cult members, reject valid experiments. You only want bogus experiments that you can control, distort, pervert.
Idiiots reject valid experiments, as happened here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-509357
I totally buy that experiment.
Didn’t know you had been to the moon.
“Idiots reject valid experiments, as happened here:”
…and here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-507571
Nate,
Physical facts simply are, whether people choose to accept them or not. People are free to believe that climatology is science, or that the introduction of CO2 into a mixture of gases results in a change to the basic laws of physics. Energy where no energy was before. Additional heating without additional heat. Cargo cult science.
At the helm is a man described as a loser, liar, scofflaw and deadbeat. You are welcome to him.
No, 2 watt bulb, the energy comes from the Sun, stupid, and is restricted from leaving the earth’s atmosphere by the CO2, so the energy stays.
The surface temperature goes up as a result.
No change in the basic laws of physics which you are eternally unaware of.
bobdroege,
Ah. I see. High temperatures in Death Valley – alarmist one way insulator CO2 physics.
Freezing temperatures in Death Valley – alarmist one way insulator CO2 physics.
Highest temperatures on Earth – alarmist one way insulator CO2 physics.
Lowest temperatures on Earth – one way insulator alarmist CO2 physics. Not to mention 4 km of ice overlaying fossilised trees in Antarctic – too much or too little CO2, do you think?
Combined with your magical self heating/cooling Lego blocks, if you are trying for complete idiocy, you are making great progress.
Svenson,
I wasn’t talking about the temperature of individual locations.
I was telling you there was no magical creation of energy, just that CO2 restricts the energy from leaving, so the surface must heat up as a result due to the continued input of energy from the Sun.
You know Antarctica wasn’t always at the south pole.
Just more stupid.
Whether his name is Swenson or Amazed or Mike Flynn, we can count on him to be our straw man specialist.
To constantly bring up abilities that no one is claiming CO2 has, and make fun of these capabilities.
He does this because he refuses to learn the actual GHE theory and is content to remain ignorant.
“…just that CO2 restricts the energy from leaving”
Total OLR has increased.
That’s right dumbass,
Because the system has warmed up due to the increased CO2 and the TOA is higher, therefore a larger area that is radiating to space.
So the increased CO2 has reduced the total OLR, in order to cause warming, which has resulted in increased OLR. Typical of blob not to see the problem with that…
I don’t see a problem with that argument, but you are too stupid to understand what is going on.
You don’t see a problem with total OLR needing to both increase and decrease at the same time?
No dumbass,
First it decreases as CO2 increases, then it increases to restore the balance.
Dumbass
Not at the same time
Dumbass
Except that isn’t what has happened, blob. Over time, the total OLR has not decreased then increased. It has just followed global temperatures.
Which means it decreased then increased then decreased then increased and so on and so forth.
You are mistaking short term variation for the long term trend.
And one more thing,
Is it increasing and decreasing at the same time or is it following the global temperature trend.
Stick to one argument dumbass.
No, it means that over time it has just followed global temperatures. Exactly as if there were no enhanced GHE in operation.
Except that it is the enhance greenhouse effect causing the temperature to go up.
Dumbass sky dragon slayer.
Obviously not, blob, as total OLR has increased, along with the temperatures.
Obviously the temperature has had to have gone up to drive the increase in OLR.
What caused that?
Remember CO2 only blocks part of the OLR spectrum,
dumbass
“First it decreases as CO2 increases, then it increases to restore the balance.”
Your words, blob. Except the total OLR did not decrease.
Dumbass,
You just said it did just that
“No, it means that over time it has just followed global temperatures. ”
Global temperatures have gone up and down, dumbass.
Over time, total OLR should not be tracking global temperatures. If the enhanced GHE is supposedly the cause of the observed warming, total OLR should have decreased. Or at least, stayed level.
DRMEPTY,
You don’t know what you are babbling about.
Read this
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/41/10293
OLR is linear with temperature because the enhanced greenhouse effect is dominated by the effect of what gas?
That’s right, it’s not CO2.
blob, it’s really quite simple.
You said, “…just that CO2 restricts the energy from leaving”
Yet the total OLR has increased.
Yes I said that
It is true that CO2 restricts the OLR from leaving, so the temperature increases so there is more OLR leaving, all in accordance with the enhanced greenhouse effect, what part do you not understand?
There is no part where the total OLR is restricted from leaving, because it is observed to have increased.
DR Empty,
That is incorrect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation#/media/File:Spectral_OLR.png
See the big ass notch?
No of course not
“A man believes what he wants to believe and disregards the rest”
Simon and Garfunkel
Total OLR has increased:
https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/remotesensing/remotesensing-10-01539/article_deploy/remotesensing-10-01539.pdf
DR EMPTY,
Yeah, we agree that the total has increased, but that doesn’t mean that part of the out going long wave is blocked by CO2 and H2O, hence the notch I showed you.
And which is what you claimed
“There is no part where the total OLR is restricted from leaving, because it is observed to have increased.”
Part of the total is restricted from leaving.
You still don’t understand.
Total OLR is what is relevant to the energy imbalance, blob.
DR EMPTY
So you agree that there is an energy imbalance?
Next question
What has caused the energy imbalance?
Theoretically there could be one. A change in the amount of the ASR due to differences in cloud cover, is one possibility.
DR EMPTY,
“Theoretically there could be one.”
I thought you said there was an energy imabalance.
“Total OLR is what is relevant to the energy imbalance, ”
And you say it could be the iris effect.
That one has been debunked.
Got any more theories you dug out of the trash?
OK, blob. You are starting to bore me now.
Wow are you guys watching the ENSO region?
Region 1+2 is 2.117 c below baseline.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Region 3 is 0.549 c below baseline.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
And finally region 4 is dropping now .311 below baseline AS sunspot activity increases in the NH of the sun.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
In the meantime, Greenland started adding mass already.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
How long before we get links to “papers” claiming AGW causes cold oceans?
Scott R says:
“Wow are you guys watching the ENSO region?”
Not me, it’s just a short term oscillation.
“In the meantime, Greenland started adding mass already.”
Your data is incomplete, you missed the fine print:
Svante,
Well, you are correct that it is a short term oscillation. The sun causes the ENSO region to cycle on 3.6, 11, 42 year cycles.
As for Greenland, as I’ve said many times, I have no concerns about glaciers calving off icebergs into the ocean. This is the normal process. If that ever stopped happening, we would go into a period of glaciation. The speed of which that is happening depends on how much snow is building on Greenland, and the AMO.
Wishin’ hopin’ and prayin’ for a morsel of good news (for denialists). Pathetic
studentb,
You are, arent you?
No. You are.
(viewers – this is the level of debate when engaging with denialists)
Well, seeing as you’re excited I had a look at various institutes monitoring ENSO.
Ge whillikers, it looks like a la Nina is brewing.
Incredible stuff. We should throw a party or something.
OMG, it looks like a la Nina is brewing.
Incredible stuff. We should throw a party or something.
Oh dear, a short term oscillation on top of a long term trend.
How can scientists possibly tell them apart?
https://tinyurl.com/y99ddf3d
For Scott,
shows total mass changes to Greenland and Antarctica, since 2002:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
Doris,
This is the from the same alarmists who said –
“About half the light reaching Earth’s atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated upward in the form of infrared heat. About 90 percent of this heat is then absorbed by the greenhouse gases and radiated back toward the surface.”
Very clever. 90% of the heat radiated from the Earth is returned by greenhouse gases? Anything less than 100% results in cooling, doesn’t it? This lot are about as bright as the nitwit from the NSF who claimed that melting ice shelfs raised sea levels. Archimedes who?
In case you are really dimwitted, Archimedes was a Greek who discovered Archimedes Principle. Alarmists ignore such trifles. It gets in the way of their delusions.
Doris,
What you are seeing there is an accumulation of departures from a cherry picked average. Neither Greenland or Antarctica is losing ice directly from the ice sheet. These places do not ever go above 0 deg C. The rate of snow fall does change over time and so does the discharge at the ocean. Temperatures in the north Atlantic, Southern ocean also influence this.
The ice sheets gain in the middle and lose around the edges.
The danger is melting from below, where increasingly warm oceans can get at it. When these supports are gone the ice flow rate can increase.
I don’t see any danger with that Svante. Sorry. If that melt ever stops we will face a real danger.
The danger is sea level rise.
https://tinyurl.com/yd639pjw
How would stable ocean levels be more of a concern than rising ocean levels?
dremt…”Theres an interesting article on how the equation is misused, here:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/27/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-12-how-to-lie-with-math”
Dremt…I have been interested in that equation for a while and it is not meant to measure heat transfer. It is meant to measure heat loss due to radiation to an atmosphere in which a radiating body is surrounded.
The author presents the equation as Q = sigma.(T^4hot – T^4 cold) where Q is the heat transferred via radiation. He is quite right to claim it is wrong. If you rewrite it as:
Q = sigma.T^4hot – sigma.T^4cold it suggests the heat transferred is the difference between the radiations emitted by each body, which is sheer nonsense.
If you look here, about halfway down the page you’ll see the actual meaning of the equation:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
****
Net Radiation Loss Rate
If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as
q = e.sigma (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah
where
q = heat loss rate due to radiation
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ah = area of the hot object (m2)
****
This becomes important when trying to calculate the rate of heat loss. With AGW, one of the theories is that CO2 slows down the rate of surface heat loss. However, as seen above, the rate of heat loss is affected by Tcold, and CO2 as a trace gas with 0.04% mass percent cannot determine Tcold. It is controlled by nitrogen and oxygen which account for 99% of the mass percent.
This makes sense. If you have a mass at temperature 50C radiating to a room at 20C, you can cause the mass to cool faster by increasing the temperature gradient T^4hot – T^4cold. That means the closer the room temperature gets to 50C, the slower the mass will cool, so if Troom = Tmass, the mass stops cooling. If Troom > Tmass. the mass starts warming.
Anybody feeling deja vu?
The same old tired arguments, devoid of correct physics, by armchair experts with their cereal packet prizes pinned to the walls.
Yes, another PRATT.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times
Points Never Actually Refuted but Claimed to be Refuted A Thousand Times (PNARCRATTs)
The “trace gas” argument is too stupid even for you.
https://tinyurl.com/y4q66lmr
The “trace gas” argument is too stupid even for you.
…and the “trace gas” argument is not what is being made.
Look again, Gordon Robertson says:
This is why you don’t refute anything. You just scan for keywords then argue against a straw man based on those keywords. He did say the words “trace gas” but he is not arguing the “trace gas argument”.
There are more than one trace gas argument and he is making one of the more stupid ones.
Svante linked to the “trace gas argument” he was referring to, and it is not the argument Gordon is making. Just another fact for you to ignore.
Gordon makes a lot of stupid arguments, in this case he is making more than one.
One of the ones he is making here is that he is treating the atmosphere as a blackbody.
That’s it, just ignore it and move on to some other point.
Well I would acknowledge any valid arguments made by you or Gordon.
So far zilch.
The moon still turns the green plates still makes a temperature increase in the blue plate, greenhouse gases still make the surface of the earth warmer, etc.
And Gordon still makes the argument that CO2 can’t heat the atmosphere because it is a trace gas.
So you’re a loser on that argument as well.
blob lies through his teeth, as usual.
Prove it bitch.
…said every guilty man, ever…
Says the dumbass who can’t support any of his arguments.
OK, blob.
CO2 as a trace gas with 0.04% mass percent cannot determine Tcold.
I wonder who said that
Still responding…
DR EMPTY
Can’t figure out when you have lost the argument?
The “trace gas argument” is: CO2 is a trace gas, so cannot cause warming.
“Cannot cause warming” does not equal “cannot determine Tcold”.
You are taking one sentence out of full context.
DR EMPTY,
Here is the full context then
“This becomes important when trying to calculate the rate of heat loss. With AGW, one of the theories is that CO2 slows down the rate of surface heat loss. However, as seen above, the rate of heat loss is affected by Tcold, and CO2 as a trace gas with 0.04% mass percent cannot determine Tcold.”
There it is in full, the trace gas argument the way Gordon is making it extends to AGW or warming.
So there DR EMPTY, you lose again.
Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit, blob.
DR EMPTY answers with a non-sequitur.
Not that I expected a rational argument from him.
He couldn’t fashion one.
#2
OK, blob.
Now DR EMPTY is counting again, what is this, Sesame Street?
#3
OK, blob.
“Newton’s law of cooling (or heating) states that the temperature of a body changes at a rate proportional to the difference in temperature between the body and its surroundings”
Nothing about CO2, GHE, trace gases – nothing.
Alarmists are stupid.
Swenson,
This is from the same alarmists who said….
The data came from NASA satellites. NASA, the folks who recently landed a robotic rover on Mars. Nitwits?
From the link,
Data from NASA’s GRACE and GRACE Follow-On satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower chart) have been losing mass since 2002. The GRACE mission concluded science operations in June 2017.
GRACE Follow-On began data collection in June 2018 and is now continuing the mass change data record for both ice sheets. This data record includes the latest data processing improvements and is continually updated as more data are collected (with a lag of up to two months).
Dr Spencer, In view of all this, why is it warmer at the bottom of a mountain than at the top (ignoring wind effects)?
Ed, Your claim may be true for large differences in altitude, but for smaller differences (perhaps a few thousand feet), one experiences the “mountain-valley effect”. In winter, when winds are light, the air cools by radiation at night and sinks into the valleys, similar to the way water flows downhill. In the morning, the temperature will be lower at the bottom of the valley compared with higher up the mountain.
Swannie,
So the GHE doesn’t work at night? Or doesn’t the ground radiate during the day? How come the ground cools as the sun goes past its highest point?
You aren’t making much sense.
Thanks for the reply. I’m not talking about convection-related temperature differences. If I walk up a 2000 foot mountain/hill, it’s cooler at the top than at the bottom. The only difference appears to be in air pressure. I genuinely would like an answer to this question.
It’s the pressure difference. Gases at lower pressure have lower temperatures. The more interesting question is why does pressure decrease with height. There a few factors in play here but the primary reason is gravity. If Earth were more massive the change in pressure (and consequently temperature as well) with respect to height would be more dramatic. Vice versa for a less massive Earth.
Nate apparently arguing against politicising everything by … providing half a dozen anti-Trump examples. Totally blind to his own bias and hypocrisy. You just couldnt make this up.
Well, sorry, but the President is the politicizer in chief.
There just are very few topics that the current President has not tried to politicize.
Whether it is the military, promotions of individual soldiers, the intelligence agencies, individual corporations, or sports, he will politicize them like no previous President has.
This year, of course, issues in medicine and public health, that should be purely science/fact based, but he has led their politicization.
Promoting an unproven drug, hydroxychloroquine.
Mask wearing.
Children’s infectiousness.
Where is Bindidon today? I would love for him to explain to me how it is possible for 4 gigatons of snow to be added to Greenland in early August.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
This is also the earliest the EGP station has gone below -20c.
http://promice.org/WeatherArchive.html?promiceStationStationid=211&stationid=211
And here’s the total mass balance again:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
Svante,
What you are seeing there is an accumulation of departures from a cherry picked average. Neither Greenland or Antarctica is losing ice directly from the ice sheet. These places do not ever go above 0 deg C. The rate of snow fall does change over time and so does the discharge at the ocean. Temperatures in the north Atlantic, Southern ocean also influence this.
What you’re seeing there is the total mass loss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRACE_and_GRACE-FO
What you are seeing is permanent mass loss. Greenland and Antarctica are literally losing snow/ice mass.
They don’t go above freezes because of the temperature clamp caused by the enthalpy of fusion. The excess energy goes into changing the phase but not the temperature. These areas won’t go above freezing until the ice sheets melt entirely.
This should also put things into context. From the same source…
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/
Not really. “All changes given relative to 2002.” It’s another departure from an average map, where the average is a really big mass gain… and we currently face a less big but still positive accumulation of mass. Even more disturbing is the chart below where they sum up the loss departures from average to make it look like we are losing tons of ice when the opposite is true.
Yes really. Over a 17 year period Greenland has lost 4000 gigatons of snow/ice total mass. And it was the graph at the bottom I wanted you to focus on. That is the cummulative mass change since 2002. It is not a departure from normal. It is literally showing permanent mass loss contributing to 10mm of sea level rise.
Scott,
the scatter plot you referenced, where a value fell to – 21 C on August 9, shows the daily average temperature for each day of the year at a given station. 365 measurements per year, roughly 30 measurements per month.
Because the graph is not comparing one year to another, there is no way of knowing if the -20 C reading came earlier or later than usual.
Doris,
You can change the chart so that it will show 4+ years of data. Hold the cursor over each data point. You can see that it has never been this cold this early there. Admittedly, it is a very short dataset however. Many of the Greenland datasets (some which have run for much longer) hit all time cold temperatures over the last couple of years.
You can pull the max min temperatures for each Greenland climate location here and see that many recorded their coldest temperatures very recently, like 2019.
http://promice.org/WeatherArchive.html?promiceStationStationid=122&stationid=122
Sorry about that. I thought you had misunderstood the scatter plot.
Speaking of mass balance of snow and ice, anybody ever check out what is going on in Greenland? Here it is, August 2020 and Greenland ice mass is now gaining!
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20200810.png
Maybe this is why we have not heard anything in the news media about Greenland melting away this year.
It’s not unusual to have mass gains in August.
bdgwx,
We can see that this data point is above the light gray area indicating that this type of occurrence is probably close to the 2nd standard deviation considering the 1981-2010 average period. Only 6.7% of the data points are removed. (high and low) It is impossible to say if it is a record, we don’t have enough information.
Yeah. It probably is a 2 SD excursion. We expect on average 9 of those to the high side per year. Even a 3 SD excursion would be expected once every 2 years. And it’s still only the SMB. It’s NOT the total mass change.
8/12 had an even larger SMB spike…around +6 gigatons. This brings the cummulative YTD SMB figure inline with the 1981-2010 average.
Sorry Scott R, I just noticed you already mentioned that.
No problem at all!
So, will the global warming alarmists just call this an anomaly, or just noise? If so, then why can’t we call a year with excessive melt in Greenland an anomaly, or noise?
It’s 2 days of gains. 2 days is not even remotely the same as 365 days nevermind the 18 year record. You’re own source even says that despite the 4 gigaton gain in recent days the seasonal ablation is STILL more than the 1981-2010 average. A 4 GT gain is but a drop in the bucket compared to the net 4000 GT loss since 2002. You tell us. Is a variation of 4 against the backdrop of 4000 noise or have we entered into a new era of long term mass gains and cooling planet?
Oh…and BTW…that 4 gigaton gain does NOT include a primary source of mass loss. It is only the surface mass balance (SMB) change. A large portion of the losses occur when glaciers calve. That loss is not included in the SMB figure. In fact, August is one of the months in which the total loss is most acute. And although we don’t yet have data for August 2020 in terms of total mass change it is very likely that Greenland was still losing mass as the SMB jumped to +4 gigatons.
All that distortion by bdgwx just to cover up for the 7 GT spike above average.
They’re soooo desperate….
I’m not distorting or covering anything up. I fully acknowledge the SMB gains over the last 2 days. I even think the 8/10 gain is likely a +2 SD (or higher) excursion and possibly even record setting. The data is what it is.
Sorry bdgwx, but you were attempting to distort reality again. That’s why you compared the 18 year loss with the two day gain. You were trying to reduce the two day gain to meaningless.
Quit trying to deny that you deny reality. You still haven’t admitted that something that cannot rotate about its axis is not rotating about its axis. You’ve got a long way to go.
Also, it’s snowing again on the ice sheet….
Off Topic,
But go
Kamala Harris
bobdroege,
You are right. She should go. Do you think she will take any notice of us?
Nope, you sky dragon slayers are totally beneath her.
And you would rather be on top? Good for you!
Well at last, a vice presidential candidate that’s younger, better looking than me, and smarter than me.
I call that a win, win, win.
At last, a VP candidate who is younger than I am.
Go Kamala!
Doris,
You agree with bobdroege that Kamala should go? I though alarmists supported left wingers!
All this wishful thinking about GRACE readings being translated into ice mass measurements is about as realistic as dimwitted NASA employees claiming to measure global sea level to 0.1 mm. That is less than the thickness of a human hair!
There are always people gullible enough to believe anything.
Gullible? You mean people who believe Trump is a genius?
studentb,
You can look up the definition of gullible in a dictionary. I didnt mention Trump or genius. Have you been talking to yourself?
Or… people who believe in “the pause”?
I didn’t mention a pause either. Are you still talking to yourself?
Or … that NASA really landed a man on the moon.
Still arguing with yourself?
“NASA employees claiming to measure global sea level to 0.1 mm. That is less than the thickness of a human hair!”
Really? Whats your secret for hair thickening?
The annual wiggle in global average sea level is several mm, so Im not sure where you are getting 0.1 mm from?
Nate,
NASA. They seem to be unaware of your annual wiggle of several mm.
the diameter of human hair is 0.04 to 0.06 mm, normal if between 0.06 and 0.08 mm, and thick if between 0.08 and 0.1 mm. In comparison, Asian hair is thicker. The average width of Asian hair is from 0.08 to 0.12 mm.
Error bar on GMSL is +- 3mm
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/monitoring-altimeter-drift-using-tide-gauges
So clearly our strawman specialist, Swenson, is hard at work pulling new strawmen out of his ass!
Nate,
Idiots and their attempts at obfuscation! Do you even bother reading your linked data?
“CU: 3.4 0.4 mm/yr
AVISO: 3.3 0.5 mm/yr
CSIRO: 3.3 0.4 mm/yr
NASA GSFC: 3.4 0.4 mm/yr
NOAA: 3.2 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)”
The figures are supposedly accurate to 0.1 mm, with estimated errors also to 0.1 mm.
Keep practising and you will achieve the status of complete idiot.
First 0.4 is 4 times larger than 0.1.
Second the number you quoted is a TREND in GMSL measured over 3 decades.
Its error is not the error on a single measurement of GMSL, is it.
Thus you are still ignorant and posting BS.
It is funny to watch the commies in here no to be able to contain themselves and celebrate VP pick on the weather blog
LOL. Ask yourself – who would Putin prefer as POTUS.
Lap-dogs Donald/Pence, or patriots Joe/Kamala.
Eben seems to think we’re in election season circa 1952…
More important than the quick 4 GT gain in Greenland is the Acc. SMB for this year. It had been below average for most of this year because of a relatively dry season, but now the Acc. SMB is very close to the 1981-2010 mean in August. I believe the global warming alarmists have been pushing a narrative that future years will resemble the 2011-2012 Acc. SMB minimum. I think it is more of a multi-decadal cycle than a perpetual melting away due to human-caused global warming. After all, wasn’t there a significant warming event in the Northern Hemisphere during the early 20th Century?
FWIW…I don’t think 2012 style losses will be typical until 2050. 2012 was an anomalous year in most respects. That was the year of the raging Arctic Dipole Anomaly followed by the Great Arctic Cyclone in August.
It’s nice to see you recognize some reality, bdgwx.
Keep it up.
Just published yesterday…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0001-2
The Greenland Ice Sheet is losing mass at accelerated rates in the 21st century, making it the largest single contributor to rising sea levels. Faster flow of outlet glaciers has substantially contributed to this loss, with the cause of speedup, and potential for future change, uncertain. Here we combine more than three decades of remotely sensed observational products of outlet glacier velocity, elevation, and front position changes over the full ice sheet. We compare decadal variability in discharge and calving front position and find that increased glacier discharge was due almost entirely to the retreat of glacier fronts, rather than inland ice sheet processes, with a remarkably consistent speedup of 4–5% per km of retreat across the ice sheet. We show that widespread retreat between 2000 and 2005 resulted in a step-increase in discharge and a switch to a new dynamic state of sustained mass loss that would persist even under a decline in surface melt.
The tropical storm is heading towards the Caribbean.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/natl/mimictpw_natl_latest.gif
Richard said: See Query Results for year 2020 (Total) e.g. RCP 6.0 2.480 W.m2, RCP 8.5 2.665 W.m2. These are wildly greater numbers than the last actual 0.6 W.m2 TOA EI observation i.e. theory vs actual does NOT comport.
You’re definitely conflating EEI and ERF here. The +0.6 W/m^2 figure is the EEI. The 2.48 or 2.67 W/m^2 figures are the ERF. They are NOT the same thing. They are NOT supposed to be equal.
Also, the RCPs are not observations. They are what-if scenarios used to communicate to the public things in a if X then Y format. Nobody knows which RCP is realistic because no one can predict human behavior. All we can do is make an educated guess as to which RCP humans will choose. I think RCP4.5 will end up being the scenario that best represents what humans decide.
bdgwx persists with the nonsense: “The +0.6 W/m^2 figure is the EEI.”
bdgwx, the “+0.6 W/m^2” is bogus. It has been explained to you. You don’t have a clue about Earth’s “energy budget”, yet you continue spreading your nonsense.
Why do you run from reality?
Richard said: The problem with this is that the EEI was a relatively constant +0.65 W.m2 for some time. Stephens et al’s period was 2000 2010. So the implication is that your ERF remained a constant 2.3 W.m2 from 2000 – 2010 because there was little or no temperature change over that decade.
First…per Cheng 2020 OHC rose about 100 ZJ. Even though there was little change in the atmospheric temperature during this time the Earth still accumulated energy.
Second…the only way I can see EEI and ERF remaining unchanged simultaneously is if the Earth accumulated energy in a manner that did not cause a temperature increase. The only way to store energy without increasing temperature is through the enthalpy of fusion. In other words, the EEI was used to melt snow/ice. Interetingly 2000 was the period in which snow/ice mass loss had become most acute. So maybe there is a link there. I don’t know…I’ll have to research that some more.
Anyway…EEI has been relatively constant for a few decades now while broadly speaking ERF and T have been increasing. There is nothing unusual about this.
Some research for bdgwx noted by Loeb 2018 p.904 annual mean uptake of earth system thermodynamic internal energy component value: +0.03 +/- 0.01 W/m^2 from ice warming and melt and atmospheric and lithospheric warming for 19712010 (Rhein et al. 2013).
…1971 to 2010…
That’s not a lot.
Even with recent melt water increase, not going to budge the .03 a whole lot.
“…noted by Loeb 2018 p.904 annual mean uptake of earth system thermodynamic internal energy component value: +0.03 +/- 0.01 W/m^2…”
Someone needs to explain to Loeb, et al., that “flux” is NOT “energy”.
So any “paper” that incorrectly interchanges the two quantities is NOT based on physics. That means it is NOT science, it is nonsense. And any subsequent “paper” that is based on such a “paper” is also nonsense.
bdgwx said: The only way to store energy without increasing temperature is through the enthalpy of fusion.
I should probably be careful when making blanket statements like this. Obvious there are many ways in general to store energy without an increase in temperature. Chemical processes, wind or ocean current speed increases, etc.
Richard said: I referred you to Chapter 10. Im challenging you for just ONE microphysics paper from 10.4 i.e. actual physical evidence from the IPCC. Not modeling papers.
If you got to Google Scholar and search for “air sea parameterization schemes” or “air sea microphysics” you’ll get many hits. Some of these may be listed as first order sources in IPCC AR5 WGI, but it is more likely that they are second, third, etc. citations referenced by the first order citations. The Physical Science Basis is meant as an introductory level summary of the science. Remember, the IPCC does not do original research. They collate the available research and as such we typically find their first order citations to be heavily weighted with summary type publications as well. You’ll likely have to dive deep to find the details you desire. If you can be more specific about your request I might be able to dig these materials up for you.
Richard said: In other words, there is more LW energy leaving the surface than is absorbed by it therefore there is no heating effect by LWdown.
If LWdown increases more than LWup and all other things remain equal then the surface has to warm. Objects cannot generally accumulate energy without experiencing a temperature increase.
b . . . ,
You are right. The surface warms when the sun comes up, cools when the sun goes down, Duh!
bdg…”Richard said: In other words, there is more LW energy leaving the surface than is absorbed by it therefore there is no heating effect by LWdown.”
The solar LW spectrum is immensely larger than the terrestrial LW spectrum. Furthermore, there will be heating by any LW IR that is hotter than the surface.
No it isn’t. SW and LW refer to the point along the spectrum where there is a transition from solar dominance to terrestrial dominance. Generally speaking 4 um is LW. When you see SW we are talking about solar radiation. When you see LW we are talking about terrestrial radiation.
“Furthermore, there will be heating by any LW IR that is hotter than the surface.”
Gordon, EMR is not heat. LW IR is not hot.
Plot the Planck function curve of the irradiance at the top of the atmosphere from a 6000 K blackbody radius of sun at the Earthsun distance. Plot the Planck function for terrestrial radiation 300K.
Where the two curves intersect (about 1.3 micron) may be interpreted as the wavelength at which a photon is equally likely to be of solar as of terrestrial origin. And then remember the temperature differences of the sources…
bdgwx (Part 1)
>’If LWdown increases more than LWup and all other things remain equal then the surface has to warm.”
The surface is already warming from SW SSR input, that’s the sun to ocean energy transfer. The net LW flux is still outgoing OLR (barring radical changes that completely overcome the LWnet 52 W.m2 OLR, even then terrestrial IR-C is not the bulk ocean heating agent – solar IR-A/B is), LWnet of 51 50 or 49 W.m2 OLR is still a surface cooling flux.
Your scenario is NOT a LW air to sea energy transfer. It is simply an insulation effect (similar to Minnett’s negligible skin-layer insulation effect). LWnet OLR is still cooling the surface
Richard said: The net LW flux is still outgoing OLR (barring radical changes that completely overcome the LWnet 52 W.m2 OLR
To be pedantic…LWnet is not OLR. OLR is the total broadband LR radiation leaving from TOA. It is approximately 240 W/m^2. LWup-LWdown has no shorthand name in widespread use AFAIK.
Richard said: LWnet of 51 50 or 49 W.m2 OLR is still a surface cooling flux.
I think there may be a disconnect with how the word “warming” is used to describe the role of GHGs in the atmosphere. Perhaps this analogy will help clarify things.
Your home has a furnace and insulation. The furnace is the agent by which energy enters your home and is converted into heat. The insulation augments the furnace by trapping the heat that it makes. If you turn the furnace the temperature in your home will increase. That is the “warming” you are envisioning. But if you then add more insulation without making any changes to the furnace the temperature in your home will increase further. This is the “warming” we are referring to. The insulation will not cause the temperature in your home to increase by itself. But when paired with another source of energy and a mechanism to convert that energy into heat the insulation will augment that configuration resulting in a higher equilibrium temperature than would otherwise be possible. It is the temperature increase by augmentation that is meant when scientist use the word “warming” in the context of the GHE.
Yes. The surface sheds more heat via LW-up than it receives via LW-down. The same is true for you home. It sheds more heat than it receives from the outside. But just like enhancing the thermal barrier via adding insulation to your home initially creates an energy imbalance inside your home that leads to a rise temperature so too does enhancing the thermal barrier via adding more GHGs to the atmosphere initially creates an energy imbalance inside the geosphere that leads to a rise in temperature.
bwgwx (Part 2, having ton of trouble posting)
Next problem (see Enlightening Dimming and Brightening (Wild) upthread or look it up): DLR is NOT increasing commensurate with GHG forcing globally or regionally. That’s all in AR5 Chapter 2 Observations Atmosphere. And the observed changes in DLR are an order of magnitude greater than say CO2 at the surface.
bdgwx (Part 3)
Wang and Liang (2009) (upthread) find 2.2 W.m2/decade DLR change at surface (can be 10 regionally) vs Berkeley labs (upthread) 0.2 W.m2/decade CO2 at surface.
I’m out, comments disappear.
The comment section is annoying. Avoid putting the letters D and C together. Be careful about this letter sequence in url links as well. There are some other checks that can cause your comment to get filtered as well. I’m just not what they all are.
That post 2016 global cooling is still just around the corner then.
The wrongs just keep on wronging.
But they don’t own it. THAT was predicatable.
Cooling is just around the corner , small one in few month , big one in few years
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
The Graph dips then goes back up again or did I miss something?
What happens is their models are predictive of only very short term like 2-4 month anything beyond that is completely useless as far as predicting so as a result after 6 month at the end of the chart it always tend to revert to neutral, be it either from cooling or from warming.
It looks like there is skill with at least 9 months lead time especially for the non-summer target months.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1845-2
Middle of the 90s is the center of ´1980-2010´averaged period … 1/4 of a century ago.
That would mean app. a global average temperature increase of 0.44×4=1.76 ºC over a century, and +1.41 over the rest of 21st century !!
Besides:
“The world’s peatlands will become a large source of greenhouse gases as temperatures rise this century, say scientists.
Right now, huge amounts of carbon are stored in boggy, often frozen regions stretching across northern parts of the world.
But much of the permanently frozen land will thaw this century, say experts.
This will release warming gases at a rate that could be 30-50% greater than previous estimates”.
Warming world ‘devastating’ for frozen peatlands
Any optimistic ??
rafael…”This will release warming gases at a rate that could be 30-50%”
30-50% of nothing is still nothing.
Scientists say the loss of ice in Greenland lurched forward again last year, breaking the previous record by 15%.
‘Extreme’ ice loss as Greenland smashes record
A +15% record braking !! … Is that also “nothing”, as 15% of “nothing” ??
Is not permafrost thawing releasing mainly methane, proved strong green house effect ?
Do you have any evidence of the contrary ?
AGW is poorly defined, IMHO.
Should be: difference between the current global average and what would have been observed had the CO2 level remained at 280 ppm.
Under that definition, ENSO cycles, solar cycles, etc. would have no bearing.
Dor,
CO2 level has no significant effect on climate In spite of its being a greenhouse gas. The part of planet temperature increase attributable to humanity is the on-going increase in water vapor resulting primarily (about 96%) from irrigation. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
–AGW is poorly defined, IMHO.–
It’s human effects upon weather since the time of pre-industrial times- or roughly speaking before, before indoor plumbing.
Some think it started much earlier, some others like after 1950 AD {when it was obvious that US was the global superpower}.
Some worry about people eating meat {that goes way back}.
gbaikie…”Some think it started much earlier, some others like after 1950 AD ”
That was just about the time that Eisenhower introduced government funding. He had misgivings about the deed thinking it could be used adversely. He wasn’t even close, it has been seriously abused.
It probably took till the 1970s before some wisenheimer figured out a way to milk the funding by creating false paradigms. Furthermore, climate model technology would just be getting going in the early 70s with their false prophecies.
“CO2 level has no significant effect on climate ”
Dan, your analysis does not support such a claim, as we have discussed.
Therefore you need to stop making it.
One commenter’s significant is another commenter’s insignificant. Insignificant change in observable atm. water vapor or liquid water detected in the satellite era, significant change in temperature.
Nate,
You need to take the blinders off. If you would look, perhaps you might understand. When you do, you will know better.
Dan, there is no global on-going increase in water vapor as measured in the satellite era. Global atm. WV and liquid water are observed to flatline.
Bal,
You have not been paying attention.
Total precipitable water (TPW) i.e. water vapor, is measured using satellite based instrumentation by NASA/RSS and numerical anomalies are reported monthly. Data through July, 2020 is at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202007.time_series.txt and will be until about 10 Aug. They change the link every month so after that you will need to change the last digit from 7 to 8. Their home page is at
http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product . The slope averages about 1.5% per decade and is corroborated by data from NCEP R1 & R2.
I add the base value of 28.73 to the NASA/RSS anomalies to produce the graphs (Click my name)
TPW anomaly with reference value of 28.73 added is graphed here thru Feb 2020: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HXX9IJkJWHYZkjyEH85oen3-CXTNEcID
Dan, it is you that has not been paying attention & keeping up, that data starts in 1988. The global “vertically integrated water vapor”, or “precipitable water” expressed in mm or equivalently kg m−2 ) reported by RMS is only one component of 3 water phases in the atm., you also need account for liquid water and water ice components of atm. water hydrological cycle available from MODIS et. al. data sources back to 1948 as I noted for you earlier.
When those data are added in, the total evaporation on Earth is precisely equal to the total precipitation flatlining since 1948. However, more data continues to pour down from observations reducing the uncertainty in figuring out the global water balance which is still high, despite these recent big data amounts. See Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 38993932, 2020.
pp. 3899-3932
Rafael
A reason for optimism is that things are changing slowly relative to the human lifespan.
Depending on your age, location and income level, you may never experience any adverse effects from climate change.
And everything except your legacy is pretty pointless.
How much legacy does a snowflake have?
Snowflakes used to keep the albedo stable.
Svante,
And then they didn’t? Useless knowledge.
Yes, our emissions caused global warming and now the snow/ice albedo is less.
It’s a positive feedback.
Svante, your false religion makes you an idiot, which causes you to make stupid comments.
It’s a positive feedback.
But we trust Feynman, don’t we?
He’s quite an authority, isn’t he?
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Feynman or Gordon, that’s the question.
“…things are changing slowly relative to the human lifespan.”
That is precisely one of the main reasons why the problem will not be solved soon enough to avoid huge damages to many, many people all over the world, deaths included !!
By the way, don’t you have any descendants that will suffer the consequences of YOUR acts ??
You folks have lost me.
What does my legacy have to to with a conversation about climate change?
You may think you will be dead before climate risks materialize.
That doesn’t matter.
The only thing that matters in the long run is what we leave for our children.
Everything else is pointless.
Just look how dumb people making future predictions from hundred years ago look today , that’s deluded Svante today.
Not in physics.
The theory of relativity still stands.
Unless you agree with Gordon.
Here we go again , scientist wannabe thinks he is Einstein ,
I have bad news for you , you look dumb today and you will look 100 times dumber 100 years from now.
svante…”The theory of relativity still stands.
Unless you agree with Gordon”.
According to Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, the theory of relativity a la Einstein, is not even a theory. It is a collection of thought experiments and assertions that cannot be validated. Essen went so far as to claim that Einstein did not understand measurement.
Einstein freely admitted that his version of relativity measurement is not much different than the Newtonian version. If you have a particle moving along the x-axis in a positive direction you can calculate its position from x0 by s = vt. If there is a particle moving on a different axis, x’,y’,z’ along the axis x’ you can calculate its position as s’ = x’t. Note that t is the same between each relative motion since some dumb human is using the same clock to measure the relative speeds.
It is then a matter of relating the motion of the particle in x’,y’, z’ to the relative motion of the particle in x,y,z. No rocket science there. A computer would help because the human brain is not very good with such computations. It is prone to illusion when things get complicated.
Along comes Einstein with his peculiar definition of time as ‘the hands on a clock’, and arbitrarily redefines s = xt with a multiplier he pulled out of a hat. Einstein’s altered equation is: s = vt(1 – v^2/c^2), so the faster you go wrt the speed of light, c, the smaller time gets and the smaller the distance s gets.
If v < c, the multiplier gets smaller
But look what happens in the limit. If v = c, the multiplier in the brackets = 0, therefore time disappears and distance disappears. So as v -> C, at v = c, everything disappears.
If, v > c, it gets even worse. The multiplier becomes a negative fraction and time becomes negative as does distance. When asked about that, if it meant we could travel back in time, Einstein was quick to claim he did not say that, even though his equation implies it.
If we had a mass traveling at velocity, v, and v = c, the mass can’t very well suddenly have zero velocity, and the distance it has traveled become null.
This dumb theory goes so far as to claim that the mass of a human body traveling at a velocity,v, would not age as fast because time has been reduced. The stupidity in the theory is really hilarious since human age based in cell division, not a clock.
Essen was right, Einstein’s relativity theory has very few applications and it’s not as much a theory as a collection of speculations such as time dilating and distances shortening.
I’m sticking with Newton.
At least Gordon is consistent in his appeal to the authority of cranks.
I believe Gordon went to school with him.
(Isaac Newton born in 1642 died in 1727)
Svante,
The only thing that matters is whatever you choose. It always seems like the right thing at the time, otherwise you wouldn’t choose it, would you?
Trying to impose your choices on others might not work out so well for you.
Without children everything you do is meaningless.
If you give them climate risks it is worse than meaningless.
Svante,
Your comment is meaningless. Unintelligible as well. Worse than meaningless?
Doris, you appear to be new here, as I am. You will quickly learn that Svante is a “pajama-boy-troll” who comments here all day long. His comments are usually short, failed attempts to be clever. He has nothing to offer, in the way of science. He tries to slur Skeptics, unsuccessfully.
He’s quite harmless.
What you attribute to others is usually a good description of yourself, but not this time.
You are not quite harmless.
doris…”What does my legacy have to to with a conversation about climate change?”
Just ignore adverse comments from the alarmist peanut gallery and post.
bobd …”if you remove that cooling mechanism by pulling the blocks apart, the central block has to warm because it is still being heated and can no longer cool by conduction”.
Good on you mate, you’ve almost got it. Now apply that to Swannie’s experiment where he has a heated blue plate radiating freely on both sides in a vacuum. He then raises the green plate so it’s right in front of the BP on one side and that blocks the BPs radiation on that side. The GP slows down the BPs ability to dissipate heat so what happens, it warms!!
Swannie thinks it warms because the cooler GP is transferring heat to it.
“…if you remove that cooling mechanism by pulling the blocks apart, the central block has to warm because it is still being heated and can no longer cool by conduction”
It just cools by radiation, instead. Separating three identical objects does not make the middle object rise in temperature. Where in the real world do you see such a thing happen?
At the Nuclear Power Plant I used to work at for one.
Sure, blob. Whatever you say.
DR EMPTY,
You say
“It just cools by radiation, instead.”
I am sure you can demonstrate that the rates of cooling by conduction and radiation would be the same using valid heat transfer equations?
Can you show the equations are the same or equivalent?
Maybe they are different and the energy/heat flows would be different.
Of course they are with the plates together you have heat flow, but with them apart you have energy flow, so different equation would be used.
Actually we have already shown the energy/heat flows to be different, therefore the temperatures have to be different.
You lost again
At 244 K…244 K…244 K, upon separation, the radiative heat transfer equation between the plates gives a result of zero. Equilibrium reached, end of story.
Perfect, DREMT!
Beat bob over the head with his bogus equation.
Brilliant.
Do we have to do this again DR EMPTY
244, 244, 244 is not at equilibrium.
It’s not even an equilibrium problem, it’s a steady state problem.
That’s the problem, you are not even in the right classroom.
And ClintR is humping your leg.
The wriggling begins…
bob fails the physics so he tries some semantics.
Only to fail again….
Why don’t you patent your heater that is not hot.
400 W between plates of the same temperature.
Brilliant!
I literally just said it was zero, Svante.
DR EMPTY and ClintR the leg humper
I asked
Can you show the equations are the same or equivalent?
Well can you show your math?
Can you show your heat flows balance, in and out?
If not I marks a zero on your paper
The wriggling continues.
bob, you keep forgetting you never get the physics correct.
All we get from you is your juvenile name-calling and obscenities.
Your only value here is to represent the bottom of the barrel of Warmists.
You’re doing that job quite well.
DR EMPTY,
So you are claiming that the dog ClintR ate your homework?
Here you go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
The source of the so called bogus equations.
Use them and recalculate.
Oh fudge, you didn’t calculate in the first place, you just declare your answer correct, who the fudge are you, the Pope.
You position is more and more that of a religion, the Sky Dragon Slayer Religion.
Looks like you need an intervention.
Maybe your local community college could help.
Start with Science For Idiots I.
ClintR the name caller is complaining about being called names again.
Whine Whine Wine you Whiney Little Winey Bitch.
No bob, I’m not complaining about your lack of culture. I’m just acknowledging it. People need to see what happens when others try to live a life avoiding reality. It’s not a pretty site, as you well demonstrate.
Linking to the correct Stefan-Boltzmann equation won’t help your attempted perversion of physics. In fact, the bogus equation does not even appear at that link. And, you won’t find the bogus equation in any legitimate physics book. That should tell you that it’s BOGUS.
You tried this same trick when I tried to teach you gravity cannot create a torque. You went to wikipedia for a bunch of formulas that you could not correctly apply to the situation. You can’t accept reality, so you must attempt to pervert it. Others need to see how blog terrorists operate.
ClintR,
Maybe you would find it in a heat transfer textbook like this
Heat and Mass Transfer, Yunus A. Cengel and Afshin J. Ghajar, 4th Edition
here is the full equation, and for this problem we are using emissivities of one and view factors of one, so the true equation reduces to the one you call bogus.
https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/4b617b05d6953b0493088b50e66af28622500f27
You should quit while you are behind.
And you totally blew the gravity torque bit, you couldn’t have been more wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#:~:text=Earth's%20rotation%20is%20slowing%20slightly,is%20adjusted%20by%20leap%20seconds.
It’s too bad there’s no way we could bet on this, bob.
But, you have no money. And, you have no character, so you can’t be trusted.
If only….
CLintR,
If we could agree on a suitable referee, you would lose.
Just like if you had a sawbuck and Chuck Norris has a sawbuck, who has the most money?
Well you don’t have any money, Chuck has it all.
If only…………..
You could find some reputable cites to support your case.
Nope your case is bogus.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-510460
bob, you can fool yourself, but I’m not sure Snowflake would be fooled by your nonsense.
You deny reality. You believe the wooden horse, bolted to the outer edge of a MGR, is rotating about its axis. You have to believe that to support your false believe that Moon is rotating about its axis.
You deny reality. You ignore the NASA astronaut video that verifies the experiments and proofs of Galileo and Newton.
You deny reality. Trying to argue that the bogus equation is not bogus, you offer as proof, the bogus equation!
You deny reality. Trying to argue that gravity can create a torque, you provide a link discussing Earth’s rotation!
You live in your own world of make-believe. You have zero concept of reality.
“At 244 K…244 K…244 K, upon separation, the radiative heat transfer equation between the plates gives a result of zero. Equilibrium reached, end of story.”
You see, if we are at equilibrium, all Ts are equal.
If all Ts are equal then Qdot = 0.
If Qdot = 0 and all Ts are equal, we must be at equilibrium.
And if we are at equilibrium then all Ts are equal…
And what could possibly be wrong with that?
Other than the universe suddenly becoming really really boring…
ClintR,
You offer the video on the Moon of the astronaut demonstrating that objects in a vacuum fall at the same rate as proof that gravity can not put a torque on an object.
That gets the ATFQ!
It’s a non-sequitur, that video has nothing to do with the question.
I posted the article on the earth’e spin to show that the gravity of the Moon is putting a torque on the Earth, causing the Earth’s rate of rotation to slow down.
You don’t grasp that concept, poor ClintR.
You won’t acknowledge that I have posted evidence that there are two axis with respect to the Moon, one it rotates around and one it orbits around and the two axes are not parallel, so it’s you who are denying reality. Reality, you know, actual observations.
You need to do more than just claim that the heat transfer equation is bogus. Try reading some physics or heat transfer textbooks, you gotta start somewhere. You have to learn some physics from reputable sources instead of making shit up to conform with your religious views.
That’s not the way it works, bob.
A wikipedia source is not “proof” of anything, especially when I can provide a clear example to refute.
Your problem is that wikipedia is your “bible”, and reality is “heresy”. You’re unable to leave your cult.
ClintR,
I’ll take wikipedia any day over the likes of you.
“A wikipedia source is not “proof” of anything, especially when I can provide a clear example to refute.”
Your clear example to refute the point that gravity can cause torque was a video demonstrating that objects of differing densities fall at the same rate as a vacuum.
That’s bad, that’s no proof.
You said
“I tried to teach you gravity cannot create a torque.”
Yeah, right
You don’t like wiki, how about this one
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2019/11/what-makes-earth-spin-on-its-axis-without-slowing-down
No idiot, the video showed that acceleration due to gravity is independent of the object’s mass. You can’t understand basic physics.
ClintR,
Acceleration isn’t torque
Using the gravitational force equation the force on the bowling ball and the feather are different
F = (G M1 * M2)/ R^2
So the force on the bowling ball is more than the force on the feather, but in the acceleration equation
F = m * a
rearranged to solve for a
a = F/m
and since in the previous equation the force is proportion to the masses of the objects with the large body mass constant, the force becomes proportional to the mass of the smaller object and cancels out in the acceleration equation, resulting in equal accelerations.
But the force on the bowling ball and the force on the feather are not equal, so gravity can indeed produce a torque on an object.
Class ******* dismissed
Do your ******* homework next time.
Idiot, you started out okay: “Acceleration isn’t torque”.
But it was all downhill after. You can’t understand basic physics.
Gravity puts a torque on body A when A’s center of mass and center of gravity are displaced. This happens when A has enough plasticity to deform in a sufficiently large gravitational field from body B. This forms a distortion or lobe on body A. Whenever the lobe is offset from the perpendicular line between A and B the gravitational force from B tries to pull the lobe back into alignment. This puts a torque on body A.
Both the Earth and the Moon have gravitationally induced torques. The torque the Earth puts on the Moon keeps the Moon tidally locked. As the lunar lobe tries to move away from the perpendicular line due to rotational inertia the Earth pulls back on it. This torque is dissipated via internal friction within the Moon. The same effect is happening with the Earth as well. Except that the Earth is not yet tidally locked with the Moon. The torque the Moon puts on the Earth causes the Earth’s rotational angular velocity to slow down. The days are getting longer little bit by little bit. And again this torque is dissipated via internal friction and the sloshing of the ocean. Tidal dissipation amounts to only ~0.01 W/m^2 of geothermal energy.
ClintR,
“Idiot, you started out okay: Acceleration isnt torque.
But it was all downhill after. You cant understand basic physics.”
Nope, I schooled your dumb ass.
Check out a physics book from your local library.
Maybe look up the difference between molecules and photons too, so you can teach Swenson, so he doesn’t make such a fool of himself.
As usual bdgwx, you know your nonsense really well. But, you can’t understand the tangled mess that then puts you in.
Gravity cannot produce a torque. So Moon is NOT “tidally locked”. But, let’s accept your nonsense for a moment. If the Moon is tidally locked, then it cannot rotate about its axis. If you try to then claim that it is in “synchronous rotation”, then you don’t understand orbtial motion, which is the motion of a tennis ball on a string swinging around your head.
You don’t know physics, so you just get wrapped up in your own web of deceit. And, you can’t learn. You have actually admitted you believe the wooden horse, bolted to the floor, is nevertheless rotating about its axis. That makes you an idiot.
Which is why this is so enjoyable.
Gordon,
I am not taking your word for what Svante thinks, but
The blue plate does not warm because the green plate is transferring heat to it, because heat only flows one way and in this case the flow is from blue to green.
The blue plate warms because the green plate restricts the rate of cooling of the blue plate.
The blue plate does not warm:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
DREMT,
Those are links to an experiment by someone who doesn’t understand radiation heat transfer. In simple terms, the blue plate, before the green plate is installed, ‘sees’ radiation from the room, etc. at ambient temperature. After the green plate is installed the blue plate ‘sees’ radiation from the green plate, etc. also at ambient temperature. Oblivious to the experimenter, the environment for the blue plate has not changed thermally. There is no reason for the temperature of the blue plate to change. The experiment demonstrated exactly what a skilled engineer/scientist with an understanding of heat transfer phenomena would expect. This experiment has nothing to do with the GHE which partially shields the earth’s surface from the 3 K or so background temperature of space.
A correct assessment of the ‘green plate effect’ is at https://tinyurl.com/y4m4fygz
So you agree that adding the green plate does not cause the blue plate to warm. Good.
Dre,
More importantly, I understand why; as I just explained. I also understand why the experiment has nothing to do with how the GHE works; and I just explained that too.
Then the same reasoning should apply to Swanson’s experiment – but he claims the blue plate warms…
Dre,
Swanson obviously understands the engineering/physics of heat transfer phenomena and set up a valid experiment which does, indeed, demonstrate qualitatively the phenomena in question.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511080
“First…I’m not “splitting” the GP input by two just because I want to. The division by 2 is an acknowledgement that the BP has two sides”
bdgwx…do you actually listen to anything anybody else writes? Go back through my comments and tell me what you are missing.
bobdroege,
I presume you were sacked from the Nuclear Power Plant on the grounds of mental instability.
For those recent arrivals to this blog who may not understand Gordo’s reference, HERE’s a LINK to my Green Plate Demonstration. For Gordo, what is happening is called Radiation Heat Transfer in the engineering world.
That’s OK, Swanson, links have already been given to two legitimate experiments.
Two linked replicable tests by E. Swanson, the tests linked at PSI show the same results.
Here comes the Ball4 troll…
https://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-copper-iron-green-house-revisited.html
bobdroege,
So back radiation is really reflection? So why do alarmists not just say reflection? Or is back radiation different from reflection because . . . ?
Swenson,
Back radiation is not reflection.
Back radiation is a bad term because CO2 and H2O and the other greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere do get energy from other sources than the upwelling infrared from the surface.
They are heated directly from the Sun, they gain energy from collisions with other molecules, they get energy from water vapor condensing and subliming, and they get energy from convection.
Have I missed any?
Just call it downwelling infrared from the atmosphere.
bobdroege,
Did you actually read your link? “If you believe that backradiation or reflection . . .”
No mention of downwelling infrared from the atmosphere. So are you saying that your link is just irrelevant diversion? Or that back radiation is just a bad term that alarmists use because they don’t know scientific terminology?
Heres a tip. Read your linked information first.
Yeah Swenson,
I read the whole thing, what did you do just read the last line and go off on it, without seeing that the experiment supports that position.
You missed what he was doing with the reflection part, that wasn’t to simulate a real atmosphere.
The experiment is designed to demonstrate that the canard that you can’t increase the temperature of a warmer object using passive radiation from a colder object is false.
They’re not even using a vacuum…
DR EMPTY,
Why does that matter. Never mind, you won’t answer.
It just shows that there is energy transfer from cold to hot, maybe it’s due to conduction, convection or radiation.
But it show energy transfer from cold to hot.
So there you have it.
At least Thefordprefect doesn’t block the radiation with plastic spacers.
blob has clearly forgotten about Swanson’s earlier experiments, without the vacuum. Or he’s just being dishonest again.
I wasn’t discussing Swanson’s experiments this time.
I did the experiment and found the effect without a vacuum.
OK, blob.
And it took hours for the temperature to stop rising, both for the initial with only one plate and the final with a second plate.
OK, blob. The point I was making went over your head.
DR EMPTY,
You didn’t make a point.
Care to try again?
#2
OK, blob.
Other clues that an orbit is a rotation about an external axis, are in the word “revolution”. You will note that it is a synonym of “rotation”.
I share his concern for our children, but why would someone believe the well-being of adults does not matter?
Their AGW “disaster” is not happening as predicted, so they are moving the due date into the future.
Sorry, my comment was for ClintR, not Gordon.
bdg…”Remember, the IPCC does not do original research. They collate the available research …”
That’s a stretch. Did you not read the Climategate emails where Coordinating Lead Authors like Phil Jones of Had-crut, who choose the Lead Authors, who choose the reviewers, stated that he and another CLA would take steps to block papers from skeptics. And they did.
You are seriously naive if you think the IPCC review is apolitical and fair.
Gordon:
-The GP slows down the BPs ability to dissipate heat so what happens, it warms!!-
Did the close proximity of the GP prevent the BP from radiating? This is news to me. Sort of like a frog goes quiet if you get to close to the pond? Please expain.
Doris,
Sort of like if you remove the heat sink from a solid state device, it may get so hot the smoke escapes. Without its smoke, the device fails.
But in reverse. Insulation provides no heat, but those of lower intelligence don’t understand the difference between heat, temperature, energy and a whole lot of other things.
With regard to Swannie’s conclusion, he doesn’t understand enough physics to figure out what has happened. If he totally encloses his heat source in whatever coloured material he used, after a little while the smoke will escape from it and it will be useless. He might convince himself that CO2 and the greenhouse effect were responsible, rather than stupidity.
Swenson wrote:
What the F@#$ are you talking about? Did you use a translator to create this post, maybe Chinese or Russian to English? It’s complete garbage!!!
“Smoke escaping” is a concept from electronics, Swanson.
A junior assistant janitor wouldn’t understand such things. Stick with your brooms and mops.
ROTFLMAO!
Swanny,
Sorry. Thought you knew something about electronics and had a sense of humour. Alarmists seem to know bugger all, and are humourless.
Swenson, I suppose that you’ve never read Dilbert. I’m an engineer, after all. Besides, destroying the Earth’s natural life support systems doesn’t seem very funny to me.
Swanny,
What the f. . . are you talking about? CO2 Is plant food, if that is what you are talking about. Part of the natural life support system that you want to destroy, apparently. Read the wise words of Gavin Schmidt. No need to panic.
Swenson,
So you agree with Gordon – that the close proximity of the GP prevented the BP from radiating? How does an inanimate object know if another is too close?
Doris,
Please read what I wrote. Trying to put words in my mouth just makes you look like an idiot alarmist. Learn some physics. If you understand, no explanation is necessary. If you dont, no explanation is possible.
Feel free to go away and troll elsewhere.
Swenson
I understand physics enough to know that the BP would continue to radiate according to its temperature, even if another plate is placed nearby.
I understand people enough to know when someone is trying to avoid answering a simple question.
You told me that I was agreeing with words you put into somebody’s mouth. Just putting a question mark on your statement makes no difference,
Are you a troll or just stupid? It’s a simple question, surely.
Swenson
Do you agree with Gordon that the close proximity of the GP prevented the BP from radiating?
Easy enough to answer.
– Are you a troll or just stupid? It’s a simple question, surely. –
Give me a science related question, I promise to answer as best I can.
Doris,
How do photons know how to go through transparent materials? What happens to them after that?
Easy enough for you to answer?
Photons don’t have brains, they don’t know anything, is Swenson a reborn troll or just stupid?
Ball4,
You are correct in relation to my question. Poor phrasing on my part. You might explain the mechanism by which photons interact with a transparent medium. Feel free to use your own words.
Doris,
So glass is transparent because it is transparent? Your best is less than my worst!
You are a fool. You havent the faintest idea, have you?
Sorry, should have been,
– Did the close proximity of the GP cause the BP to radiate less? –
Doris,
Are you stupid, or just trolling? Where did anyone state about anything causing anything to radiate less? Go away, troll.
Swenson/Mike Flynn accuses someone of being a troll AND creating a strawman???
Psychological projection in its purest form.
Nate,
Go away troll.
No need to panic. According to Gavin Schmidt
“The thing to push back against is the implicit framing that there is some magic global mean temperature or total emissions that separate ‘fine’ from ‘catastrophic’. There just isn’t,”
There is more, but the spam filter doesn’t like obscenities.
swenson, Gavin is a piece of work. He has a degree in applied mathematics and could not explain positive feedback. To Gavin, feedback causes amplification whereas in a real feedback amplifier, there is no feedback without an amplifier. Don’t see any amplifiers in the atmosphere.
One reason models show such extreme warming is the mysterious positive feedback factor built into their programs. Another problem is assigning an arbitrary warming factor to CO2. Remove both of those fictitious values and the catastrophic warming disappears.
Swenson
– How do photons know how to go through transparent materials? What happens to them after that?
Easy enough for you to answer? –
Yes, very easy.
A force caused the photon to be in motion, and a force is required to make it stop. Transparent material does not meet that requirement. The photon, quite obviously, has no choice in the matter
Gordon wrote,
– He then raises the green plate so its right in front of the BP on one side and that blocks the BPs radiation on that side. The GP slows down the BPs ability to dissipate heat so what happens, it warms!! –
The BP is in a vacuum. It dissipates heat through radiation.
So I ask again, what physics or forces would cause the BP to radiate less just because another plate was placed nearby?
Doris Dimwit,
Nobody stated the words you ascribe to Gordon, except yourself. Go away.
doris…”So I ask again, what physics or forces would cause the BP to radiate less just because another plate was placed nearby?”
In past arguments I have posited that the GP is metal. Any metal will block EM by absorbing it. Look up Faraday cage or shield. EM blockers are used in homes now as a further level of insulation. Obviously, if you stop a body radiating heat, or reduce the amount it can radiate, the body will warm.
AN EM wave is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. When the electric field contacts a metal surface it sets up electric currents in the metal that cancel the effect of the EM field. Normally, the shield is grounded so excess charges bleed off to ground.
In your reply to Swenson, you inferred that photons have momentum that need to be countered by a force to stop them. It’s far more complex than that. For one, there is no evidence that a photon exists. It was defined as a particle of EM to make it easier to deal with at an atomic level but it was defined as a particle of EM with no mass but momentum.
That does away with the normal momentum related to a force/ mass, since in that case, a force accelerates a mass to a constant volume then the mass maintains a momentum mv. In the case of the photon, mv = 0. As you implied, to stop a real mass you need to apply a force in the opposite direction over a certain period of time to stop the mass.
A photon, which I prefer to call a quantum of EM, is emitted by an electron as it drops from a higher orbital energy level to a lower energy level. The emitted quantum has intensity E = hf, where f = the angular frequency of the electron and E is the difference between energy levels in electron volts.
No one knows why an electron emits this quantum but it is known that a moving electron has an electric field around it and a magnetic field at right angles. It’s just a theory that the electron changes energy levels between discrete quantum levels but when it was introduced by Bohr in 1913 it made sense and stuck.
I don’t think a quantum of energy has momentum as we know it. I think the idea gained merit because once emitted from bazillions of electrons, the quanta act as a wave that propagates at a certain frequency. There’s no known force as we understand force that can be used to stop that propagation.
Gordo wrote:
The thermal IR EM emissivity of an object is determined by what ever treatment is applied to it’s surface. A polished metal surface will exhibit high reflectivity and thus low emissivity. Coating a polished metal with low emissivity with a SW absorbing layer results in a selective absorbing material used for solar thermal panels for decades. Non-metals, such as ceramics and glass, are good thermal IR emitters. Take a plastic which transmits IR EM radiation and paint it with a flat black coating (such as “lamp black” carbon) and it will exhibit a high emissivity.
I plugged the July data into my spreadsheet.
The trend is +0.1360 C/decade +- 0.0067.
The trendline is now at +0.34C.
That means July was +0.10C above the trendline.
The largest departure below/above the trendline was 0.44C and 0.71C respectively.
The standard deviation of the departures is 0.180C.
Of the 500 samples there were 57 excursions less than 0.2 below the trendline, 23 less than 0.30, 10 less than 0.35, and 4 less than 0.40.
Despite this I still think a -0.20C anomaly is possible especially if a VEI 6 eruption were to occur. Barring a large aerosol release a -0.10C anomaly is more feasible with a strong La Nina. By 2030 even a La Nina may not be enough to pull us below 0 if current trends hold.
From NASA
*About half the light reaching Earth’s atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated upward in the form of infrared heat. . . . *
Energy (light) cannot be created or destroyed. Where did the other half go? What erroneous assumption(s) has NASA made, either intentionally, or through abysmal ignorance?
Duh! No GHE?
“infrared heat”? NASA using that term is what Swenson should be complaining about.
Here Mr.Swenson, they made a nice children cartoon for you
https://i.postimg.cc/85QDy6QW/origbudget.jpg
Oh – the GHE?
Later on, after they jumped on the CO2 warming scam bandwagon, they realized their “supposed” greenhouse was not there , so they concocted a new model with included laws of fizzix breaking back radiation “energy amplifier” to make the CO2 miracle warming gas.
Note – it is pictured on a flat Earth as a bonus.
https://i.postimg.cc/Wz9mMy51/flateathwarming.jpg
Eben,
At least the “more correct” earlier cartoon showed a very definite time. It was when the temperature was at an inflection point. Temperature not changing. Energy in equalling energy out. Sun is shining, so not at night. Not raining or snowing, little cloud. Presumably at the instance of maximum temperature. NASA cartoonists at work.
I believe Skeptical Science is run by a cartoonist. Figures.
bdgwx:
Be sure to save your analysis and prediction. I have.
When the next strong la nina comes around, skeptics will claim the cooling was something the scientific community did not expect. Your work will serve to prove them wrong.
*The largest departure below/above the trendline was 0.44C and 0.71C respectively.*
The disparity makes perfect sense, as the greatest negative departure in the ONI during the satellite record was – 1.8 C, while the greatest positive departure was + 2.6 C
An observation:
the difference in science aptitude on this blog is simply stunning. A sophisticated comment like yours, bdgwx, is followed by a comment from someone who does not even realize that cloud tops reflect sunlight.
You could picture a grad student seated next to a fifth grader, both part of the same discussion.
Dante,
How do you know bdgwx is a fifth grader? Do trees reflect sunlight? What about green grass? What colour is green grass at night? Does it still radiate energy?
Do you really need to prove how stupid you are?
It is also stunning how some people become so focussed on coloured plates. Why is that? Surely it is of minor interest in the broader scheme? Maybe people find comfort in arguing over theoretical trivia rather than confronting reality.
I say: if you are interested in coloured plates – go and play in the kitchen cupboard.
Ditto with rotating
One advantage of the Moon discussion is that it allows us to clearly identify the idiots.
A wooden horse bolted to the outer edge of a rotating platform is orbiting the center of the platform. It is NOT rotating about its axis, because it cannot rotate about its axis. It is bolted to the floor!
Idiots believe the wooden horse is rotating about its axis. That’s why they’re idiots.
Yes, you self identify as an idiot.
The Moon is spinning.
I believe the rotation topic may have gotten started because a line of discussion evolved (or perhaps devolved) as to why the Moon has a lower mean temperature than does the Earth even though both receive roughly the same amount of solar radiation. Somewhere along the way the science contrarians invoked the faux claim that the Moon is not actually rotating.
I remember your efforts to twist and distort reality, bdgwx. That’s why the Moon discussion is so important.
You tried “diurnal”, “synodic/sidereal”, and “libration”, as I recall. But nothing worked for you. You refused to accept reality. And that makes all of your future efforts meaningless.
That’s not at all the reason why the discussion started, bdgwx. This topic has been discussed long before you started commenting here.
What was context on those earlier discussions that I was not part of?
The reason it was brought up was always explained to be: here is an example where all institutions and authorities agree on something, but are wrong. That was the parallel to climate science and specifically the GHE. The bonus was, the moon issue was far simpler to explain.
Interesting. I got introduced to it because we were discussing the reasons why the mean temperature of the Moon and Earth were different. Obviously the Moon’s slower rotation rate plays a part in its diurnal temperature range and various other aspects of the temperature. At some point someone (don’t remember who) chimed in and said the Moon doesn’t rotate at all.
The moon does rotate, just not on its own axis.
It orbits the Earth/moon barycenter.
Earth – orbits and rotates on its own axis.
Moon – just orbits.
bdgwx made an idiot of himself months ago. Now, he’s trying to act like that never happened. Like the others, he’s only fooling himself and other fools.
He believes that something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-475373
The moon spins on its axis, see here
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
Yes bob, “space.com”, and the new perverted NASA, and idiots believe that nonsense.
Yes CLintR,
And non-idiots, those who couldn’t trick an idiot out of a sandwich don’t believe that shit.
Interesting. If you bolt a sphere to the edge of a rotating platform, so one face always faces the center, and name it *moon*, it is rotating on its axis. If you label it *spherical horse* it is not rotating on its axis.
Hmmmm.
I can’t believe after all these years this discussion is still going on.
My suggestion to the non rotators, to provide convincing evidence to support their views, is to personally conduct an empirical experiment. This involves travel to the north pole ( this experiment also works for the south pole so the antipodeans can also replicate this experiment) so bring warm clothing. This experiment should be done at night so that stars may be visible.
Stand immobile and observe your environment, particularly the stars, for at least 24 hours and contemplate whether you are rotating on your own axis. Each of the non rotators can take it in turn to replicate the experiment so all members can be convinced either way and aditionally enough data is obtained to minimise uncertainties.
On second thoughts, to make it a gold standard study, maybe half the group can be used as a control group. These members can just stare at the ground between their feet for 24 hours . At the conclusion the observations of these two groups should be compared.
On further thought it would probable better, due to possible evisceration by polar bears or savaging by penguins (depending on the locale) , to conduct these experiments, rather than empirically, as thought experiments.
Hopefully the relevance of this thought experiment to wooden horses, platforms and the moon does not need to be pointed out to the non rotators (maybe a vain hope considering the contibutions of this group ) but if need be, I can make the connections explicit but the take home message is, that it is all relative.
MikeR, too often people just start typing out a long comment with no clue about the issue. You appear to be new to the discussion, so maybe you’re sincerely attempting to learn.
The issue does not involve Earth. The issue involves Moon. And the issue is not based on viewing “relative to the stars”, or “inertial space”, or “idiot space”. “Relative to the stars” can give the wrong answer, as you cannot discern “orbiting” from “rotating about its axis”, if you don’t already understand the difference.
The simple “thought experiment” of the wooden horse mounted to the outer edge of the rotating platform is the easiest to understand. The wooden horse cannot rotate about its axis because it is bolted to the floor. The horse is then “orbiting” about the center of the platform, but not “rotating about its axis”. This is the same motion as the Moon.
Idiots cannot understand the simple motions involved because they are too influenced by “Neo-NASA”, which perpetuates the mistakes made by Cassini centuries ago. Galileo got it right, c 1590. Newton formalized it about a century later, with his laws of motion. Cassini was apparently jealous of Newton and tried to come up with his “laws of motion” involving Moon, which were based on astrology, not science. Neo-NASA likes false religions.
“Galileo got it right, c 1590. Newton formalized it about a century later, with his laws of motion.”
Love how the TEAM co-opts dead geniuses into their cult without any evidence that they would have been supportive.
Nate, you don’t have a very good track record of accepting reality.
Let us know if anything changes.
And yet insults are not answers or evidence, are they?
Nate, you don’t have a very good track record for accepting reality.
If anything changes, let us know.
ClintR is describing himself again.
Svante, does the wooden horse rotate on its own axis. Yes or no?
One of your heroes, Norman, says no:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-508017
I know you do not like to think for yourself, so that might help you answer.
What happened to your toy train?
Where the wheels worn out as they forced the train to turn, i.e.rotate?
ClintR,
Thanks for your edifying response. Unlike yourself who has been studying this issue for decades I am a relative newcomer to this debate having only first commented about this matter very recently (some two and half years ago).
As I am a great believer in the Socratic method I was hoping you would have had some thoughts which you could share regarding the thought experiment above concerning an observer at the earths geographic poles. The relevance to the rotation of the moon or the wooden horse was lost on you.
Consequently I am going to press my luck. In light of your vast experience with regard to these matters, could you please help your non rotating colleagues (some of whom are still with us!) with the two questions I posed 2 years ago.
see – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-286501
The postimg gif is stale in this linked comment so the updated link to the gif is at
https:https://i.postimg.cc/Hx8GCCLk/dumbell-rotate.gif.
Rather than attempting an avoidance manoeuvre with a NASA rant, have a go at answering these two questions. You might engender some respect if you can provide a thoughtful answer to both these questions otherwise you might be considered to be just another blowhard (heaven forbid!).
Dumbbell A is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the center of the circle. All of the particles making up the dumbbell are moving in concentric circles about that point in the center of the circle (the very center of the orbit). Dumbbell C is rotating on its own axis, CW, once per CCW orbit.
I will take it you disagree with Norman then, Svante, unless you tell me otherwise.
You believe a wooden horse, bolted to a rotating platform so that it is unable to rotate on its own axis, is nevertheless rotating on its own axis, rather than just rotating about the center of the platform.
Mujer, to the charlatan nonspinners, the universe is rotating about the moon and dumbbell A; only dumbbells agree with them.
Apparently spell czech changes MikeR into something else. Just like nonspinners change spinning into something else.
The bolted down horse sees the universe spinning around it once per rev.
The Ball4 troll arrives, on cue.
MikeR, dumbbell “a” is orbiting, but not rotating about it axis. Both “b” and “c” are orbiting AND rotating about their axes.
With regard to dumbbell A, DREMT is almost correct . Each component of the dumbbell REVOLVES around the point at the centre of the large circle at a constant radial distance which is different for each point (unlike for cases B and C) . As a consequence the inner closer side of the dumbell travels a shorter distance than the outer side for each orbital REVOLUTION. The only solution that allows this is for the dumbell to ROTATE once on its axis for each REVOLUTION.
This Is obvious if you follow the dumbell in its orbit. You can see (if you can’t then you need an eye exam ) it ROTATE around an axis passing through its centre of mass (shown as a red dot) . If you do have defective eyesight then in each of the cases A,B and C the square at the left edge illustrates the rotation of the dumbell around the centre of mass ( isolated from the motion due to the revolution of the dumbell).
For case C where the dumbell is not rotating (maybe DREMT thinks it is!) then an observer will see both sides of the dumbell (i.e. moon) from the vantage point of the central circle (i.e. earth).
In summary an object can simultaneously revolve about a point and also rotate at any rate (including zero) about its axis. The only case where only one side of the object is seen from the perspective of the centre of revolution is when the rotational period matches the period of revolution in matching angular directions (i.e. both are clockwise or both anticlockwise).
Sorry to be so long winded and laboured but it might be necessary to finally,after many years, to put this nonsense to rest. Undoubtedly DREMT will make noises in response but that is just him being ornery.
Clint, I hope my explanation above clears up your confusion.
Dumbbell A is revolving about a point in the center of the circle, and not rotating on its own axis.
Revolution is just a word for rotation about an axis which is external to the body in question.
If you study Fig. 2(b), in this text:
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
“Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles”
You will note that the rectangle is rotating about point O. It cannot rotate about its own center of mass due to the rigid rod connecting it to point O. The rectangle is thus revolving about point O, and not rotating on its own axis. The movement is identical to that of Dumbbell A.
Sure because rectangle and dumbbell A have the universe rotating about them.
No, they do not.
Suggesting that either Dumbbell A and the rectangle are rotating on their own axes, otherwise the Universe is rotating around them, is a false dichotomy.
There is a third option: Dumbbell A and the rectangle are not rotating on their own axes, they are rotating about an external axis (revolving).
Meanwhile, Dumbbell B and Dumbbell C are both rotating on their own axes, and revolving.
MikeR, dumbbell “a” is orbiting, not rotating about its own axis. It’s the same motion as Moon, or a tennis ball on a string. if the tennis ball were really rotating on its axis, the string would wrap around the ball.
Your confusion starts with you not understanding the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating about CoG axis”.
Thanks DREMT for the PDF regarding rotation about an axis and curvilinear motion for a rigid body which, as is pointed out by the author, are two distinct forms of motion,
Figure 2b only refers to rotation only. The object is rigidly attached to a pivot point so it is totally incapable of rotating on its axis (like a dead or alive Norwegian Blue parrot nailed to its perch). This is unlike the moon or any other celestial body which are assuredly capable of multitasking. They can revolve and rotate simultaneously (and perhaps chew gum at the same time).
If, in the above, you suddenly disconnected the object from its pivot point while in motion, it would head off in a tangent while rotating about an axis through its centre of mass (see conservation of angular momentum),
Next.
Clint,
As I explained directly above, an object can orbit and also simultaneously rotate, as per every known object in the solar system (disregarding your belief regarding non rotation of tidally locked moons).
In astronomical terms these are two independent forms of motion. Orbiting (revolving) involves the movement of a body around another point external to itself (i.e the earth revolves about the centre of mass of the earth/sun system ) while rotation means movement around an axis internal to itself.
Returning to the the dumbells if you concentrate hard enough and look at the dumbell in the rectangle labelled C , you can see that it is stationary. However if you are seeing it rotating then you might be having a visual disturbance and you might want to have a lie-down and take a pain killer until the disturbance passes.
Alternatively if you think the dumbell in the rectangle labelled A is not rotating then the device you are looking may have frozen. In that case you should check with the dumbell in rectangle B to see if it is also not rotating. A reset might help or the device may need to be replaced
A third alternative is that, in exasperation, you have hurled the tablet or phone across the room and it is orbiting in an arc towards the ground while rotating at exactly the same rate and direction that the dumbell is rotating . In this case that the dumbell in case A appears to be stationary on the display. The bad news is you may have destroyed your device. The good news is that this may lead you to finally understand the concept of tidal locking.
Finally I may have been a bit naive. I had been hoping that the relationship between the dumbell in the rectangle on the left and the corresponding orbiting dumbell on the right would be implicitly understood. It is not rocket science but maybe it is not obvious to those with little formal training in physics. Sigh.
You’re confused by the graphics, MikeR. Use the tennis ball on a string, swinging around your head. The same side of the tennis ball always faces you. Just like Moon always faces Earth. The tennis ball is NOT rotating about it axis. It is only orbiting, just like Moon.
ClintR,
I gather from your response to the thought experiment I suggested above that the complexities of inertial and non-inertial frames of reference are difficult for you to comprehend but anyway, here goes.
Here is a depiction of a dumbbell ( I can find a graphic of a tennis ball if necessary) on a string swinging around a central point.
https://i.postimg.cc/DzxG0Tpr/dumbell-on-string.gif
As you can see your claim that the dumbbell is not rotating for case A only makes sense from the perspective of the non-inertial rotating frame of reference of the rotating string. Your claim does not make sense if you are observing from an external inertial frame of reference.
Maybe if you modify your claim that the moon is not rotating with the proviso that this claim is only made from the perspective of the orbital motion then I will agree.
However physicists tend to abhor non-inertial frames of reference because of the complexity and need to introduce fictional forces to account for the dynamics.
to illustrate the complexities rotating frames of reference introduce see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame.
The section on Centrifugal and Coriolis forces are particularly pertinent.
I hope we can reach the point of agreement that the ball or dumbbell is rotating from the perspective of an external observer who is not in a rotating frame reference.
Anyway for the case of the moon, there is no string or physical connection involved (but maybe NASA has been concealing that fact) so the claim that the moon is not rotating can be only be made with respect to the orbital path.
If you want to continue the debate then you might want to address how the moons north and south poles are designated. Hint – they are not magnetic poles and they are not perpendicular to the plane of the moon’s orbit.
“The object is rigidly attached to a pivot point so it is totally incapable of rotating on its axis”
Yes, exactly my point…and it moves as per Dumbbell A, and the moon. The moon is not rigidly attached to the Earth, of course, but the principle is, an object that cannot rotate on its axis moves as per the moon.
“If you want to continue the debate then you might want to address how the moons north and south poles are designated. Hint – they are not magnetic poles and they are not perpendicular to the plane of the moon’s orbit.”
Most astronomers think the moon rotates on its own axis, so they designated the moon poles in the normal way, based on that erroneous belief.
We went through this last time you randomly appeared.
DREMT’s followup comment “Yes, exactly my pointand it moves as per Dumbbell A, and the moon. The moon is not rigidly attached to the Earth, of course, but the principle is, an object that cannot rotate on its axis moves as per the moon”
Does this mean DREMT’s principle, “an object that cannot rotate on its axis moves as per the moon” .is rigidly attached to the earth?
What a waffle full of nonsense. Sounds like b.s,. looks like b.s. and smells like b.s.
I will attempt to stifle the laughter and take DREMT seriously for a moment .
So DREMT, in the absence of a physical connection between the earth and the moon what stops the moon from rotating about an axis other than this newly invented principle? Could it be tides? Tidal locking causes the moons rotation rate to match the orbital period not freeze it. The maths of tidal locking of the moons rotation is well understood.
See https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-in-the-Earth-Moon-System-Mcdonald/07fef27c23b13cc778f2bb425ec90c82c11306b1
and
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/astrocourses/ast201/tides.html
Do you have your own or someone else’s mathematical framework to support your assertion that the moon does not rotate?. Maybe the Serbians can come to the rescue.
An object that cannot rotate on its own axis moves as per the moon. You already agreed with this point when you said, “Figure 2b only refers to rotation only. The object is rigidly attached to a pivot point so it is totally incapable of rotating on its axis”.
Seems a bit silly for you to argue against yourself, but please carry on if you wish.
MikeR, you added “strings” to the graphics, but left them unattached. Graphic “A” is the only one representing that the string could be attached. In “B” and “C”, if the string were attached, it would wrap around the dumbbells. That’s why “A” is the only one representing orbiting, but not rotating about its axis. That’s the same motion as Moon.
I don’t mind helping you with your other issues, but first you must understand the ball-on-a-string models Moon correctly–orbiting, but not rotating about its axis.
As DREMT hinted, the fact that Moon’s poles are defined by the orbits, rather than by an “axis of rotation” should tell you something.
Re DREMT’s other ridiculous comment –
“Most astronomers think the moon rotates on its own axis, so they designated the moon poles in the normal way, based on that erroneous belief”.
So DREMT do you think the astronomers in the past assigned the positions of poles at random ? What did they reference? Why did they think the moon poles are inclined at 6.68 degrees to the orbital plane? Did they pluck this figure out of the air?
The real answer is here-
https://the-moon.us/wiki/Selenographic_Coordinates
By the way, measurements of variations in the moons rotational speed and the orientation of the spin axis (see nutation) have been made over a couple of decades using laser beams reflected from retroreflectors on the surface of the moon. A list of retroreflectors including selenographic cordinates can be found here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon
and the experiments using this technology is described here –
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/
So DREMT are you done yet or do you want to continue to flog this dead horse?
https://images.app.goo.gl/9yeahnvHRcE48VnQA
“So DREMT do you think the astronomers in the past assigned the positions of poles at random ?”
No, they base it on the location of the axis of rotation. Since they erroneously believed the moon has an axis of rotation, it is no surprise they designated poles for the moon.
“What did they reference? Why did they think the moon poles are inclined at 6.68 degrees to the orbital plane? Did they pluck this figure out of the air?”
As I explained to you previously, it is from observations of the moon at various points in its orbit. They calculated the 6.68 degree “axial tilt” from studying the libration of latitude and from observations that the moon’s orbital plane is inclined to the ecliptic.
DREMT above. “An object that cannot rotate on its own axis moves as per the moon. You already agreed with this point when you said, Figure 2b only refers to rotation only. The object is rigidly attached to a pivot point so it is totally incapable of rotating on its axis.
Seems a bit silly for you to argue against yourself, but please carry on if you wish.”
No DREMT I am not arguing with my own statement Figure 2b only refers to rotation only. The object is rigidly attached to a pivot point so it is totally incapable of rotating on its axis. Why would I, as it is self evident?
I definitely have issue with your statement ” An object that cannot rotate on its own axis moves as per the moon” which is simply an assertion that the moon cannot rotate on its axis!
Poor DREMT, you seem to be going around in circles. Maybe you need to take a break.
Anyway an object that is non rotating ( or rotating) will continue to move as bloody well as it likes (Newton’s 1st Law of Inertia).
MikeR, Fig. 2(b) shows a rectangular plate which is moving like the moon, keeping the same face always pointed towards the center of the orbit. In your own words, the plate is “incapable of rotating on its own axis”. So yes, you do appear to agree with the statement, “an object that cannot rotate on its own axis moves as per the moon”, since the rectangle is such an object.
Fairly straightforward.
Ok DREMT I will believe you that the astronomers calculated the axial tilt of the moon by the methodology you described. Do you have a reference for this? Not that I doubt you.
However,the more relevant question is why does the entire astronomical community (with the possible exception for those irascible Serbs) believe that a rotational axis for the moon exists despite your evidence(?) and astonishing theory. Any ideas? I have my own ideas but would love to hear yours.
ClintR, apologies for my poor gif depiction of strings connected to the dumbbells. The program I wrote has a problem generating dumbbells with transparent backgrounds.
Obviously the string should be shown connected to the dumbbell for all cases. I hope this issue has not led to any more confusion on your behalf.
DREMT, Au contraire, it is not fairly straightforward, rather it is very straightforward.
The plate depicted in figure 2b is not an appropriate analogy to the moon orbiting the earth, while either rotating or not rotating, for the reasons I have outlined previously.
Anyway I have had more than enough of your nonsense for one night and I am off to bed. So good night and enjoy the day wherever you are.
MikeR, your problem is you argue against things I’m not saying.
“An object which cannot rotate on its own axis moves as per the moon”.
Pay careful attention to the wording. The plate shown in Fig. 2(b) is such an object. The wooden horse bolted to the carousel is another. A ball on a string is yet another. The moon does not need to be physically connected to the Earth for the statement to be correct, however. The motion of the moon is similar to these connected objects, even though it is not physically connected itself.
The key is to be able to distinguish the motion “orbiting without axial rotation” from the motion “axial rotation”. The motion “orbiting without axial rotation” is depicted by the ball on a string examples. That is what the “Non-Spinners” are arguing.
The “Spinners” see “orbiting without axial rotation” as motion like your Dumbbell C.
That is the fundamental difference between our positions. Not “inertial vs non-inertial” reference frames.
“The motion “orbiting without axial rotation” is depicted by the ball on a string examples.”
Correcting DREMT to observed reality: The motion “orbiting without axial rotation” more or less than once per rev. is depicted by the ball on a string example, 2b rectangle & the moon being gravitationally locked into spinning once on its own axis per rev.
Non-spinners will continue to support the irrational case the universe spins about the moon as universe center point.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511668
“Dumbbell C is rotating on its own axis, CW, once per CCW orbit.”
Jeez you guys are confused!
NO ONE anywhere in any textbook will agree with you that Dumbell C is rotating on its own axis.
Nor is it consistent with anyone’s definition of rotation, even your own!
It is only rotating in an already rotating reference frame!
DREMT’s description is accurate, Nate. I’m surprised you don’t recognize it. That motion is what you idiots believe Moon is doing–rotating on its axis in “synchronous rotation” with its orbit.
That’s what Moon would look like if it were doing as you idiots claim. (Assuming axial rotation is CW, as in the graphic.) Earth would see all sides of Moon, during one orbit.
Not happening.
DREMT you are just repeating the same assertions but anyway…
DREMT – The Spinners see orbiting without axial rotation as motion like your Dumbbell C.
Yes of course we do and an observer from the reference point of the centre of revolution sees all sides of the moon.
Sorry to repeat myself, but believing that the moon is orbiting with axial rotation in the case of dumbbell C is only consistent with observation by a rotating inertial observer. From the perspective of an observer in a non inertial frame the dumbbell is clearly non rotating.
DREMT – “Thatis the fundamental difference between our positions. Not inertial vs non-inertial reference frames. ”
The fundamental conclusion is that DREMT you do not understand the fundamental difference between inertial and non inertial frames of reference.
From your innumerable comments over the years, I gather you think ignorance is bliss but you need to get out of your comfort zone and go on an adventure and do some educational reading. A place to start is
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame
and
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame
If these are too difficult then there is this – https://youtu.be/csd_rOZPkik
DREMT, I would also like to broaden my reading so likewise, can you provide me your reading list regarding the non rotating moon theory.
I have already read the 100 year old publications by Nikolai Tesla. Is there a more contemporary publication by Nikolai on this matter? There is a piece from the Peoples Observatory and Nikolai Tesla Museum in Belgrade in 1993 that is a perversely amusing homage to the great man on the 50th anniversary of his death.
Anything else i should be looking for, such as a NASA conspiracy, Qanon sub-reddit devoted to the non rotating moon theory?
Looking forward to your response.
If “orbiting without axial rotation” is as per Dumbbell A, then Dumbbell C represents one CW axial rotation per CCW orbit, yes?
If “orbiting without axial rotation” is as per Dumbbell C, then Dumbbell A represents one CCW axial rotation per CCW orbit, yes?
“No, they base it on the location of the axis of rotation. Since they erroneously believed the moon has an axis of rotation, it is no surprise they designated poles for the moon.”
Whoops! DREMT accidentally said the quiet part out loud. And it is absolutely true.
They base it on the location of the axis of rotation, indeed.
Then he goes on to speak gibberish about it not actually existing, which is pure assertion without evidence.
He has absolutely no alternative explanation for the positions of the Lunar Poles.
Thus, he cannot even state what astronomers did in any other way other than to reference the axis of rotation.
Nor does he have an explanation for Axial Tilt and Axial Precession Rate, which are well defined and quantified and can be explained with physics.
His theory seems to be that all Axial quantities for the Moon listed in every astronomical table simply do not exist and he desperately wished people would ignore them.
But they won’t. Because they do exist.
ClintR,
Your life must be immensely frustrating being surrounding by so many idiots, ranging from the entire astronomical community, NASA etc, to all those idiotic web sites (a Google search thousands of sites that explain why the moon rotates) and also those idiotic astrophysicists and mathematicians who write papers regarding tidal locking in the solar system and exoplanets.
You, and those few others that inhabit the comments section, appear to be the sole custodians of the truth. To get the truth out there I think you need to get out to the wider community and convince the man on the street of your views. Maybe going to a busy intersection and put on a sandwich board with an appropriatr inscription . My suggestion is something like “SHEEPLE DONT LISTEN TO THE LIES, THE MOON DOES NOT ROTATE” .
The good news with this approach is that you may be find yourself in an institution surrounded by others who may be amenable to be convinced by your beliefs. They also may be able to provide evidence of ancillary beliefs such as the moon landing hoax and flat earth theories that you can add to your armoury.
So Clint do not despair. The truth will out.
If orbiting without axial rotation is as per Dumbbell A, then Dumbbell C represents one CW axial rotation per CCW orbit, yes?
If orbiting without axial rotation is as per Dumbbell C, then Dumbbell A represents one CCW axial rotation per CCW orbit, yes?
DREMT, from what perspective? Inertial or non inertial? You are getting desperate as you can see the answer for yourself.
https://i.postimg.cc/DzxG0Tpr/dumbell-on-string.gif
More importantly have you done the assigned reading and now understand the difference between these frames of reference?
From any reference frame, MikeR. All you need to do is to be able to mentally add two motions together. It’s OK, I will answer for you, since you are a bit slow on the up-take.
If “orbiting without axial rotation” is as per Dumbbell A, then Dumbbell C represents one CW axial rotation per CCW orbit, yes? Yes, that is a correct conditional statement, regardless of reference frame.
If “orbiting without axial rotation” is as per Dumbbell C, then Dumbbell A represents one CCW axial rotation per CCW orbit, yes? Yes, that is a correct conditional statement, regardless of reference frame.
Yes DREMT I am very slow on the up-take. The ravages of time.
I think you may also be suffering age related peripheral vision loss.
When looking at the gif posted above, tilt your head to the left and you might notice there a series of boxes with the label “Inertial Frame” directly above. Concentrate carefully and you might be able to discern that the answers to the rotation questions are definitely dependent on the reference frame.
If you are still having problems I will see if I can generate a Braille version of the graphics.
He still doesn’t get it!
Oh well, his loss.
DREMT,
I told you I was slow. I will need all that reading material that I asked you to supply me with to really “get it”. Where is your recommended reading list regarding the non rotating moon theory?
Failing that do I need to get a pre-frontal lobotomy so that I can share your insights? Do you have the name of your surgeon? On second thoughts, maybe not. It is clear he has taken too much material and you probably did not have not much to start with.
DREMT, I am still working on your bespoke Braille version of the rotating dumbbells gif. Try and be patient.
Your loss, MikeR.
Yes DREMT I’m totally shattered.
Now be a good boy and go away. I think we have all had enough of your bullshit.
#2
Your loss, MikeR.
I think its interesting that we all agree that Dumbbell A is rotating. And it clearly is wrt to the inertial frame (the stars). Thus DREMT appears to understand something rotating must be rotating wrt to the stars.
Then he SHOULD understand why Dumbbell C is not rotating, since it is clearly not rotating wrt the inertial frame.
What change takes place to go from rotating A to non-rotating C?
“From any reference frame, MikeR. All you need to do is to be able to mentally add two motions together. Its OK, I will answer for you, since you are a bit slow on the up-take.”
To go from rotating A to non-rotating C we simply need to add a CW AXIAL rotation.
Thus to CANCEL the rotation in A one only needs to add an opposite rotation, an OPPOSITE AXIAL rotation works.
The OPPOSITE of the CCW rotation apparent in A is a CW AXIAL rotation.
This proves that the rotation in A is none other than a CCW axial rotation of the dumbbell.
And of course this means the MOON has a CCW AXIAL rotation.
And thats good, because it agrees all of the observable facts that show the existence of an independent LUNAR axis of rotation.
#3
Your loss, MikeR.
Thanks Nate, we may have put this nonsense to bed, hopefully to never reappear (me being naively optimistic).
I must bid adieu to my sparring partner with regard to this skirmish as he is just reduced to generating noise. The only remaining point of contention is how many times he will repeat himself. Despite his many core incompetencies, this man is tenacious and I am confident he can break some of his records.
I do however wish DREMT well, holed up in his bunker somewhere, and hope he is not feeling too despondent. Remember you win some (maybe it will happen one day) and you lose some. So bye from someone feeling winsome and clearly way too smug for my own good.
The reality that MikeR, Nate, and several others are avoiding is that the “chalk circle” is not rotating about its axis. The wooden horse is not rotating about its axis. The ball on a string is not rotating about its axis. Graphic “A” is not rotating about its axis. Moon is not rotating about its axis.
Because a corrupt GOV agency pushes nonsense, it does not mean the nonsense is reality. Because “useful idiots” believe in the nonsense, does not mean the nonsense is reality.
MikeR said it himself, Clint…the rectangle in Fig. 2(b) is “incapable of rotating on its own axis”. Therefore he must also accept that the chalk circle, wooden horse and tennis ball also do not rotate on their own axes, as they are all similarly incapable. All move like the moon, with one face permanently towards the center of the orbit.
He’s almost there…
Nate is still unable to learn what “orbiting” looks like: “This proves that the rotation in A is none other than a CCW axial rotation of the dumbbell.”
No, the apparent rotation of A is due to orbtial motion, not axial rotation. It’s the same motion as a ball on a string.
Nate cannot grasp reality.
ClintR,
I gather this corrupt organisation you are referring to is NASA.
In your opinion, how long has NASA been corruptly promulgating the rotating moon theory? When did it all go wrong? Back during the Apollo program or later? Just curious.
Yes, there is no hope for Nate. That is why I no longer bother responding to him.
MikeR asks: “In your opinion, how long has NASA been corruptly promulgating the rotating moon theory? When did it all go wrong? Back during the Apollo program or later?”
MikeR asks such questions in an effort to avoid reality. His false beliefs can’t hold up the the simple examples. He has to divert attention. He really has no interest in learning about how NASA became so corrupt. So, this is for others that appreciate reality.
NASA was formed in 1958. The original mission was mostly science, but politics were already involved as it was deemed important to beat the Soviet Union into space. Some of the best engineers and scientists were gathered into the original formation. Very soon, Werner von Braun joined and became a major influence.
Within a short 11 years, NASA landed two astronauts on Moon. It was a miracle, due to the meager technology of the time.
After the Apollo successes, NASA began a slow decline, induced by politics and the desire for funding. Somewhere around 1980, politics became more important than science. The result was the Columbia Shuttle disaster in 1986, killing 7 astronauts. A later investigation revealed that NASA management had ignored the warnings from engineers about the O-rings.
So, without inside information, I would guess that astrology crept into NASA about that time. Things like “new age” religions and political correctness were becoming more popular than reality.
The 1986 Shuttle was “Challenger”, not Columbia. Challenger disaster was caused by the failed O-rings. Columbia disaster was caused by failure of the tiles.
Richard Feynman headed up the investigation of Challenger. One of his subsequent comments is quite revealing (bold my emphasis):
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” Richard Feynman
“All move like the moon, with one face permanently towards the center of the orbit.”
If only the Moon moved according to your wishes and desires.
The Moon’s significant Libration proves this a FALSE premise. Libration means the Moon’s face wobbles and rotates back and forth and gets bigger and smaller. This is a HUGE effect.
A rigidly attached rotator simply cannot do this.
THE ONLY way to understand Libration is for the Moon to have an independent spin about a tilted axis and an elliptical orbit.
I challenge you guys to explain Lunar Libration without invoking an independent Spin? You can’t. No one has.
If you can’t, anyone uncommitted should take note that your theory works only if you pretend that observable facts about the Moon don’t exist (Poles, axis) or dont matter.
A little historical neglect and revisionism from Clint.
NASA had at least two major failures in the Apollo era. Apollo 1 fire killed 3 astronauts. And Apollo 13 that nearly killed 3 astronauts.
In the mean time NASA landed numerous planetary robotic probes.
They never disagreed with Astronomers about the Moon’s orbit and spin, and yet were able to stick the lunar landings, proving your non-spinning model ludicrous.
ClintR, many thanks for your reply. I gather that, in your opinion, NASA went down hill in the 80s after the Apollo program finished.
This has some relevance to your claims that NASA has been concealing the truth about the moons rotstion (or lack of).
During the Apollo program a number of retroreflectors were left on the moon starting with Apollo 11 in 1969. Measurements using lasers reflected from these retoreflectors have allowed astronomers from many countries and academic institutions to precisely measure the dynamics of the moon..In particular the distance between the earth and the moon has been measured with incredible millimeter precision. They have found that the distance between the moon and the earth has been increasing by 3.8 cm per year.
There have also been several groups that have measured the variation in rotational speed of the moon over several decades. The following is a paper from the European Southern Observatory where the authors present measurements showing the rotational speed of the moon is decreasing.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996A&A…314..989B
There are other academic papers regarding the moons rotation such as this one from M.I.T.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00897102
and two recent Chinese papers
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-018-3413-z
znd https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/20/2/19/meta
Using the data from the first paper above that shows a deceleration of the moons rotation, I have done a back of the envelope calculation that shows the moon will almost stop rotating in about 3 billion years, so if you wait patiently you will eventually be proved right.
Finally if there anything in these papers that you dispute let the authors know. I would also be interested to know of any of your objections. Also If there is anything you don’t understand then DREMT is your man. He has been researching this topic for years and I am confident he could forensically dissect these papers in his sleep.
I look forward to your comments regarding these papers.
Nate’s comments above have prompted the following questions for ClintR.
Re your assertion of zero rotation.
Is it for every instant of time in perpetuity or is it an average value over a lunar month?
Is it exactly zero i.e, to how many significant figures or decimal places? Is there any uncertainty in this value?
Clint. I await your answers. Your credibility is on the line.
Nate, “libration” has been tried before. Both Bindidon and bdgwx tried it, as I recall.
Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. Libration is caused by orbits. Moon’s orbit is slightly elliptical and does not align perfectly with Earth’s orbit. So at times Earth “sees” slightly different views of Moon.
But I’m glad to see you are also coming up with some more original nonsense. You believe historical facts are “historical neglect and revisionism”. I’ll add that to the list
Here’s a list of the nonsense that has been previously used:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Hotel bills and feeding pigeons
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
Facts are “neglect and revisionism”
Adults might consider such a list to be nothing more than pathetic desperation.
MikeR, thanks for the examples of nonsense one can find on the Internet.
The first link didn’t work.
The second link led to an abstract that started: We have integrated numercially [sic] the differential equtions for the Moon’s rotation with respect to an inertial coordinate system…
You would think they would have access to a spell check, huh? And, as previously discussed axial rotation of Moon cannot be correctly determined from “inertial coordinate system”.
The third and fourth links, again, confused “orbiting” with “rotating about its axis”: “The lunar orbital and rotational equations are strongly coupled, so we integrated the rotation and motion simultaneously.”
I especially enjoyed your claim: “I have done a back of the envelope calculation that shows the moon will almost stop rotating in about 3 billion years…”
It would be fun to see that calculation.
“Libration is caused by orbits. Moons orbit is slightly elliptical and does not align perfectly with Earths orbit.”
As expected. Hand waving nonsense..
Ok, Ill make it easier. Just explain the longitudinal libration, the one due to elliptical orbit. But remember the Moon must only be orbiting with no spin.
Have someone ride a bicycle in a large oval around you, Nate. At different places in the oval (orbit), you will see more of the rider than just one side.
See if you can learn from that simple example. I predict you can’t. Idiots can’t learn.
Not interested in a bike on an oval since it behaves very differently from the Moon.
The Moon never stops turning, while the bike does on the straightaways.
Explain the Moons libration.
MikR,
Thanks for those papers on the Moon’s rotation.
The TEAM naturally reject any papers that mention lunar rotation.
Whenever they see the phrase ‘lunar rotation’ they yell ‘LA LA LA LA I cant hear you’ and plug their ears.
They respond to evidence like this in exactly the way Flat Earther’s do.
-NASA is lying. The data is fake.
-Just like Flat Earthers: “They seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.”
https://physicsworld.com/a/fighting-flat-earth-theory/
Once again, Nate proves me right.
He didn’t learn because idiots can’t learn.
ClintR apologies for the link to the first paper. It appears to have been mangled by WordPress.
Hopefully this tinyurl link will work.
https://tinyurl.com/y6dzz6yz
If you want to do the calculation based on this paper on how long it will take for the moon’s rotation to slow down to something approaching zero, please do so. From the abstract to this paper they have measured the moon’s rotational deceleration (from July 1969 -when NASA was still as pure as the driven snow) at 25 seconds of arc per century^2. Let me know when you have done the calculation.
In the meantime I repeat re your assertion of zero rotation.
Is it for every instant of time in perpetuity or is it an average value over a lunar month?
Is it exactly zero i.e, to how many significant figures or decimal places? Is there any uncertainty in this value?
Clint. I await your answers. Your credibility is on the line.
Before Clint embarks on his calculation, I must amend the figure I posted last night with respect to how long it will take the moon to spin down to zero (never do a back of the envelope calculation after midnight) .
Redoing the calculation I get of a figure of only 60 million years which, at first glance, seems ridiculously low with respect to the time frame of the history of the solar system. However the figure quoted in the paper is just the current rate of deceleration (from 1969) .
The moon is receding from the earth as its orbital period is increasing in lockstep with the decrease in the moons rotational speed . The tidal force causing the moon to slow down decreases in an inverse square relationship with distance and therefore the deceleration in the moons rotational speed will decrease accordingly.
As a consequence the time taken to reach spin zero will be much longer ( actually it will take infinite time) for Clint’s claim to come to come true.
Sorry Clint, you are in for a long wait.
“If you want to do the calculation based on this paper on how long it will take for the moon’s rotation to slow down to something approaching zero…”
Which would actually be…accelerate from zero to something approaching one CW axial rotation per CCW orbit…
MikeR, that’s about as confused a series of comments as I’ve seen in awhile. You seem to be retracting, hedging, accusing, back-tracking, and questioning, all without a discernable direction.
When you get over yourself, and get your thoughts organized, get back to me.
ClintR, are you perhaps related by birth to your fellow Dunning Kruger sufferer? I am asking this because there is a recessive gene involved.
You seem both to head for the hills when the going gets tough and obfuscate and ignore comments that you cannot respond sensibly to.
So for the 3rd time and probably not the last time.
re your assertion of zero rotation.
Is it for every instant of time in perpetuity or is it an average value over a lunar month?
Is it exactly zero i.e, to how many significant figures or decimal places? Is there any uncertainty in this value?
Clint. I await your answers. Your credibility is on the line.
How will Clint evade? That is the question. Stay tuned for the next instalment.
The paper is all about how the state of “synchronous rotation” is going to be maintained, indefinitely.
“Synchronous rotation” means one CCW rotation per CCW orbit according to the “Spinners”. Which equals “not rotating on its own axis” according to the “Non-Spinners” (and reality).
So the paper is actually all about how the moon is not going to ever rotate on its own axis, when looked at from the “Non-Spinner” perspective.
I agree with everything in your latest comment, with one small exception i.e the (and reality).
“The paper is all about how the state of synchronous rotation is going to be maintained, indefinitely.
Synchronous rotation means one CCW rotation per CCW orbit according to the Spinners. Which equals not rotating on its own axis according to the Non-Spinners (and reality).
So the paper is actually all about how the moon is not going to ever rotate on its own axis, when looked at from the Non-Spinner perspective.”
This argument DREMT would have been familiar back in pre-Copernican days . The stars, sun etc, from the non spinners viewpoint were rotating once every 24 hours about a stationary non-spinning earth. This was how reality looked like until it was realized in the 16th century and onward that a different and “better’ viewpoint of reality was that the earth was actually rotating every 23 hours 56 minutes.
So DREMT and CliffR we can now all move on, leaving you guys back in the 16th century where you will hopefully eventually hear about the exciting times of the Enlightenment and the Age of Scientific Reason.
So let’s terminate this lengthy set of exchanges with now almost total agreement.
if you like we can finish by singing Kumbaya in unison (unfortunately no hand holding is allowed at this time).
Remember, MikeR, the rectangle in Fig. 2(b) that is “incapable of rotating on its own axis”…the chalk circle, the wooden horse, the ball on a string…
…all examples of “orbiting”.
There are two separate and independent motions:
1) Orbiting.
2) Axial rotation.
The Earth is doing both of those. The moon is just orbiting.
Really simple to understand. Even you will get there, I’m sure.
DREMT, Your interpretation of the moons non rotation in the non inertial reference frame was spot on .. and then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid (cue the Sinatras).
You just can’t help yourself can you.
MikeR, you weren’t here last May when the tests were being given. The tests were to certify those that were “idiots”, meaning they refused to accept reality. You have now been qualified to take the test.
TEST START
A wooden horse is bolted to the outer edge of a rotating platform. The wooden horse cannot rotate about its own axis (center of gravity), because it is bolted to the floor. Standing off the rotating platform, a viewer would see all sides of the horse. Standing at the center of the rotating platform, a viewer would only see one side of the horse.
Question: Is the wooden horse rotating about its own axis?
a) Yes
b) No
In most jurisdictions, to be fair, it is required to give idiots the correct answer. The correct answer is “b”.
Now what is your answer, MikeR?
Hint: it has nothing to do with reference frames.
A: Once per rev., no more, no less because horse is bolted down.
Thanks, Ball4, but we already knew you were an idiot.
“Once again, Nate proves me right.
He didnt learn”
I cant learn what you havent explained. You havent explained how Lunar Libration arises without the Moon orbiting and independently spinning. Obviously you cant do it, and you know it.
The Moon is not a bike. If the bike behaved like the Moon, then it would continuously turn throughout its travels around the oval. Even on the straightaways.
Imagine the bike starting on a North aligned straightaway, with the bike facing North-North-East. Then when finishing the straightaway facing North-North West.
That would be awkward for the rider and difficult for the bike.
But not for the Moon, which is not a bike.
Correct Nate, you can’t learn.
Dont you ever get tired of never having answers?
Dont you ever get tired of getting no respect?
“The moon is just orbiting.
Really simple to understand. ”
Especially if youve recently got a lobotomy.
But this is how all discussions with Flat Earthers end.
Its never about the evidence when one can simply ignore it and restate beliefs.
#2
Thanks, Ball4, but we already knew you were an idiot.
ClintR,
I know your ability for abstract reasoning is limited and the concept of answers being relative to a particular reference frame is not something that you readily cope with.
My very wise adviser Schrodinger the cat has given the solution as being both “a” and “b” .
“a” from the an external non-rotating reference point and “b” from the rotating reference frame of the rotating platform.
I can send Schrodinger around for further explanation if needed, but beware, his tolerance of fools is limited.
“and “b” from the rotating reference frame of the rotating platform.”
Yes, that’s the solution similar when the universe is spinning about the moon as the universe center; in this mgr case the universe is spinning about the wooden horse is a solution, irrational, but a solution.
The reality that MikeR, Nate, and several others are avoiding, is that the “chalk circle” is not rotating about its axis. The wooden horse is not rotating about its axis. The ball on a string is not rotating about its axis. Graphic “A” is not rotating about its axis. Moon is not rotating about its axis.
What’s interesting is that the more they avoid reality, the smarter they believe they are!
Schrodinger is on his way.
As I said, he doesn’t tolerate fools. Your last response caused him to disgorge a fur ball so this could get messy.
MikeR is still lost in “reference frames”. The reality is, something which physically cannot rotate about its axis, cannot rotate about its axis, regardless of how it might appear to be moving, from a specific reference frame. What happened to his earlier response about the rectangle in Fig. 2(b), which was “incapable” of rotating on its own axis? Surely even MikeR can see the similarity between the rectangle and the wooden horse!?
So disappointing.
☹️
They are tangled up in the webs they’ve spun, DREMT.
They never get it right, and they can’t learn.
DREMT,
I know how much you have emotionally invested in this long running ridiculous argument but you should at least know when to fold.
Youalready conceded after your epiphany on the circular road to Damascus.
Recall DREMT’s epiphany –
Synchronous rotation means one CCW rotation per CCW orbit according to the Spinners. Which equals not rotating on its own axis according to the Non-Spinners (and reality).
I disagree about the “and reality” but it shows DREMT , despite his recent protestations, did clearly understand, at one stage, that the frame of reference matters.
What caused DREMT to flip and then subsequently belly flop? One can only hazard a guess. The above evidence suggests he is not as stupid as he appears to be ( others may beg to differ). In combination pride and stubbornness can mimic stupidity so I will be generous in my assessment.
It is clear that there is now little point continuing these exchanges. DREMT has exhausted his arguments and I suspect we will have to endure ad nauseum repetition , of the same old, along with his noisy death rattles (usually #n, where n=1 to infinity).
As always Monty Python can be relied upon to provide a neat summary of the situation vis-a-vis DREMT.
https://i.postimg.cc/sxdk6HMd/2yxz1n.jpg
MikeR, I’m content accepting you as an idiot. But to be fair I’m supposed to offer you the option of testing out.
Take the test to see if you can get the correct answer, which is given, or just remain an idiot. (That’s how we know they’re idiots. They can’t get the right answer when it is supplied!)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-513480
They really are dense.
ClintR,
In which reference frame?
As expected, MikeR fails the test and remains an idiot. He can’t get it right, even given the correct answer!
(They’re so predictable.)
DREMT/ClintR
As to who is a idiot, I leave it to others to decide.
Assuredly, your conjoined twin, separated at birth, will be in intimate proximity and agreeing with you, but I suspect there may be many more of a contrary opinion. But who knows.
It is late, so good night to both of you.
MikeR, you failed the test. You couldn’t get the correct answer even though the correct answer was provided. You reject reality. That makes you an idiot.
Why hide it? Others have claimed to be content being an idiot. Somehow, in your cult, being an idiot is a sign of devotion and loyalty.
MikeR says:
I agree, he knows he is wrong, otherwise he wouldn’t be able to evade all these questions that would prove it.
His only purpose here is to create confusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_Is_Their_Product
Svante and his conspiracy theories…
Good point Svante. The twins are this part of Dr.Spencer’s tribe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrary_(social_role)
Last time I counted, the number of “Non-Spinners” on this blog was into the double figures. That’s just people who actually comment, who knows how many lurkers there are who might agree. Stop trying to pretend it’s just the two of us.
No trying to pretend, the twins are in plain sight.
Also DREMT, the “consensus” is 100% with us, since idiots don’t count.
2of2 twins does = 100%
More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.
ClintR -“Also DREMT, the consensus is 100% with us, since idiots dont count”.
Yes ClintR, with your latest comment, you have provided additional evidence that, while idiots may be unable to count, they can still post idiotic comments.
Well done.
Says the guy who thinks an object that cannot rotate on its own axis, is nevertheless rotating on its own axis.
Says the twin describing an object that is bolted down forced to rotate on its own axis once per rev., is nevertheless not rotating on its own axis.
Dumb.
MikeR, do you see Ball4’s stupid comments? He’s not afraid to be idiot. If you’re going to be an idiot, be proud of it–“Idiot Pride”!
ClintR,
I am disinclined to join you and DREMT on your Idiot Pride march. Thank you for the invitation.
p.s Have you constructed a float with two wooden horses on a rotating platform ? If you have, make sure you only look at the platform and not out at the surroundings. We wouldn’t you guys to get too dizzy and fall off. You would be the laughing stocks at the parade of idiots. How embarrassing would that be?
Remember also that pride precedes a fall and you both having inordinate pride in your own stupidity means a nasty fall is on the cards. Take care, both of you.
MikeR, that is a perfect example of how you idiots twist and distort reality.
ClIntR. If you you think I am twisting and distorting then maybe you are dizzy. Try a non rotating frame of reference.
You might like it.
Twisting and distorting your words is just second nature to them. They don’t even realize they’re doing it.
DREMT,
I defer to your expertise in these matters.
However you might want to use your talents to twist and distort things more productively.
I am not sure whether you are aware of the entertainment known as “Puppetry of the Penis” see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppetry_of_the_Penis.
Your prodigious abilities at twisting could, dependent on one other important limiting factor (it is an innate endowment but there are stretching activities that can help) lead to an outstanding career . I can see you performing the never seen before triple pretzel whith pike (degree of difficulty 9.7).
Your partner in crime, who is equally adept at twisting and distortion, could perform a synchronised twisting act.
This is the kind of entertainment we desperately need in these grim times and can be done cheaply via the internet. However you may need to check whether your medical insurance covers dislocations and breakage.
You could title the act “Sock Puppetry of the Penis ( c ) ”
I look forward to seeing your efforts.
Or maybe they do realize they’re doing it.
Mais been sur, mon petit chou.
It’s interesting that this very sub-thread started with my comment chastising bdgwx for his “twisting and distorting”:
Clint says: “I remember your efforts to twist and distort reality, bdgwx. That’s why the Moon discussion is so important.
You tried “diurnal”, “synodic/sidereal”, and “libration”, as I recall. But nothing worked for you. You refused to accept reality. And that makes all of your future efforts meaningless.”
At least bdgwx performs as an adult. MikeR prefers performing as a unlearned juvenile.
ClintR,
You sound bitter and twisted and I find that rather sad.
Consequently, I am sorry that you find my light hearted comments juvenile, unlike your incredibly sophisticated comments, such as
“MikeR, do you see Ball4s stupid comments? Hes not afraid to be idiot. If youre going to be an idiot, be proud of itIdiot Pride!
I hope you are not too offended by the following but in reality, you are so far out of your depth scientifically that it is hardly worth engaging with you on that basis.
However I should resist the temptation to ridicule you and your mate. You could make it easier for me to resist if you could refrain from your boring and, more often than not, repetitious comments.
If you would like, we could have a detente and, as a result,you could be much happier. I have made a similar offer to DREMT on several occasions in the past but he has always stubbornly refused , so I doubt he would now respond kindly to such an offer.
CliffR, to differentiate yourself from DREMT and put the rumours about your provenance to rest, why don’t you take up my offer of a truce? We both could move on and I am sure do more productive things with our time.
Spring is nearly upon us here down under, and Covid willing, it will be nice to enjoy the coming season. Likewise if you are in the other hemisphere, then it would be sensible while the weather’s warm, to be out and about, rather than stuck in front of a computer. Think about it.
I am off to bed now, so I am hoping I will get a favourable response from you in the morning. Have a nice day and good night.
.
MilkR, quit trying to misrepresent me, quit rejecting reality, quit trying to fake a knowledge of physics, and get over yourself. Then you can talk about a “truce”.
It’s all about treating others as you want to be treated. Something else you’ve never learned….
“Its all about treating others as you want to be treated. ”
Pulleeeeez…this coming from our most prolific slinger of juvenile insults!
Clearly, as a troll, you can live in your own weird reality.
#2
Or maybe they do realize they’re doing it.
Nate, thanks for yet another example of misrepresenting me.
The reality is I seldom insult until insulted. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen, idiot.
“The reality is I seldom insult until insulted.”
Oh other than the dozens of counterexamples in this article?
Proof positive that you are living in an alternate reality.
Notice Nate didn’t link to ANY of those “dozens of counterexamples in this article”.
“bdgwx, how do we know if you are an idiot or not?
Easy. You believe that the wooden horse, bolted to the platform, is rotating on its axis.
Youre an idiot.”
etc
etc
etc
And no bdgwx did not insult you.
ClintR,
I gather from your lack of response to my offer of a truce that you would like to continue in your role as the butt of my humour. It takes all types,
ClintR -The reality is I seldom insult until insulted.
ClintR ‘s plaintive cries “Mummy, Mummy, Mummy they’re being mean to me “and of course the classic “they started it first” need verification.
Accordingly I have resurrected some of my old software that was used as an index of idiocy back in the days when ClintR was just a glimmer in the eye of g*.
According to my software (as of today) ClintR has used the term ” Id iot “(sic – I don’t want screw up the database) some 79 times. The term has been used 155 times in total.
Your alter ego has surpringly only used the term 3 times. The next worst offenders are myself (15 times) and bobdroege (also 15). Interestingly , when you check both bob’s and my comments, that contain the relevant term, they are primarily just quotes and cut and pastes of Clint’s (or someone else’s in the case of Bob) preceding provocative comment.
In stark contrast Clint has almost none (correct me if I am wrong) of these excuses.
So the evidence, yet again, is clear. ClintR is wonderful at making assertions but just cannot back it up with any evidence.
If needed , I can list the time, dates and ClintR’s exact comments but it is repetively boring.
p.s. I know the combination of “ClintR” and “repetively boring”is a tautology. Forgive me for my trespasses.
ClintR,
Let’s just finish this whole saga by using some modern readily available technology.
ClintR, I am hoping you have a smart phone (you can always ask for a friend such as DREMT for a loan ) and can down load an app that measures rotation about axes of the phone. There are many such free apps, for Android I have found the best one is Physics Toolbox while for the iPhone there is Accelerometer and others see
https://turbofuture.com/cell-phones/10-Best-Accelerometer-Apps .
These apps measure accelerations around 3 axes upon the phone. These accelerations can also be used, in conjunction conjunction with gyroscope to measure rotational speed.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/06/all-the-sensors-in-your-smartphone-and-how-they-work-2/
There are two experiments that can be performed.
One is an exact analog of the ball on a string . In this first experiment, you take your phone and rotate your whole body at as constant rate while holding the phone at arms length and viewing the screen of the phone facing you, while the software is displaying the acceleration. I found the gyroscope function in Physics Toolbook that displays the speed of angular velocity the best for this experiment. As a check you should, either before you start or stop rotating, check that the display is showing zero angular velocity when you are standing still.
The second experiment is identical except it requires you to go to a merry-go-round and mount a wooden horse and conduct the experiment. It is also posible to use a playground turntable, the type where you manually rotate the turntable.
Obviously if you are not rotating on your axis, while on the horse, as the merry-go-round revolves, then the phone will read zero and then the non spinner thesis is confirmed. If you (and consequently the horse yo are sitting on ) is actually rotating on its axis then you will get a non zero reading.
I have done the first experiment and I can confirm that, according to the acceleromers and gyroscopes on my phone, it shows it is simultaneously rotating on its axis while orbiting, see the results (green trace) here –
https://i.postimg.cc/DZV5Ymsd/Screenshot-20200824-190125-Physics-Toolbox-Suite.jpg
So ClintR /DREMT it is finally time to put up or shut up. Do the experiments and check for yourself.
Nobody is denying the merry-go-round is rotating. Hence the wooden horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round. Hence the smartphone app measures rotation. However, the question is, “is the wooden horse rotating on its own axis”, i.e “rotating about its own center of mass”. The answer is no, because the wooden horse is bolted down. It is incapable of rotating on its own axis.
As now demonstrated, Clint’s belief that his poor treatment of others has been misrepresented, has been shattered.
In light of this, will he now reconsider his other beliefs?
Nate and MikeR, you have not been paying attention.
My use of the word “idiot” is based on the fact that a person that willingly ignores reality is an idiot. I do not use the word as an insult. I use it to recognize those that prefer their false beliefs over reality. Several idiots, including bdgwx, have indicated they are proud of being an idiot.
Being an idiot is a “life choice”. Those that choose to be an idiot should not be ashamed of their choice. If they are ashamed, and feel stupid, they can always choose reality.
Sorry DREMT no cigar. Just a soggy discarded cigarette butt.
The phones definitely measure the rotation about their internal axes.
See –
https://tinyurl.com/y32dvfyf
In other words the accelerometers and gyros are unaware how far they are away from the centre of the merry-go-around. The rate of rotation is agnostic as to the linear displacement. Standing directly with the phone over the centre of the merry -go-round where it is definitely not “orbiting” will give the same angular velocity as when it is at the edge.
If you doubt me, why don’t you do the experiment yourself. Take the phone and, while checking the angular velocity on the phone, walk from the edge of the merry-go-round inwards and walk as close as you can to the centre of the merry-go-round. Let me know if the angular velocity changes.
That just proves my point, MikeR. You need the instrument to be able to determine between orbital angular velocity and angular velocity due to axial rotation. By your own admission, the smartphone cannot.
DREMT
On further thought there is another straight forward experiment that could be used to resolve the argument, i,e. a pendulum. It wouldn’t require the experiment to last 24 hours or 27.3 days, just the time required for 1 revolution of the merry-go- round.
You coukd place the pedulum at the edge of the merry-go-round so that it is defintely “orbiting” and check whether the plane of the swing of the pendulum rotates with respect to the platform of the merry-go-round (spinners ) or does not rotate (non spinners).
Spoiler Alert:
Reference via Google.
“Thependuluminitially swings in a plane from the viewpoint of a playground, but appears the plane of the swings appears to rotate when viewed from the rotating reference frame (amerry-go-round) on which it rides. ”
See https://youtu.be/Ax6Pij-CI6c
Which once again only proves that the merry-go-round is rotating, and that the wooden horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, not that the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis.
MikeR adds to the list of failed efforts to pervert reality:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Hotel bills and feeding pigeons
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
Facts are “neglect and revisionism”
“Smart” phone
So DREMT believes the horse on the merry-go-round is simply revolving or orbiting around the centre of the merry-go-round. Using the incredible logic of DREMT the Foucalt pendulum demonstrates that the earth is not rotating on it’s axis. He seems to think that this experiment just shows that the earth is orbiting the sun!!!!.
Encroyable! Foucalt must be spinning in his grave
DREMT
“That just proves my point, MikeR. Youneedthe instrument to be able to determine between orbital angular velocity and angular velocity due to axial rotation. By your own admission, the smartphone cannot.”
The phone is definitely capable of measuring rotation about an external point (orbital rotation) simply because the angular velocity of rotation about phone’s axis is the same as the orbital angular velocity.
I refer back to my experiment described in a recent preceding comment where the internal acceleromers and gyroscopes demonstrate that the phone is simultaneously rotating on its axis while orbiting, see the results (green trace) here
https://i.postimg.cc/DZV5Ymsd/Screenshot-20200824-190125-Physics-Toolbox-Suite.jpg
This also explains, of course, why I was always looking at the same face (I.e the display) of the phone for each orbit.
I will however try to do the opposite. I can attempt to keep the orientation of the phone fixed with respect to the external environment (i.e. non rotating w.r.t to this inertial environment) and show that phone’s accelerometers will register no angular rotation about any axis.
However I will not be able to a see the display for about half of the orbit and am almost certain to end up with a wrist dislocation (after rotating the phone in the opposite direction w.r.t. to the motion of my non-inertial revolving arm).
This will be small price to pay for science and get this interminable debate done and dusted.
Good night. Keep chattering amongst yourselves and see you in the morning.
MikeR completely misses the point.
Yes DREMT, MikeR continues to confuse the two motions. Idiots can’t learn.
To make it even funnier, he tries to fake a knowledge of the issue, but misspells “Foucault”, twice! And he’s so impressed with himself!
What a clueless idiot.
“So DREMT believes the horse on the merry-go-round is simply revolving or orbiting around the centre of the merry-go-round.”
Yes. By definition, that is what it is doing:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
That is one of the motions. Axial rotation is separate and independent of this motion.
“Using the incredible logic of DREMT the Foucalt pendulum demonstrates that the earth is not rotating on it’s axis. He seems to think that this experiment just shows that the earth is orbiting the sun!!!!”
Straw man. I don’t deny that it demonstrates axial rotation of the Earth. However, all it demonstrates is rotation about some axis. On the moon, it would still move slightly, because of the moon’s orbital motion, its rotation about the Earth/moon barycenter.
MikeR,
Those phone gyroscopes are pretty cool!
And clearly they measure rotational angular velocity only around themselves, ie the phone’s axis.
Rotation is rotation is rotation. If a thing is rotating wrt to the inertial frame (what the gyroscope measures), it must be rotating around its internal axis, by definition.
How could the gyroscope tell if the phone was also orbiting around a human body, an external axis.
It can’t.
To determine if the phone was also orbiting an external axis the phone could use its linear accelerometers. Those only measure translational acceleration.
This illustrates that an orbit is a TRANSLATION.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Except it doesn’t follow the rotation around the barycenter, which varies due to the elliptical orbit.
The pendulum is synchronized with the stars, thus follows the rotation of the moon on its own axis, which is steady.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis, so you must mean “the change in orientation wrt the fixed stars that the moon makes during its orbit is steady”.
“The moon does not rotate on its own axis, so you must mean ‘the change in orientation wrt the fixed stars that the moon makes during its orbit is steady’
Nope. The moon’s orbital angular velocity is not steady.
Because of the elliptical orbit, the rotation of the line connecting the Moon to the barycenter slows down and speeds up, as Kepler discovered.
But the Moon’s orientation does no such thing. The moon’s rotational angular velocity is steady.
This clearly demonstrates to anyone with a working logic chip, that the Moon’s orbit and the Moon’s rotation are INDEPENDENT motions.
#2
The moon does not rotate on its own axis, so you must mean “the change in orientation wrt the fixed stars that the moon makes during its orbit is steady”.
Nate actually gets something right: “…the Moon’s orbit and the Moon’s rotation are INDEPENDENT motions.”
Exactly. The two motions are completely independent. Moon orbits but does not rotate about its axis.
About as independent as you can get.
According to the twins, when the moon rotation on its own axis is being observed, the center of the universe places itself to rotate about the moon cg so that “The moon does not rotate on its own axis”. Then when the bolted down horse on the mgr is being observed, the center of the universe suddenly switches to rotate about the horse cg.
What an amazing universe the twins live in.
At least any uncommitted people out can see the non-spinners failing and flailing to logically connect their mantra “The moon does not rotate on its own axis” to the available facts and the discussion at hand.
It is transparent that it is just become a rant that is repeated whenever the TEAM has no answers, ‘independent’ of the evidence being discussed.
Ball4, nobody is arguing as you suggest.
A wooden horse on the outside edge of a merry-go-round, which is bolted down so it is incapable of rotating on its own axis, cannot then be rotating on its own axis as the merry-go-round rotates. It is merely rotating about the center of the merry-go-round.
You suffer from the same problem as many of the others commenting here, who cannot separate orbital motion from axial rotation correctly. You argue as though orbital motion automatically includes one axial rotation per orbit.
The reality that Nate, and several others are avoiding, is that the “chalk circle” is not rotating about its axis. The wooden horse is not rotating about its axis. The ball on a string is not rotating about its axis. Graphic “A” is not rotating about its axis. Moon is not rotating about its axis.
What’s interesting is that the more they avoid reality, the smarter they believe they are!
“You (Ball4) argue as though orbital motion automatically includes one axial rotation per orbit.”
In the case of chalk circle, bolted down horse, moon that is what is observed, but not automatic, some moons are not tidally locked, some horses not bolted down, and some chalk circles can be made to rotate more or less than once per rev.
The reality that the twins and several others are avoiding, is that the “chalk circle”, bolted down horse, moon are not rotating about own axis more or less than once per rev. Or equivalently the universe is rotating about those items when each is observed.
ClintR,
You epitomise the saying ” a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing”. On that basis 007 you are probably the most dangerous man alive.
Clintzr -“Nate actually gets something right: the Moons orbit and the Moons rotation are INDEPENDENT motions.
Exactly. The two motions are completely independent. Moon orbits but does not rotate about its axis.
About as independent as you can get.”
Yes Clint. In the ABSENCE of a significant external force such as tidal locking, the two motions are INDEPENDENT . The moon can freely orbit and the rotation speed can be anything from almost minus infinity to almost plus infinity, including a rotation speed of exactly zero. However the odds of exactly zero are infinitely small. Hence your refusal to answer, on 3 separate occasions ( https://tinyurl.com/yxltlnyh ) as to the exact claim about the rotational speed of the moon is illuminating,
This lack of constraints via tidal locking is also why every body in the solar system (planets, asteroids, comets etc..) are rotating at different non zero rates.
However , in contrast to the above, the hundreds of moons in the solar system are tidally locked to match their orbital periods ( with exception of Hyperion that rotates chaotically). The claim that the earth’s moon is unique, in that its rotational is not locked to its orbital period, could only stem from someone who has spent too much time gazing at the “man in the moon” as a child and is developmentally delayed. The following is dedicated to these unfortunates.
https://youtu.be/csd_rOZPkik
To continue with the astronomical theme , these hundreds of moons, because they are tidally locked, show, of course, the same face to their corresponding planets. This has led seems to much debate by thevlocal inhabitants , some of whom are very, very unsophisticated (prokaryotes and other anencephalic organisms) that think that the moons are all non rotating.
However observers from the reference frame of the earth using telescopes and accompanying photometric devices disagree. They have measured the intensity of light reflected from these moons (the effect is more pronounced for solid moons that have light and dark region) to generate light curves from which the rotation rate is measured.
There have also been spacecraft such as the Cassini probe that have direcly measured the rotation speed of the tidally locked moons Saturn see-
See http://www.hou.usra.edu pdfPDF
CASSINI OBSERVATIONS OF SATURN’S IRREGULAR MOONS. T. Denk1 and S. Mottola2, 1Freie Univer- sitt Berlin, Malteserstr. 74-100, 1.
So ClintR, please add this information to your wonderful and growing list of things that you cannot explain.
Apologies for the numerous typos in my preceding comment(s).
My cat Copernicus keeps walking across the keyboard. He seems to be particularly perturbed by the inane comments of some of the protagonists. I should check more carefully before I press submit.
Apropos of the above.
Quelle horreur, I have misspelt Foucault twice in one of my above comments! Copernicus tells me it is clearly my Fukn Fault. My other cat Schrodinger’s tells me he wouldn’t be caught dead or alive making such a mistake. Such harsh critics.
A tidally-locked moon is a moon that is not rotating on its own axis. MikeR, how have you not worked out yet that what you consider to be e.g. one CCW axial rotation per CCW orbit, we correctly identify as zero axial rotations per orbit? I thought we went through your dumbbell GIFs already.
So DREMT you consider that every tidally locked moon in the solar system has zero rotation around its axis. Even the ones where we have direct measurements of their rotational speeds from photometric measurements and/or from spacecraft that had flybys of the moons (see my previous comment).
You do know that sounds quite nuts?
On the contrary, it would be nuts to argue that our moon was the only one not to rotate on its own axis. Once you are able to correctly separate the two independent motions, it will all make sense to you.
“The reason it was brought up was always explained to be: here is an example where all institutions and authorities agree on something, but are wrong.”
Ah, ok. They are all wrong, and YOU are among the few brave souls who are right. You and the brave Flat Earther’s who buck authority.
Your claimed ‘rightness’ is based on running away from evidence whenever it contradicts your beliiefs, which is very often. Many good examples of that can be seen in this particular thread.
While the institutions, astronomers, and textbooks actual rightness is based on following the evidence and explaining it all its detail.
Nate and MikeR keep typing out long worthless comments, hoping they can change reality.
The wooden horse, bolted to the platform, unable to rotate about its axis, is laughing at them. So are realists.
Yeah right, the moon is bolted down.
“The wooden horse, bolted to the platform, unable to rotate about its axis”
Ride the horse with your phone and its gyroscope. Tell us whether the phone records rotation about the phone’s axis, as that is the ONLY rotation that a gyroscope can measure.
Of course you won’t, because this is the kind of evidence that you can’t explain, thus you need to RUN as far away from it as you can.
Keep on running, maybe you’ll find the edge of the Earth!
That’s right, Clint. Even Norman was able to accept that the wooden horse is just rotating about the center of the platform, and not on its own axis. The others have found various ways to fool themselves, all of which have been discussed and dismissed for the nonsense they are. Some of them even deny that their nonsense has been discussed! Talk about running from reality.
Svante chimes in: “Yeah right, the moon is bolted down.”
No Svante, Moon is not “bolted down”. It is “tidally locked”. Learn your nonsense!
Nate, tie a string to your “smart” phone. Swing it around your head. The faster the better.
Then let it go. See if it thinks it’s a sports hammer.
If not, it’s not too “smart”.
ClintR says:
“No Svante, Moon is not bolted down.”
So that’s why its orbit is not synchronized with its rotation?
What rotation? The moon does not rotate on its own axis.
“The others have found various ways to fool themselves, all of which have been discussed and dismissed… ”
No answers to hard evidence presented, thus ‘dismissing it’ with no logical reason given.
Running as fast as they can from the inconvenient facts.
#2
What rotation? The moon does not rotate on its own axis.
“Nate, tie a string to your “smart” phone. Swing it around your head. ”
Anti-science Clint runs as fast as he can away from any experiment that proves him wrong.
“What rotation? The moon does not rotate on its own axis.”
Repeat false assertions over and over and over, while dismissing contradictory evidence over and over and over again.
Observers seeing religion rather than science here are right on target.
“So that’s why its orbit is not synchronized with its rotation?”
There is no axial rotation, silly Svante. Your own nonsense claims Moon is “tidally locked”, so it can’t rotate.
Of course you’ve been taught that “tidal locking” is nonsense also. There is no evidence Moon “evah” rotated about its axis.
Nate, why are you refusing experiments?
Tie a string to your “smart” phone, spin it around your head as fast as you can, then let go.
You need to test your phone to see if it’s really “smart”, or not. Are you going to depend on an “untested” phone?
Here’s the experiment ClintR.
https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5
Stop orbiting, rotation on it’s own axis remains.
Different things you see.
Now, if only you could learn to separate them correctly…
Tell Tim Peake.
If Tim really thought hard about it, I expect he could work out that a ball on the end of a string is incapable of rotating on its own axis whilst orbiting his hand. The string is attached to the ball you see. For axial rotation to occur, the ball would have to be wrapping itself up in the string.
Svante must spend all day searching for things that he believes supports his false religion. It never works out. Reality beats him everytime.
In this demonstration, silly Svante believes that the ball suddenly begins rotating about its axis because it was rotating about its axis before the string was released. Silly Svante has no knowledge of the physics involved.
He can’t figure out that the tension in the string becomes a force, when released. That force acts as torque on the “floating” ball.
Now Svante can get back to searching for another example to pervert and corrupt reality.
That’s his legacy.
I suspect the commentator is right, the force disappears when the string is released.
Forces can act along a string if it is pulled, not in other directions.
Svante suspects: “I suspect the commentator is right, the force disappears when the string is released.”
I suspect you’ve never studied physics, Svante. “Forces” don’t just disappear. Newton dealt with this in his Laws of Motion. You’re an idiot.
You can add this one to your legacy.
DREMT, we are in agreement that the moon, in terms of orbital dynamics, is not unique amongst all the other moons in the solar system . Good.
DREMT thinks all these tidally locked moons are rotationally frozen contrary to the direct telescopic observations and measurements by spacecraft. It is also in conflict with every known phyical treatise, mathematical analysis and every bit of information that can be gleaned from the scientific papers, books and the internet that has been produced by departments of astronomy, space agencies etc..
In contrast has DREMT got any credible supporting evidence? No, it seems he just repeats himself.
I said that he sounded crazy in my preceding comment but that was an understatement. I think batshit crazy is a better description.
I blame the de-institutionalisation trend for the presence of these characters.
OK, MikeR. Way to repeat yourself.
“He cant figure out that the tension in the string becomes a force, when released. That force acts as torque on the floating ball.”
The casual observer can see the other favorite tactic of the resident Flat Earthers at work here.
Defintely dont do experiments, but do make up your own nonsensical imaginary phenomena together with thoroughly invented fake physics.
No fraud is off limits.
“”Forces” don’t just disappear.”
Now one of the twins asserts 4:31pm there is a law of conservation of force, with which Newton “dealt”. I mean, what next?
Now one of “the Team” asserts there are “twins”. I mean…what next?
What’s next is DREM “Team” didn’t assert there are twin Flat Earthers here, that’s a mistake 7:37pm, the good guys first asserted the “twins”. This is something up with which I will not put.
You, Svante, MikeR, bdgwx, etc, all work as part of “the Team”.
Says “the Team”. Unfortunately, no, the only “team” here is the DREMT.
#2
More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.
Yes Ball4 the dream is over. Dr Roy’s Dream Team is no longer. It could never have functioned as a moderator as it would have to spend its entire time devoted to introspection. It’s membership was depleted through successive culls of the trolls by Dr Spencer.
Due to the shared characteristics of the twins there are great doubts whether they are distinct entities. These doubts can be enumerated as follows.
1. The similarities in the vexatious nature of their comments.
2. Shared time zone.
3. Same circadian rhythm disturbances that causes them to comment at any time of the night or day.
4. Same curious idea about well, understood problems.
If you use as a Bayesian prior the improbability of one individual obsessed with these ideas being present in this venue, then probably that there are two such distinct individuals is bordering on the impossibility.
5. Same inability to process abstract thoughts.
6. Their almost simultaneous arrival at the scenes of their crimes against reasoned thought.
7. The same persistent masochistic ability to soak up punishment.
These two are like the Eveready bunnies. Perhaps they could succumb with right bait of myxo and Calici . Fortunately Eli is way too smart.
8. Same stubborn refusal to concede when offered a truce and prefer to double down in dumbness (see 7.)
The only countervailing evidence I can think of is only one, at least in this current thread, over abuses the term “idiot”. This other’s trademark is the obnoxious over use of the phrase . ” Please Stop Tr….” . The latter has been relatively restrained recently so I hope I have not set him off.
Finally, if the Evil Axis of Non-Rotation would like to provide some of their own contrary evidence, I am all ears.
Last word.
No comment? Pleading the 5th? If so can you put Clint on the line?
Comment on what? You have offered nothing of any substance to comment on. ClintR and I are two different people. If all this has to devolved to is personal attacks then I guess the debate is over. Hence my last comment.
DREM,I am glad that you have overcome your reticence.
So this team of yours is a one man band. I Will take your word on it. Others may not.
“then I guess the debate is over.”
Hallelujah!
Yes hopefully.
We may just get his #n death rattles.
#2
Last word.
No matter how many strange ideas the idiots come up with, they can’t avoid reality.
The “chalk circle”, wooden horse, ball on a string, and Moon are all NOT rotating about their centers of gravity.
As evidenced by Svante’s astronaut video where the ball was NOT wrapping itself around the string.
Only idiots reject reality.
The twins team reject observed reality since the “chalk circle”, bolted wooden horse, ball on a string, and Moon are all observed NOT rotating about their centers of gravity more or less than once per rev.
Incorrect.
“Only idiots reject reality.”
Sure thing.
Then you are calling the vast majority of astronomers, physicists, and aerospace engineers IDIOTS.
Or more likely, your reality is just YOURS.
Nate, making up false statistics is NOT reality.
You would have a hard time finding responsible adults that would agree the wooden horse, bolted to the floor, can rotate about its axis. You are just surrounded by a few idiots here that make you feel comfortable.
Obviously you aren’t comfortable with reality.
They all reject your Moon ‘reality’, which is logically linked to your other ‘realities’.
So, they must all be idiots.
Or just you, and well, natually, DREMT.
In order to terminate these tedious exchanges, it is time again to make another offer of a truce to poor ClintR and DREM . Application of baseball’s Mercy Rule is the most humane way of ending this. It is near the end of the ninth, and the two clowns have never made it past first base.
These two need to understand that they have to rotate 90 degrees on their axes upon arrival at first base to get around the diamond (unfortunately they have invariably headed off to the bleachers). Additionally if they could learn to do these rotations, they could also keep an eye on the pitcher at the centre of the diamond while running around the bases.
To illustrate how to score a home run,I have created this example-
https://i.postimg.cc/vM0mxZC5/Baseball2.gif
You never know,if they learn this new tactic, they might be then able to even score a home run.
Once they get the hang of it , they could try a more complex version of the game with bases arranged in polygons. They can go beyond the traditional 4 corners and progressively increase the number of sides until it approaches the limiting case of a circle. I know these guys like to run off in tangents, unconstrained by the centripetal forces of logic and reason, but this could be the educational experience of a lifetime..
Finally, some of us can still recall the mating rituals of adolescence, in particular the frustrations of never getting past first base. Guys, once you learn that you need to rotate on your axis, you might finally get that home run you have been longing for. As a result you might find yourself spending a lot less time on the computer. This could be a win/win for all of us.
So they still haven’t learned the difference between the two motions. MikeR, an orbit, or revolution, is just a rotation about an external axis. There is no axial rotation involved, which is what you are implying with your baseball GIF.
Good one.
Another one is that the wooden horse is physically unable rotate about its axis when bolted to the MGR. It can only orbit. Of course it becomes capable if bolted to the center. Now it is rotating but not longer orbiting.
Now move the horse off center. It doesnt cease rotating on its axis (as the phone could attest) but now its CM is ALSO orbiting. It can do these two motions at the same time. We should be able to agree on this.
But no, the team insists that when moved even a hair off center, it reverts to just orbiting, one thing.
No matter what observable fact or logic theyre shown, theyre physically unable to follow the evidence. They must simply restate the mantra.
Too bad. But there is good chance other readers do follow the evidence.
#2
So they still haven’t learned the difference between the two motions. MikeR, an orbit, or revolution, is just a rotation about an external axis. There is no axial rotation involved, which is what you are implying with your baseball GIF.
DREM,
What happens when you get to a base and stop running towards the next base?
You turn on your axis 90 degrees and then proceed forward to the next base.
This assumes you are not trying run sideways between 1st and 2nd base which is possible but much slower than the usual method. Similarly if you are a non rotator then you are running backwards between 2nd and 3rd base!!!
DREM ,If you are still confused then I will post a depiction of baseball game that involves non rotators.
After your latest comment, it is actually fortunate, for the gene pool,that you never got past first base.
All that you have made clear is that you believe any change in orientation that an object makes whilst moving, is axial rotation. Once again, an object that is orbiting, or revolving, is merely rotating about an external axis, like a ball on a string. The ball is constantly changing its orientation, it faces through N,W,S and E, but it is not rotating on its own axis, it is merely revolving. That is just how revolution is defined, I linked to a definition earlier which actually mentioned a ball on a string as an example.
Nice gif, sporting longitudinal libration.
Since orbit and rotation is not synchronized.
Just like the moon.
All that you have made clear, Svante, is that you believe any change in orientation that an object makes whilst moving, is axial rotation. Once again…
DREM,
“All that you have made clear is that you believe any change in orientation that an object makes whilst moving, is axial rotation”,,
No, the runner pauses at each base for a moment and rotates on his vertical axis and, only then, proceeds in the direction of the next base.
To reduce your confusion,I will revise the gif to make the pause longer. I will also show the non rotating case in comparison.
I will make the changes tomorrow morning, so be patient.
No need, MikeR, I already understand the point you are making, which is why I wrote what I did. Clearly you have not understood the point I was making. Oh well.
“The ball is constantly changing its orientation, it faces through N,W,S and E, but it is not rotating on its own axis, it is merely revolving.”
That is about as clear as it gets that the DREMT twins are wrong when writing something that rotates on its own axis once per rev., is NOT rotating on its own axis once per rev.
The dream team of twins will never cease being wrong. Readers enjoy their circus show and the twins enjoy performing incorrect kinematics and thermodynamics.
Thank you for confirming my point, Ball4. The “Spinners” clearly equate “changing orientation” with “axial rotation”, so they are unable to correctly separate “orbital motion” from “axial rotation”.
A ball on a string changes orientation, but does not rotate on its own axis; it rotates about an external axis (which is revolution, by definition). If it were to also rotate on its own axis, the string would have to wrap around the ball.
That’s where you and def. go wrong DREMT, if the ball were to also rotate on its own axis more or less than once per rev., the string would have to wrap around the ball.
The baseball diamond graphic is nothing more than a rerun of their confusion over “orbiting” vs “rotating about an axis”. They haven’t been able to add any new perversions to the list:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Hotel bills and feeding pigeons
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
Facts are “neglect and revisionism”
“Smart” phone
Their imaginations have failed them. Maybe some type of psychedelic mushroom could help?
“..some type of psychedelic mushroom could help?”
That explains the help for ClintR and DREMT writings on kinematics and thermo., most of the rest of the blog commenters don’t partake of ClintR’s help and can deal with observed reality.
The list is not something to be proud of. Flat Earthers have a longer one.
It is simply a list of all facts and logic that you guys cannot explain with your model, and thus dismiss.
It is a showcase for what denialism looks like.
DREM,
I am forced to reiterate, this time with feeling, my above explanation that dealt with your frankly idiotic statement (one of many).
All that you have made clear is that you believe any change in orientation that an object makes whilst moving, is axial rotation,,
DREM, you are just either being stupid or stubborn ot both.
You must realise that, as I wrote the software, I should know how the runner is depicted at each base.
The runner is stationary (not translating in the horizontal plane of the diagram) and simply rotating (on his/her’s vertical axis) in the required direction of get to the next base!!!
On that note, I am fed up with dealing with such vexatious nonsense, so good night.
Yes MikeR, you did not understand the point I made. I get that.
The list.
Flat Earthers have an even longer list of facts and logic that they have no answer for, and must find a flimsy excuse to dismiss.
Just a case study in denialism, not something to show off.
“The baseball diamond graphic is nothing more than a rerun of their confusion over “orbiting” vs “rotating about an axis”. They haven’t been able to add any new perversions to the list:”
Yes, ClintR. Nothing new, as they say. They bring up the same points, those points get refuted, so they bring up a new variation of the same point. Or just repeat themselves outright. So then we have to repeat ourselves. Then they complain that we are repeating ourselves! And/or pretend that their points have not been refuted. So it goes…
You can hardly argue that rotation and revolution are the same when they occur at different angular rates.
As for the moon.
“You can hardly argue that rotation and revolution are the same”
That’s right, nobody is. You do need to be able to separate the two motions correctly, however. Revolution is just another word for rotation about an external axis, motion like a ball on a string. Axial rotation is then separate and independent of that motion. So, for example, if the ball on a string were both rotating on its own axis and revolving, the ball would have to be wrapping itself up in the string.
Svante, I think you often get confused because the moon moves through its orbit at varying speeds, whilst its change in orientation is at a fixed rate. That seems to convince you that the moon rotated on its own axis, despite it being a non sequitur. Oh well.
“The ‘Spinners’ clearly equate ‘changing orientation’ with ‘axial rotation’, so they are unable to correctly separate ‘orbital motion’ from ‘axial rotation’.”
The non-spinners clearly equate ‘orbiting’ with changing orientation, which is clearly incompatible with the standard kinematic definition.
This is their own made-up definition. And it means for example, that they are unable to describe what a point mass (which has no orientation and cannot rotate) does when it travels around another point.
In reality ‘orbit’ describes what a point mass does in revolving around something. It is the problem that Newton solved.
Orbit simply means TRANSLATE on a closed path around some point.
Kindergarteners instinctively know how to draw circles by translating their hand around an orbit. The TEAMs kindergarten teachers would ‘correct’ them and force them to do contortions.
CNC machines carve circles in metal by simply translating its chuck along a circular path. XY plotters draw a curve simply by translating its pen along a curved path, etc etc.
Newtons laws assign Forces the job of changing Translational motion, and Torques the job of changing Rotational motion. The TEAMS approach mixes these together.
Their idea that an orbit must involve changing orientation makes an ungodly mess for physics engineering and kindergarteners.
As promised, I have modified my baseball gif with additional delays.
see https://i.postimg.cc/kJbFJNKs/Baseball3.gif
I was going to say to DREM that only an idiot would try and convince anyone that the runner never rotates on his axis at any stage in this gif, but that would be cruel.
I’ll be generous and attribute this latest attempt as being another example of his characteristic stubbornness which requires him to be pushing the boundaries of his stupidity beyond its elastic limits
DREM you must be truly sick of being the wrong end of every argument. Due to my generosity in spirit I will again invoke the Mercy Rule and you offer you a truce.
How about it DREM?
Have I argued that the runner does not stop, turn on his own axis, then move on? No.
Here is what I did say, which refutes the point you are trying to go on and make (after all, this has to relate back to orbital motion at some point):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-516133
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-516178
DREM,
I am glad you are in agreement that the baseball runner must rotate on his axis as he runs (orbits) around the bases.
This is highly reminiscent of the moon orbiting the earth. The only significant difference is that the moon’s rotation on its axis is continuous rather than in 4 discrete steps.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-516133
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-516178
To correctly model orbiting, tie a rope to the runner and imagine the pitcher swinging him in circles. It’s the same as a ball on a string–orbiting, but not rotating about its axis.
DREM/ClintR
You guys, when you can’t explain something such as the rotating baseball player will inevitably head of on a tangent, Gish galloping away and reintroduce an old discussion, as if it hasn’t been explained to you already. This is argumentum ad nauseum where you claim victory by exhausting the patience of your adversary.
I know I shouldn’t respond as it just encourages the use of this tactic but I am a sucker for punishment but can invoke Newton’s 3rd law to return in kind.
Your latest effort returns to the ball on a string argument. We are now again going round in circles, which is particularly apposite.
Here is the depiction of the ball on string experiment I posted earlier. Recall we have already agreed that A is the correct depiction. In A the ball does not rotate with respect to the string and hence the string cannot , and does not, wrap itself around the ball.
https://i.postimg.cc/DzxG0Tpr/dumbell-on-string.gif
As has been explained ad infinitum the ball is also rotating on its axis with respect to an external (i.e non rotating frame).
This has been confirmed in this experiment where a mobile phone is rotated on the end of a hand (not a string, but the principle is the same) while the internal gyroscopes in the phone show simultaneous rotation about an internal axis. Here is a screen shot demonstrating this.
https://i.postimg.cc/DZV5Ymsd/Screenshot-20200824-190125-Physics-Toolbox-Suite.jpg
I am now going to take my mobile phone and employ an ancient hifi turntable to experimentally demolish the wooden horse argument.
Stay tuned.
No, MikeR…the ball on a string appears to be rotating on its own axis, from an inertial frame. It is, however, unable to rotate on its own axis in reality, because it is attached to the string. In order to rotate on its own axis, the ball would have to wrap itself up in the string. The ball is merely rotating about an external axis (revolving). By definition, as explained (and supported) repeatedly.
Same story with the wooden horse. Yes, MikeR, we get it, you will put your phone on the turntable, and it will record rotation. You dont need to actually do it. We believe you. The point there is, by your own admission, the phone would record rotation if it was in the center of the turntable (and thus actually rotating on its own axis), or if placed towards the outside edge (and thus only revolving about the center). So, it is unable to settle the issue. It cannot differentiate between orbiting and axial rotation.
Just like you.
Once again correcting DREMT to observations: it is, however, unable to rotate on its own axis in reality more or less than once per rev., because it is attached to the string.
Here’s how the phone’s accelerometer works:
“An accelerometer is a device that measures the vibration, or acceleration of motion of a structure. The force caused by vibration or a change in motion (acceleration) causes the mass to "squeeze" the piezoelectric material which produces an electrical charge that is proportional to the force exerted upon it.”
There is an acceleration because the phone is rotating about the center of the turntable (not on its own axis). The angular velocity of the turntable is obviously the same at any point (including the center) but only when placed at the center would the phone be rotating on its own axis. At the outside edge it is rotating about the center and not on its own axis.
“only when placed at the center would the phone be rotating on its own axis.”
So when the phone is moved off-center 0.0000000001 bolted to the outside edge, then boom, according to DREMT, the phone completely stops rotating on its own axis and points in one direction each rev.
Observations of reality & the phone accelerometers prove DREMT is wrong, off-center the bolted down phone rotates on its own axis once per rev. just like the baseball player running all the bases.
No, Ball4, the phone points through N, W, S and E when in the center of the turntable and it points through N, W, S and E when moved towards the edge of the turntable.
When it is away from the center the phone is rotating about an axis in the center of the turntable, and not on its own axis; when it is in the center, the phone is rotating on its own axis.
The bolted phone points through N, W, S and E when in the center of the turntable rotating once per rev. on its own axis, and it points through N, W, S and E when moved towards the edge of the turntable rotating once per rev. on its own axis while now orbiting the center of the turntable like the baseball player running the bases.
When it is away from the center the phone is orbiting about an axis in the center of the turntable, and rotating on its own axis N,W,S,E once per rev. like the baseball player running the bases; when phone is on center, the phone is no longer orbiting the center axis while still rotating on its own axis N,W,S,E once per rev.
As DREMT sometimes correctly writes, the bolted phone orbital axes and rotating axes & motions are indeed independent and axes can be coincident, the writer/reader should not confuse the two axes as does DREMT routinely.
ClintR/DREM
Yes the wooden horse does rotate on is axis in a reference frame that is not attached to the platform.
In the spirit of the old saying “”nothing exceeds like excess” , the experimental evidence is now complete
The details of the experiments are as follows.
Introduction:
There have been claims that the moon does not rotate on is axis. This has been advocated by a select few people who have no background in Astronomy and apparently no understanding of Physics . They make these unlikely claims despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, ranging from dIrect laser measurements of the rotational speed of the moon, the well understood phenomena of libration, nutation (wobble) of the moons axis (which has also has been directly measured ) the mathemical description of tidal locking, lunar cartography based on poles of rotation, etc……
They stake their claims by making an analogy to horses on a merry-go-round. In this case they claim that wooden horses that are attached rigidly to the horizontally rotating platform do not rotate about a vertical axis with respect to any frame of reference. There has been no evidence to support this assertion, just an appeal to “common sense” based on the fact a wooden horse is affixed and cannot rotate with respect to the platform, a claim which is not disputed by anybody. Accordingly this was not tested here due to the pointless of this exercise.
However these assertions have been extended to a claim that the wooden horse does not rotate on its axis with respect to any reference frame. This is what is being experimentally tested
Aim:
To determine whether a wooden horse on a rotating platform rotates on its vertical axis with respect to an inertial reference frame that is external to the non inertial rotating platform.
Method and Apparatus :
A wooden horse was unavailable , so a measurement device consisting of a smart mobile phone with internal accelerometers and gyroscopes that measure motion around the internal axes of the phone was substituted.
See
https://i.postimg.cc/WsYBVnwC/0-1598271763349324791373080652524.jpg
A free Android App, Physics Toolbox Suite was used to display the data. The gyroscope setting of the App was employed and the display of the mobile phone was recorded using a video camera. Additionally screen captures of the data were done.
A hifi turntable was used as the platform, as there were significant difficulties in moving a merry-go-round into the location used for the experiment.
The phone was placed at three locations. Firstly at the edge of the the turntable, secondly with phone placed as close as possible to the spindle and thirdly with the phone directly over the centre of rotation by means of a support, i.e. an inverted plastic bottle placed directly over the spindle.
In terms of an orbiting object (such as the moon orbiting the earth ) the first 2 arrangements correspond to orbits of two different radii while the third corresponds to zero radius that is equivalent to pure rotation only (no orbital motion involved),
Results will appear in a follow up post.
Results:
Videos of the experiments can be found here.
Note that the turntable was rotated by hand in both clockwise and anticlockwise directions for experiments 2 to 4 due to an intermittent fault in the turntable.
1. Phone Directly Adjacent to the Spindle (powered turntable).
https://youtu.be/4KnbMQQfzC4
2. Phone over Spindle.
https://youtu.be/Zt171EnxGyw
3. Phone Directly Adjacent to the Spindle.
https://youtu.be/eDjJsfmlbzk
4, Phone at Edge of Platter.
https://youtu.be/UdSbNhEbhu4
In all cases the display on the phone showed axial rotation.
For an example see-
https://i.postimg.cc/81jgDVVh/Screenshot-20200827-104459-Physics-Toolbox-Suite.jpg
As a corollary, no evidence of non-rotation was found with the sole exception of when the turntable platter was stationary.
MikeR, what you proved is that your i(“i” for idiot) phone cannot tell the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating about its axis”.
I suspected that earlier. That’s why I suggested tying a string to it and spinning it around your head.
Now you don’t have to do that.
Conclusions:
These results demonstrate that rotating the turntable in either direction caused the phones gyroscope sensors to indicate rotation about an axis perpendicular to the face of the phone, irrespective of the distance of the phone from the centre of rotation of the turntable (spindle). The same rotation was found for an object that was directly over the spindle as was found when the phone was further from the spindle.
This indicates overwhelming evidence for the thesis, that an object in direct contact with a rotating platform also rotates about its axis with respect to an external intertial reference frame.
More to follow.
Another acutely insightful comment from ClintR where he carefully examines all the video evidence provided.
Clint’s observation that the internal accelerometers and gyroscope can only detect rotation about an axis inside the phone is very perceptive. The evidence when the phone is orbiting on the periphery of the platter is clear, the phone is rotating on its axis.
To check whether it is orbiting as well as rotating on its axis would require an extremely accurate gps.
Why can you not work out the orbit from the same sensors?
Because the phone’s rotation around its own axis drowns it out?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-516687
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-516698
ClintR and Svante
Here is some relevant info about mobile phone sensors.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/06/all-the-sensors-in-your-smartphone-and-how-they-work-2/
“Why can you not work out the orbit from the same sensors? Because the phone’s rotation around its own axis drowns it out?“
No, it’s because the sensors are only sensitive to acceleration. There is an acceleration whether the phone is rotating about its axis (if it is in the center of the turntable) or merely rotating about an axis in the center of the turntable, and not on its own axis (if it is away from the center of the turntable). The phone can therefore not settle the issue, as ClintR puts it: the phone can not tell the difference between orbiting and rotating on its own axis.
Absolutely 100% correct DREM/ClintR. The phone cannot tell whether it is orbiting or not.
It can only tell if it is rotating about its internal axes or not. Accordng to the videos, it is rotating through a vertical axis at both the centre of the turntable (not orbiting , i.e. orbital radius =0 ) and also at the edge of the turntable where it is orbiting (orbital radius = radius of the platter),
QED.
The Concluding Remarks to my report must wait until tomorrow as only brief comments seem to be geting through at the moment .
I must have exceeded my daily word limit. DREM and Clint must be devastated.
No, MikeR, the phone cannot tell the difference between orbiting and axial rotation, hence it cannot settle the issue.
What does settle the issue is that, as you agree, the rectangle in Fig. 2(b) is “incapable of rotating on its own axis”. Therefore you must agree the wooden horse, bolted to the outside edge of the rotating platform, is similarly incapable. An object which cannot rotate on its own axis, cannot then be rotating on its own axis, regardless of how it may appear to move, from a specific reference frame.
Poor MikeR made all those videos just to prove an orbiting object appears to be rotating about is axis, if viewed from idiot space.
“This indicates overwhelming evidence for the thesis, that an object in direct contact with a rotating platform also rotates about its axis with respect to an external intertial reference frame.”
Sometimes I almost feel sad for the idiots.
So let’s say the phone is not rotating (fixed orientation vis a vis the stars), and is at the edge of the turntable.
During an orbit it will accelerate/decelerate along the X-axis, and again in the opposite direction.
So X- and Y-acceleration should show interleaved sine-/cosine curves.
So if you see that pattern, and if the gyros tell you that your orientation is fixed to the stars, you should be able to determine that you are orbiting but not rotating on your own axis.
If you have both rotation and orbiting, as in MikeR’s videos, you should be able to work out both by subtraction.
“So let’s say the phone is not rotating (fixed orientation vis a vis the stars), and is at the edge of the turntable”
Svante, an object that is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis, does not have a fixed orientation vis a vis the stars. It instead has one face always towards the center of the orbit.
You know what I mean, gyros indicating no change.
The gyros indicate a change in orientation, which there will be even though the phone is not rotating on its own axis. The change in orientation is due to the orbital motion.
” appears to be rotating on its own axis, from an inertial frame. It is, however, unable to rotate on its own axis in reality”
Another strategy the Flat Earthers use to refute evidence that they cannot refute.
It just ‘appears to be’ whatever. But ‘reality’ is different.
Then of course this is never explained.
It is applied to many observable facts about the Moon.
The Moon’s
Poles
Axis
Axial Tilt
Axial Precession
all just ‘appear to’ exist.
But ‘in reality’ they don’t.
Then these quantities and what the ‘reality’ is, are never explained in their model.
The TEAM is truly desperate.
“The change in orientation is due to the orbital motion.”
Nope, change in orientation is caused only by rotation.
Orbital motion is simply translation.
Translation on curved paths happens all the time without a change in orientation.
Mixing the two motions together makes understanding motion futile.
It’s physically/philosophically interesting that the sensors for acceleration and orientation are indeed separate. Our separation of rotation and orbit is deeply rooted in reality.
“It can only tell if it is rotating about its internal axes or not. Accordng to the videos, it is rotating through a vertical axis at both the centre of the turntable (not orbiting , i.e. orbital radius =0 ) and also at the edge of the turntable where it is orbiting (orbital radius = radius of the platter)”
Yes, the gyroscope can only detect rotation. The rotation is about its own axis.
The phone CAN ONLY tell if it is orbiting if it has an accelerometer that can detect translational motion.
This is direct, measurable evidence, that an orbit involves translation.
And rotation is entirely separate motion.
You do have to separate the two motions correctly, though, Svante. Maybe this will help:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution:
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
So orbiting/revolution is just another way of saying “a rotation about an external axis”. Think of a ball on a string. That motion is “revolution”. Then, axial rotation is separate and independent of that motion. As I may have mentioned before, if the ball on a string were both rotating on its own axis and revolving, the ball would have to be wrapping itself up in the string.
Keep in mind that the article is written by a professor of physics and astronomy, so I suppose we should be able to take him at his word that in astronomy, an orbit is a rotation about an external axis.
Mind you, he would probably also think that the moon rotates on its own axis, despite that directly contradicting his own article…I guess there must be a lot of cognitive dissonance in astronomy.
And Svante nails the issue on the head.
Other clues that an orbit is a rotation about an external axis, are in the word “revolution”. You will note that it is a synonym 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.”
No argument with that. Notice ball on a string is ONE case with a matching rotation and orbital speed.
You erroneously generalize from this case.
But the very next example, a planet orbiting a star, with arbitrary rotation rate, immediately proves that is quite wrong.
Further evidence:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
A rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation. A three-dimensional object can always be rotated about an infinite number of imaginary lines called rotation axes (/ˈksiːz/ AK-seez). If the axis passes through the body’s center of mass, the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin. A rotation around an external point, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called a revolution or orbital revolution, typically when it is produced by gravity. The axis is called a pole.
All that work, all that typing, only to end up where they were at the start–claiming the wooden horse, bolted to the floor, is rotating about its axis!
They are amazingly pathetic.
I guess they thought, if they are going to fail the idiot test, they may as well fail spectacularly.
Selective reading again. Same source:
“While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis.”
The main point is this. The same motion can be described in more than one way.
A phone on a turntable can be considered part of a rigid body, and as such, the rigid body is rotating around a fixed axis, and so is the phone.
Or, if we want to think about the phone’s motion by itself, we can describe it as orbiting an external axis and rotating on its own axis. The phone can detect these motions as translation and rotation.
In this case both descriptions are valid. The phenomena is the same either way.
But when you have a system of two or more independent bodies, like the Moon orbiting the Earth, it makes no sense to describe it as a rigid body, since the system has more degrees of freedom. And it becomes extremely cumbersome to do so.
And those extra degrees of freedom become apparent with Libration, and the Lunar rotation around its tilted axis, which precesses. All of which become impossible to describe with a rigid body model.
The idiots are really obsessed with this. They probably can’t sleep nights, worrying about that non-rotating wooden horse breaking loose from its bolts and coming after them.
Yes Nate.
It often helps to break things down into their fundamental parts if you are a scientist or an engineer. DREMT and ClintR are neither, so I’m quite happy to let them keep their wooden horse moving as one with platform if it helps their understanding.
It’s only when they apply it to something like the moon that its explanatory power collapses.
Yes Svante, the wooden horse models Moon’s motion pretty well–orbiting, but not rotating about its axis.
Such things are hard for idiots like you to comprehend. But, there are also other models, if your brain every starts workingball on a string, and Tim’s toy train, for starters.
Thank-you Svante for raising your interesting point which prompted the follow-up discussions. I was also puzzled until I read the following.
Whats A Gyroscope And Accelerometer Doing In My Mobile Device? by dwise one at
https://link.medium.com/581VKw4gm9
The gyroscope measures only the orientation of the phone itself w.r.t. to the x,y and z axes while accelerometers can measure components of linear acceleration in these directions .
Consequently the measurements I made on the turntable using the gyro gave the same rotational result irrespective of the distance of the phone from the centre of the turntable i.e. if wether the phone was “orbiting” or not.
The accelerometers however can be used to establish whether the phone is orbiting by detecting the centripetal acceleration of the orbital motion
I resurrected my turntable, which is now kind of working, to confirm this. The wonderful app Physics Toolbox Suite allows you to export the sensor output to an Excel csv file. Here are the results plotted in Excel.
https://i.postimg.cc/zq0d1271/Gyro-Output-Centre-and-Edge.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/BS1NHS0q/Acceleration-Output-Centre-and-Edge.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/cWVFZnR6/Phase-Output-Centre-and-Edge.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/HTs234gv/Center-X-and-Y-acceleration.jpg
I must point out the phone is rotating on its axis according to gyroscope at 50 rpm ( not 45 rpm as I used the pitch control to get the fastest speed possible) at both locations.
The accelerometers show that the centripetal acceleration was, as expected, much larger when the phone was at the edge of the platter than when placed close to the centre. Note that despite my attempts to get the phone physically centred it still showed a small amount of centripetal acceleration. Presumably this was due to the internal accelerometers being off-centre with respect to the physical centre of the phone.
Again this demonstrates that phone/horse/balls/trains/planes/automobiles rotate on their respective axes (with respect to an external reference frame) when they are orbiting (revolving around an external point). The trains and automobiles will only rotate with respect to their “orbits” , if they come off the tracks or spin out control, but in all cases they are rotating on their axes with respect to an external frame of reference.
However In the end, the discussion, despite it being very educational , is moot as the gyroscope results showed the phone rotating on its axis while “orbiting”.
Anyway, the phone says it’s rotating on its own axis in all cases.
ClintR/DREMT need to tell Apple and Samsung that their phones are faulty.
The phones aren’t faulty. They just can’t tell the difference between orbital motion and axial rotation, as discussed. Like you guys, they mistake a change in orientation for axial rotation. The change in orientation is due to orbital motion. The rectangle in Fig. 2(b), which MikeR agrees is “incapable of rotating on its own axis” nevertheless points through N, S, E and W, because it is rotating about point O (and not on its own axis).
The discussion involving the phones should have made your error very clear to you, instead it seems to have reinforced your beliefs. Oh well.
Svante, the gyroscopes that were used in the Apollo inertial guidance system were probably also defective. That’s why the retroreflecters that are used to measure the rotational speed of the moon about its axis and the orientation of the moon’s rotational axis could be just part of a NASA conspiracy.
Maybe that’s behind ClintR’s support for his DREM Twin’s lunacy?
They’re not even responding to the points which refute their arguments now. Kind of pathetic, really.
Why would anyone bother, DREM? This is the best you can do?
Your now infamous figure 2b argument has been debated and debunked before
See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511846 .
You can now move on to Room 12A, just along the corridor. Just follow the sign saying “Three to Four Year Duration Lunatic Arguments Here”.
Yes, your counter-argument was that the moon is not rigidly attached. In other words, you are missing the point. You have already agreed that the rectangle cannot rotate on its own axis, it can merely rotate about point O (orbit). Just like the wooden horse.
You agree, but that makes you upset, so you try to pretend you disagree. Quite sad, really.
F.f.s. DREM, you are just being silly.
Yes, as I said, it cannot rotate because it is physically connected to a stationary pivot point, so it can only rotate about this point.
If it wasn’t connected it could rotate instead about it’s own axis, like any other unconstrained object!
Anyway, this is just another of your trademark diversions.
p.s. Speaking of diversions, when does the “fat lady sing” and we get the opportunity to, once again, play your silly “last word” game?
It is not a diversion, MikeR. It is a starting point. You have just again agreed that the wooden horse does not rotate on its own axis, it only orbits.
Yes?
MikeR, leave your phone on a table for 24 hours. If the phone were really “smart”, it should be indicate orbital motion about Earth’s axis, but without axial rotation of its own.
If it doesn’t indicate reality, then the design/algorithm of the app is wrong.
Ok DREM, I get the point you are attempting to make. The rectangle plate itself pivots and from an external frame of reference it rotates on an arc around the pivot point.
However a device attached to the rectangular plate, such as a phone or a horse would rotate on its own axis through that same arc (again as seen from an external frame of reference).
This could be confirmed experimentally once I can work out an appropriate experimental arrangement. Maybe a child’s swing with rigid metal arms? Watch this space.
MikeR, you have agreed that the rectangle is not rotating on its own axis, it is only orbiting the pivot point.
There is no difference between this, and the wooden horse. The wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, it is orbiting the center of the merry-go-round.
There is no difference between this, and your phone on the outside edge of the turntable. The phone is not rotating on its own axis, it is orbiting the center of the turntable. The phone misinterprets the change in orientation due to the orbital motion, as axial rotation. Again, the phone is not rotating on its own axis.
There is no difference between this, and a ball on a string. The ball is not rotating on its own axis, it is orbiting your hand holding the other end of the string. For the ball to be rotating on its own axis and orbiting, the ball would have to wrap around the string at its end.
Yes?
ClintR,
You wouldn’t need to wait 24 hours as a gyroscope detects angular velocity not angular displacement.
Unfortunately the gyros in mobile phones currently are not sensitive anough but the technology may become available at some time in the future, see
https://physicsworld.com/a/optical-gyroscope-on-a-chip-can-detect-earths-rotation/
I am not sure what the commercial viability and the appropriate real life applications are for a device with such sensitivity.
The market for a device to settle internet arguments seems very limited.
As we suspected MikeR, your “smart” phone can’t tell the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating about its axis”.
What will you try next?
No DREM. The ball is not rotating with respect to the string so the string can definitely not wind itself around the ball. This is obvious.
However with respect to an external observer the ball is rotating on its axis.
Remember I crudely performed this experiment with a mobile phone by hand rather than using a string . See
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-514755
The resultant axial rotation is shown here –
https://i.postimg.cc/DZV5Ymsd/Screenshot-20200824-190125-Physics-Toolbox-Suite.jpg
The expense of a new mobile phone is well beyond the budget of a humble physicist, but you are welcome to try swinging a mobile phone on a string. Maybe you can get insurance cover for damage, but don’t tell the company of what you intend to do with the phone. Also make sure no- one else is close by when you conduct the experiment.
I am off to sleep now. If you have any other arguments assertions or claims, I can respond in the morning. Try not to rehash the old arguments re trains, planes and automobiles as these are just variations upon a theme that is boringly repetitive.
ClintR,
Did you read or more importantly understand my comments in
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-517236 ?
Clearly not.
The gyroscopes per se cannot detect orbital motion. They only measure rotation about internal axes.
However the accelerometers could measure the centripetal acceleration of the earth’s orbital motion if they were sensitive enough
Good night.
“No DREM. The ball is not rotating with respect to the string so the string can definitely not wind itself around the ball. This is obvious.”
I’m not arguing that it can wind itself around the ball. I am just explaining to you what axial rotation of the ball would involve, to help you differentiate between orbital motion and axial rotation.
“However with respect to an external observer the ball is rotating on its axis”
No, it appears to be rotating on its own axis from an inertial reference frame. In reality, it is not rotating on its own axis, it can only revolve, due to the string holding it in place. It is the same principle as the rectangle and the wooden horse. Orbiting, but not rotating on their own axes, as they are physically incapable of axial rotation. Try not to forget that you have already agreed that this is the case.
You are getting there, but you still have a long way to go.
“The gyroscopes per se cannot detect orbital motion. They only measure rotation about internal axes.”
No, they measure a change in orientation due to the orbital motion, which you mistake for axial rotation.
The smart phone gyroscopes are not smart enough (or dumb enough) to get into semantic debates about what causes rotation.
They just measure it.
The TEAM might try this approach, and realize that their beliefs wont change the result.
DREM -The gyroscopes per se cannot detect orbital motion. They only measure rotation about internal axes.
No, they measure a change in orientation due to the orbital motion, which you mistake for axial rotation.”
DREM, this is ground breaking news for the manufacturers of phones and inertial guidance systems.
Recall, from just a few mere comments ago –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-517236
Try reading it. I managed to measure, using a gyroscope, rotation rates around the internal axis . The phone was not orbiting., repeat not orbiting.
When it was orbiting it measured exactly the the same rate of rotation.
Game, set and match over.
Yes, MikeR, when the phone is in the center of the turntable, it is rotating on its own axis. There is a measured change in orientation, because the phone faces through N, W, S and E. In this case, the phone correctly identifies axial rotation.
When the phone is at the edge of the turntable, it is rotating about an axis in the center of the turntable (orbiting) and not rotating on its own axis. There is still a measured change in orientation, because the phone faces through N, W, S and E. In this case, the phone gets it wrong. It mistakes the change in orientation from the orbital motion, for axial rotation. Just like you do.
Game, set, and match.
As promised here is a depiction of the rectangular plate pivoting.
https://i.postimg.cc/5f177kvJ/Rectangular-plate-pivot.gif
I have placed three coloured arrows at random locations that are connected to the plate. As per usual the boxes at left show the rotation of the arrows around the axis at their respective centres.
DREM,
You make some interesting claims about the phone’s gyroscope’s misunderstanding of orbital rotation and foolishly mistaking it for rotation about an internal axis.
I think you should take matters into your own hands and rewrite the software. Try, without the aid and advice from the accelerometers, to convince the gyroscopes of their mistaken beliefs. Good luck with that.
You can find information about how to download the Android API here-
https://developer.android.com/reference
(continued from previous comment)
and a discussion about accessing data from the gyroscopes can be found here.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17776051/how-to-implement-gyroscope-sensor-in-android
If you have an IPhone, you will have research it yourself. There is only so much one can do on your behalf without taking you in for a mental assessment *.
* as can be observed from my comment my tolerance for fools is being stretched beyond its elastic lim
No matter how clearly it is explained to you, you cannot correctly separate orbital motion and axial rotation.
No matter how clearly it is explained to DREMT, DREMT correctly separates orbital motion and axial rotation when the turntable and horse own spin axes are aligned then incorrectly that they are combined (not separate) when misaligned by more than 1 Planck length. No DREMT, they are still separate axes when off center and are separate and may, or may not be, misaligned.
Tilt your horse on carousel a bit and find the axes are misaligned and still separate like when the horse own axis/carousel axes are aligned at center.
Ball4 is particularly adept at misrepresenting others.
Myself – No DREM. The ball is not rotating with respect to the string so the string can definitely not wind itself around the ball. This is obvious.
DREM “Im not arguing that itcanwind itself around the ball. I am just explaining to you what axial rotation of the ball would involve, to help you differentiate between orbital motion and axial rotation.”
The argument is as per usual with DREM become circular (how apposite)
Yes, we both agree rotation with respect to the string would cause winding, but once again, this time with feeling, this does not mean it is not in reality ( the kind where gyroscopes measure rotational angular velocity) also rotating in an external reference frame.
Myself -However with respect to an external observer the ball is rotating on its axis
DREM -“No, itappearsto be rotating on its own axis from an inertial reference frame. In reality, it isnotrotating on its own axis, it can only revolve, due to the string holding it in place. It is the same principle as the rectangle and the wooden horse. Orbiting, but not rotating on their own axes, as they are physically incapable of axial rotation. Try not to forget that you have already agreed that this is the case.
You are getting there, but you still have a long way to go.”
I repeat to the point of exhaustion the horse and rectangle cannot and do not rotate with respect to the platform ( for the horse) or respect to itself ( the rectangular rigid body).
The horse both orbits and rotates on its axis as seen from an external reference frame. The rectangle rotates around the pivot point and if unattached can rotate around an axis through its centre of mass.
Interestingly In the case when it is attached to the pivot, if a point is marked on it, it will orbit (!in this case trace out an arc) but also rotate about a vertical line drawn through this point (as seen from an external viewpoint that is following the arc).
I can modify my dumbell/ train/ ball/ moon software to help you to visualise this if necessary.
You’re just getting further away from the truth. You nearly had it with the rectangle. Then you found ways to confuse yourself. You seem to agree and understand that the rectangle is incapable of rotating on its own axis (and is thus only orbiting Point O) yet you can’t seem to apply the same logic to the other examples. Strange.
As I said earlier, MikeR, it’s your loss.
It looks like I might have to modify the software. Hopefully I can manage to find some time today . Be patient.
I can also experimentally confirm axial rotation by means of my mobile phone if I can find a suitable rectangle. It might have to be plastic or cardboard.
A pivoting arrangement? DREM do you have any suggestions?
MikeR, I do not need any help with visualization. I have no idea why you waste so much of your own time in misunderstanding such a simple thing. I actually feel a bit sorry for you, despite your personality.
You agreed that the rectangle can orbit point O, but not rotate on its own axis.
Now apply that to the wooden horse, and the ball on the string.
You are not ready to “take it to the moon”, yet. But you should be OK for the examples where axial rotation is impossible.
The clue is in the fact that axial rotation is impossible.
DREM. Don’t worry your little head about thinking of an experimental arrangement for the pivoting rectangle.
I have already downloaded the Physics Toolbox Software onto my rectangular Samsung Tablet and will take measurements using the gyroscope while letting it swing from one corner.
Results will be uploaded soon,
“A pivoting arrangement? DREM do you have any suggestions?”
You already did it, with the turntable. Is there a malfunction with your logic chip?
DREM, that’s kind of true about the turntable but that’s more of a horse on a platform situation where the phone is stuck on the platter, not pivoting from the spindle. Anyway the results for that are already in.
I was think of something of more authentic i.e. pivoting a rectangular device which has its own mechanism for measuring rotation about its axis.
There is really no difference between the rectangle scenario, the wooden horse scenario and the ball on a string scenario. In all three cases, axial rotation is impossible. When something is impossible, that something does not happen. Regardless of how it might appear, from a certain reference frame.
Here are the experimental results, as promised, showing a rectangular tablet rotating about its axis when pivoted from a corner.
Ir was repeated three times showing a maximum rotation rate of about 5 radians per second (about 48 rpm).
https://i.postimg.cc/JM4p3TFg/Screenshot-20200831-Tablet-pivoting-from-one-corner.jpg
DREM,
Is this just another of your assertions, if you repeat it long enough, it must be true?
Give it a break. Can’t you be more creative and think of something else or perform experiments yourself to prove your thesis?
Just basic, irrefutable logic, MikeR. If it is impossible for an object to rotate on its own axis, that object is not rotating on its own axis. Sorry you wasted your time.
Oh well, DREM just more rinse and repeat, evidence free, assertions .
I had extremely low expectations of getting sensible responses from him but with his latest has exceeded himself, but not in a good way
However the lad is right with one respect, it is clear from these exchanges that engaging with him is fruitless.
Where’s Dr Evil’s Mutant Twin? I need to finish him off as well.
” irrefutable logic”
which is not applicable to the Moon, an independent orbiting object, in any case.
Orbit as defined by astronomy is just one mass moving around another. Rotation rate is entirely a separate issue, as shown by all the orbiting objects in the solar system with their various rotation rates.
YOUR DIFFERENT definition of orbit is not logic. If you prefer it, great. Its of no use to astronomers.
Calling the logic an assertion won’t change the fact that it is not an assertion, but logic. You already agreed the rectangle is “incapable of rotating on its own axis”. That applies to the wooden horse, and the ball on a string, too. None of them are rotating on their own axes.
One man’s logic is another man’s stubborn refusal to confront the evidence. It is also boringly repetitious.
These “theatre of the absurd” exchanges with DREM are eerily reminiscent of one of the comedy classics,
“An argument isn’t just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can’t!
M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
O: No it isn’t!
M: Yes it is! ’tisn’t just contradiction.
O:Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn’t just saying ‘no it isn’t’.
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn’t!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn’t!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN’T!Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!”
Yes, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the only logical conclusion to your own words: “incapable of rotating on its own axis…”
MikeR, your stupidity is matched by your intransigence
The wooden horse, ball on a string, and Moon all demonstrate orbital motion, without rotating about an axis.
Get over it.
It looks like I will have to “get into the weeds” with DREM and clarify my comment re the rectangular plate, as it has been taken out of context.
However I probably complicated matters by referring to the connection of the pivot point as being “pivotal” in differentiating it from the earth moon situation (which obviously lacks such a physical connection).
In order to eliminate any further confusion, let’s just stick to the original pivoting rectangle .
All points in the rectangle behave in the same way (which is not surprising as it is a rigid body). They rotate on an axis through that point, relative to an external frame of reference (such as the stars).
To emphasize, if the rotating rectangle was the size of a field large enough to accommodate, say 1000 stationary people (separated by the appropriate Covid safe distance of course) then each person standing on the rectangle would rotate identically. If it was a clear night each person would see the stars in the firmament appear to rotate about them, but in reality, of course, they are rotating with respect to the stars.
In contrast, relative to the internal frame of reference of the plate itself, each point is fixed as again we are dealing with a rigid body. Using the field example, each person is not rotating (on is axis) relative to the ground or with respect to each other (this is what I was referring to in my earlier statement). As long as they do not look towards the heavens they are blissfully unaware they are rotating at all,
The only point of contention is whether they are rotating on their axes with respect to any frame of reference or not.
This is where the simple software simulations come in to play (I have almost completed the pivoting rectangle version) and the actual experiments with gyroscopes inside mobile phones (see my preceding comments and report).
They both confirm that objects at any location on a rotating platform or pivoting rectangle are rotating on their axes IN ADDITION to “orbiting “.
So DREM let’s finally put the rectangular plate problem to bed. It is also just a variation of the wooden horse problem that accordingly needs the same treatment.
So on that note, good night.
ClintR,
Thank-you for another of your sophisticated intellectual contributions, and good night to you also.
It is amusing watching MikeR argue against his own words.
All points of the rectangle move in concentric circles about point O. The rectangle is orbiting point O, and not rotating on its own axis, since, as you agree, it is incapable of doing so.
And thank you MikeR for yet another long valueless dissertation only proving you are still confused about “frame of reference”.
It is amusing watching DREMT argue ad-nauseum about rigid bodies rotating, then pretending this ‘logic’ applies to not-rigid-bodies, when it clearly doesnt.
Yes, Nate, MikeR’s experiment again proves DREMT and ClintR wrong, as always, since their faulty case was closed out long ago.
DREMT: “Have I argued that the runner does not stop, turn on his own axis, then move on? No.”
Then DREMT 9:39am argues oppositely, now the rectangle does not stop (orbiting), does NOT turn (rotate) on its own axis, then move on.
DREMT reverses completely as well as takes MikeR out of context. ClintR like a good puppy almost immediately follows his incorrect leader. Great entertainment with continuous proven faulty science from the twins.
Anything constrained to only rotate on its own axis once per rev., will only rotate on its own axis once per rev.
The “experiments” prove nothing, as I already explained.
Even Norman understood the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-508017
The TEAM never defines the axis of rotation. If they bothered to state it:
“Definition of axis of rotation
: the straight line through all fixed points of a rotating rigid body around which all other points of the body move in circles”
It is abundantly clear that the Moon’s motion does not satisfy this definition if the axis of rotation is at the orbit barycenter. All the points on the Moon clearly do not move in circles around the barycenter.
QED
On the other hand, for a sphere like the Moon translating thru space while rotating, the translation and rotation can be separated. The CM is translating, and all points of the body are moving in circles around this point. Thus the rotation is around an axis thru the CM.
…and don’t forget, Ball4, ftop_t already used the transmographer tool to show that when you rotate an object around a central point (external axis) as well as on its own axis, the results are not consistent with your perception of “one axial rotation per rev.”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329311
Poor Nate, he found a satisfactory definition for “axis of rotation”, but he can’t figure out how it applies to reality.
They are unable to think.
ftop_t used the transmographer chosen axis to move the object up out of mgr plane over the top of the mgr center and put it down facing the opposite way on the other side of the mgr. THAT was a classic mistake. Haven’t seen ftop_t around since. Pay attention:
Anything constrained to only rotate on its own axis once per rev., will only rotate on its own axis once per rev.
Wrong, Ball4. Follow this demonstration ftop_t conducted at 90 degree intervals…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329363
ftop_t agrees up and out of the plane as demonstrated in transmographer usage shows: “the movement is not consistent with how a rigid horse moves around a carousel.”
ftop_t is correct DREMT. Try to pay closer attention to what ftop_t is trying to tell you for the bolted horse and similar planar kinematics:
Anything constrained to only rotate on its own axis once per rev., will only rotate on its own axis once per rev.
Ball4 proves he cannot follow a simple argument. Ftop_t says:
“I argue that there is only one movement
1. A rotation around the center point of the carousel
2. There is no rotation occurring around the objects axis (the pole)”
His usage of the transmographer shows that when you rotate an object about an external axis and rotate it on its own axis, “the movement is not consistent with how a rigid horse moves around a carousel”.
Because an object that is rotating about an external axis (orbiting) and not rotating on its own axis, already moves like the rigid horse on the carousel.
It is obvious DREMT hasn’t actually used the transmographer following ftop_t usage: “I argue that there is only one movement 1. A rotation around the center point of the carousel 2. There is no rotation occurring around the objects axis (the pole)” because ftop-t transmographer usage moves the horse up over the top of the carousel center and plops it down on the other side without rotating it on its own axis normal to the carousel plane.
DREMT, just go over & observe the bolted down horse stay in the plane of your CARNIVAL carousel & learn:
Anything constrained to only rotate on its own axis once per rev., will only rotate on its own axis once per rev.
Now program the transmographer correctly and it will show exactly the same thing as MikeR’s experiment:
Anything constrained to only rotate on its own axis once per rev., will only rotate on its own axis once per rev.
(you will have to specify the correct axis for the transmographer & not use the default one like ftop_t mistakenly did). What a huge laugh, a 3 ring circus provided by: DREMT, ClintR and ftop_t thx for the free entertainment.
You are ridiculous, Ball4. Thanks for the laughs.
“Poor Nate, he found a satisfactory definition for ‘axis of rotation”
Good, now you can see clearly that the barycenter cannot be one.
What to do? Run away as fast as you can.
Yes, Nate they always will; run away like DREMT 2:35pm that is. Don’t go away mad DREMT, just go away and actually use the transmographer to learn what ftop_t did wrong then ‘splain it to ftop_t. I already know.
“His usage of the transmographer shows that when you rotate an object about an external axis and rotate it on its own axis, the movement is not consistent with how a rigid horse moves around a carousel.
Because an object that is rotating about an external axis (orbiting) and not rotating on its own axis, already moves like the rigid horse on the carousel.”
Sure if you are daft about what an orbit is, you can get yourself all confused with adding rotation to rotation.
In the following comment I showed that if you simply TRANSLATE an object around a point, ie ORBIT as astronomy defines it, AND rotate the object on its axis, then the movement is identical to the horse motion.
But again, the Moon’s orbit doesnt satisfy the definition of rotation around an external axis.
So your argument is completely MOOT.
Ball4 you are just trolling again. Tedious.
Poor Nate, he found a satisfactory definition for “axis of rotation”, but he can’t figure out how it applies to reality.
They are unable to think.
And Ball4 joins in to add to the hilarity.
They are unable to think.
“he cant figure out how it applies to reality.”
Ha ha ha
Obviously you have no idea how it applies to the Moon.
As promised, here is a depiction of the rectangular plate from figure 2b pivoting.
https://i.postimg.cc/5f177kvJ/Rectangular-plate-pivot.gif
Three coloured arrows are attached at random locations to the plate.
As per usual, the rotating arrows at in the boxes at left show the axial rotation isolated from the “orbital” motion.
Very good, MikerR.
Now just change the pivoting rectangle into a circle that completes a 360 degree orbit and you have a Moon model–orbiting, but not rotating about its axis.
The arrows in the boxes are the result of the orbital motion. There is no axial rotation. It’s the same as the wooden horse.
As you know, idiots don’t like reality.
I recently posted a comment that went into moderation and has subsequently disappeared. I suspect it may have had too many links, which I have now removed. If this one survives and the previous one reappears, then apologies for the dual posts.
I have tried to precis the demolition of the “arguments” of the lunatics in the following.
1. The Wooden Horse on a Platform Argument.
i) The horse, being physically connected to the platform, rotates identically to the rotation of the platform.
ii) As an obvious consequence, the horse is not rotating with respect to the platform.
iii) The platform is rotating on its axis (with respect to the external environment).
iv). As a consequence of being physically connected to the platform, the horse , at any position on the platform, is rotating on its axis ( with respect to the external environment). Q.E.D.
2. The Ball Rotating on a String Argument.
i) the ball is connected to the string and revolves at the same rate as the string rotates .
ii) As a consequence there is no mismatch between the two angular velocities and the string does not wrap around the ball.
iii) From the perspective of an external observer following the ball around on its orbit, the ball is rotating on its axis.
3. The Train and Car Travelling in Circles Argument.
i) The train is in physical contact with the rails and likewise the car to the road ( as long as the train does not come off the rails or the car loses grip between the tyre and the road surface).
ii) Therefore they are both not rotating with respect to the rails or road.
iii) An observer on either mode of transport perceives distant external objects at different orientations with respect to the train or vehicle as it completes a revolution (or orbit) around the centre of motion.
iv) With respect to an external observer the train and car are both rotating on their axes.
It should be noted that the external observer is in an inertial frame, so the rotation around the axis can be detected and confirmed by an on board gyroscope for either forms of transport ( see also inertial guidance for aircraft).
Concluding Remarks
The month is almost over so these exchanges fortunately will be terminated.
I hope when the axis of evil duo raise this crap again, which on form they are guaranteed to do so (as possibly as early as next month – they have no shame), I can link back to this, or perhaps someone else can.
In the end, as these two are so emotionally invested in their theories , they are not going to concede the errors of their ways. So in some respects it has been a total waste of my time
My only consolations have been, firstly learning about the sensors in smart phones and how they can be used to teach physics. In the current situation they could be employed for for online teaching as even the cheapest phones now have gyroscopes and accelerometers.
My other consolation has been the result of the unintended humour of some of the DREM/ClintR howlers . Makes me nostalgic for the old days of teaching physics to the undergrads.
Agreed, ClintR.
MikeR continues his wasted effort to pervert reality.
His “external observer” and “inertial frame” are more properly termed “idiot space”. The wooden horse, ball on a string, car, and train are not REALLY rotating on their axes. It just appears as if they are, to idiots.
Here is something for DREM and ClintR to ponder.
This a depiction of a turntable with an object that progressively revolves (or orbits) at varying distances from the centre of revolution.
https://i.postimg.cc/pVxL7HBx/turntable-spiral2.gif
I would be interested how either of these gentlemen would account for the motion of the object, if it is not rotating on its axis, at any stage of its orbit.
Note that one end of the object (the one marked green) always points to the centre of revolution.
Their answers should make for fascinating reading, so surprise all of us, DREM and Clint by attempting an answer.
What will there exit strategies be?
It is orbiting at every point, according to your GIF. Even when it is near the center, you do not actually have the center of the dumbbell right at the center of the turntable, so it is never actually rotating on its own axis.
If you had a GIF with it actually centered to begin with, then initially it would be rotating on its own axis, then orbiting.
It’s pretty simple, MikeR. Remember, an orbit is just another word for a rotation about an axis that is external to the object itself, i.e:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution:
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
Ah, my mistake, I hadn’t watched it all the way to the end. At the very end of the GIF, you show the dumbbell rotating on its own axis. The whole rest of the time, it is merely orbiting the center of the turntable.
DREM, if in your considered opinion for the previous case, the object was not rotating but just orbiting (other than when it was exactly* over the centre of revolution), then what is the object doing here? Doing backflips?
https://i.postimg.cc/fDhppv0w/turntable-spiral3.gif
*Exactly meaning within 1000 km or 1 m or 1 Angstrom unit or perhaps the 1/1000th the size of a quark? i.e. if it moves outside this distance from the centre of rotation it stops rotating!!!
Assuming the turntable is continually rotating CCW, the dumbbell is rotating on its own axis CW at the same rate as the turntable when in the center, and orbiting CCW whilst rotating on its own axis CW at the same rate as the turntable when away from the center.
DREM, you have a wonderfully complex model. Probably the product of an over-active imagination,
Recall you claim there is no reference frame where the dumbbell is rotating for the preceding case (when the the dumbbell was facing the centre of rotation)! Not even from the view point of an external observer!
Do you still claim that? To refresh your memory here it is again.
https://i.postimg.cc/pVxL7HBx/turntable-spiral2.gif
Concentrate hard on the left hand box which shows the motion of the dumbbell decoupled from its orbital motion, as seen from an external observer (i.e. you looking at it on your screen).
By the way you haven’t responded to my question about what distance the dumbbell needs to be from the centre of revolution for it to transition from rotating to non rotating?
Obviously too hard?
The box does not show the movement of the dumbbell decoupled from the orbital motion. You are so confused by the difference between orbital motion and axial rotation it is unreal. I have not changed my mind on anything, if that answers your question.
As to the distance required, I understand the point you are trying to make, but since the moon is 238,900 miles from Earth, it is a moot point. Yes you could argue perhaps the center of mass of the dumbbell might never be “truly” aligned with the cm of the turntable, but you are splitting hairs. When the axes align, the dumbbell is rotating on its own axis. When they do not, the dumbbell is rotating about the turntable’s axis (orbiting the center of the turntable).
“It’s pretty simple, MikeR. Remember, an orbit is just another word for a rotation about an axis that is external to the object itself, i.e:”
Sure if you redefine words to make them conform to your erroneous beliefs.
An orbit like the Moon’s which is elliptical clearly cannot be an example of rotation around an external axis, since per the definition (see above), a rotational axis is a line around which all the parts of the object move in CIRCLES.
And per the definition of Orbit used by astronomy, it is simply the movement, translation, of one mass around another. No rotation of the object is involved.
As much as the TEAM wishes, hopes, and dreams it, an orbit is not synonymous with rotation.
Will that stop the TEAM from repeating this lie? Of course not.
But observers will see thru this transparent fraud.
As to Mikes beautiful spiraling outward dumbbell.
When it is centered, it can be described by everyone as doing ONE THING, rotating.
Now Im reminded of when judges decide if a case should go to trial, they base it on whether a rational person could decide, based on the evidence, that a perp probably did the crime.
Perhaps the TEAM could acknowledge that, when the dumbbell slowly moves off center, it could be described by a rational person as now doing TWO THINGS, rotating and an ADDITIONAL motion (that we call orbiting).
While we can certainly acknowledge that since it is part of a rotating rigid body, it CAN ALSO be described as simply rotating around an axis not thru its center.
MikeR continues his failed attempt to pervert reality.
The dumbbell on the turntable exhibits the same motion as the wooden horse on the mgr. It is orbiting (riding) not rotating about its axis. It only APPEARS to be rotating about its axis to those unable to understand motions. An intelligent person would realize there is only ONE motion occurring–the rotating turntable. Stop the turntable and all motion stops.
” when the dumbbell slowly moves off center, it could be described by a rational person as now doing TWO THINGS, rotating and an ADDITIONAL motion (that we call orbiting).”
Interestingly, mathematically to describe the DB position vs time when it is on-center, requires just one variable, theta, the angle of the DB wrt to vertical.
When it is off-center, it now requires another variable, phi, the angular position of the DB’s center of mass wrt to vertical.
These variables correspond to rotation of DB around the CM and of the CM around the center.
Hmmm.
Can the team come up with a single variable to match their description of the DB motion doing one thing, orbiting?
DREM, On what basis do you say?
“The box does not show the movement of the dumbbell decoupled from the orbital motion”
It definitely does. The software I wrote worked as intended used geometric rotation matrices to generate rotation around an axis that follows the orbit of the dumbbell.
Are these matrices wrong? I used them to generate orbital motion as well. You seemed happy with the orbital motion. I can post the code if you like and you can demonstrate where I made my mistakes .
“As to the distance required, I understand the point you are trying to make, but since the moon is 238,900 miles from Earth, it is a moot point. Yes you could argue perhaps the center of mass of the dumbbell might never be truly aligned with the cm of the turntable, but you are splitting hairs. When the axes align, the dumbbell is rotating on its own axis. When they When the axes align, the dumbbell is rotating on its own axis not, the dumbbell is rotating about the turntables axis (orbiting the center of the turntable.”
So you posit that ” When the axes align, the dumbbell is rotating on its own axis” otherwise not. In contrast I propose that the axial rotation happens at all times for both the spiral examples (you may have heard of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum but it seems not) . This is not splitting hairs as the object would require an external torque to go from spinning to non spinning and vice versa. Where would this come from?
I also have the experimental evidence to back it up ( gyroscopic data from mobile phones “orbiting” on the edge of a turntable platter that demonstrate axial rotation)
What do you have? The use of analogies such as the wooden horse bolted into a platform where we all agree the horse does not, and obviously cannot, rotate with respect to the platform . That appears to be the entire basis of your logic and by extension your view that this is the encompassing reality that leaves no room for a frame of reference where the horse rotates on its axis.
On that basis, I can see on whose side you would have been on in the debate between the Ptolemaists and the followers of Copernicus.
Anyway,I am off to sleep now.
Likewise DREM, your current nightmare maybe over soon as the new blog entry for the UAH August satellite data is imminent. However if you are a glutton for punishment then that can be accommodated. Good night.
Clint says “It only APPEARS to be rotating about its axis to those unable to understand motions.”
Again, I emphasize the need for the opinion of a rational person.
One who only makes claims that have reasons to back them up.
Another erudite and incisive comment from ClintR.
“Stop the turntable and all motion stops.”.
ClintR, that needs to be confirmed experimentally.
I will write a grant application to obtain funds for the experimental work. Would you also like to participate in the research project? I will allow you to be chief author. Phys Rev A, PNAS or a Nature lead article are all possibilities. What do you think?
Good night Clint to you also.
Another long typing session from MikeR, which only proves he has not been paying attention. The object is not going from spinning to non-spinning. It is continually rotating about an axis in the center of the turntable. The turntable provides all the required torque. It is just that when the center of mass of the dumbbell happens to align with the center of mass of the turntable (if indeed that ever does truly happen) you can say that the dumbbell is rotating on its own axis. When the dumbbell moves away from the center, it is still rotating, just not on its own axis. It is instead rotating about the center of the turntable (orbiting). It is effectively just another part of the turntable.
All of your responses to date prove that you cannot correctly decouple axial rotation from orbital motion. I am amazed you cannot see that despite how clearly it has been explained to you. I have also explained numerous times now why your phone cannot settle this issue.
Was there anything else? Oh yes…Dr Spencer no longer closes discussions.
Don’t try to ride on my coattails, MikeR. You will end up in a place you don’t want to be–REALITY.
Continue to attempt to pervert reality, that’s what entertains us. You can’t change reality, but your failed efforts are interesting. We learn a lot about what is happening in the world, by learning how idiots perform. Losers don’t realize that avoiding reality is what makes them losers.
“When the dumbbell moves away from the center, it is still rotating, just not on its own axis. It is instead rotating about the center of the turntable (orbiting). “It is effectively just another part of the turntable.””
They continue to ignore the fact that the Moon is not part of a rigid body.
With the dumbbell example they need to look at the dumbbells motion in isolation, pretend that they dont know it is ‘part of’ a rigid body.
If they could do basic mathematical modeling, doubtful, they would realize that to describe its position vs time requires two variables, the DB angle and the CM angle.
It would be an even more immense stretch for them to realize that to model the Moon’s motion requires several more variables.
But hey, if one variable is the best they can do, then nature needs to conform to their limits!
Yes Nate, as MikeR has shown the twins do continue to ignore the fact that the Moon is not part of a rigid body but if a landing party places a rigid body carousel (complete with horse) at the moon south pole such that carousel spin axis aligns with the spin axis of the moon THEN the moon is rotating on its own axis once per rev. being at the center of the carousel so the stars & sun rise and set.
Move that carousel ever so slightly off the moon rotational axis still fixed to the moon then the twin’s moon immediately stops rotating on its own axis (like the twin’s horse) and the stars become fixed in the twin’s moon sky.
The twins never have made any science or kinematic sense, they never will until they agree with observed reality that the moon rotates on its own axis once per rev. just like the bolted horse, ball on string, and toy train etc.
Ball4 gets everything wrong, as usual.
DREM,
You must live in a state of total bewilderment due to the information available on the internet. Made worse by the cognitive dissonance that this information invariably disagrees with your “logical” preconceptions.
Here once again, is information that can be accessed as to how the gyroscopes in smart phones work.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/06/all-the-sensors-in-your-smartphone-and-how-they-work-2/
and
https://fossbytes.com/which-smartphone-sensors-how-work/
Try reading the articles. However as you may be unable to process the contents, I will summarise.
Because the gyroscopes are inside the phone, they measure the rotation around internal axes with respect to the inertial environment. They are totally agnostic as to whether they rotating about some external point.
This technology has been around for decades as part of the inertial guidance sytems for planes where they are used too calculate yaw, pitch and roll of the aircraft.
If you want measure orbital motion around an external point you need to use the accelerometers to determine the magnitude of centripetal acceleration and the origin of the centre of the orbit from the vector addition of acceleration components.
Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of physics should be able to follow this.
So to repeat , my experiments with the smart phone gyroscopes on a turntable, showed rotation about the z axis (perpendicular to the platter) while at the edge of the platter (“orbiting” AND rotating).
It measured the same rotational angular velocity about the z axis as when the phone was directly over the spindle and just rotating on its axis.
https://i.postimg.cc/zq0d1271/Gyro-Output-Centre-and-Edge.jpg
QED, yet again.
p.s. I do tend to be long winded especially when trying to explain concepts to those who have marginal understanding of the ideas. As the short cuts that are normally available when conversing with your peers are unavailable, it has to be tediously explained in details.
Yes MikeR, according to DREMT, if you place your cell phone on the lunar surface exactly on south pole making moon on a carousel, it will show rotation on its own axis. But if you move it 1″ N, then cell phone will cease to measure rotation on its own axis and start just orbiting the lunar S pole.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-518250
Ball4,
It looks like I might have to modify my turntable set up.
According to DREM I think I need to be within one Planck Length of the turntable’s axis for my mobile phone to start to rotate on its axis,
Maybe I need a gravitational wave detector? Unfortunately I have not been able to locate one on Ebay for a reasonable price. Looks like I will have to jerry rig my own version of a Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory out of LEGO.
At least a LIGO out of LEGO could be a long term project for the entire family during lockdown.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-517636
War of the links!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-518612
It is probably time to deliver the last rites to DREM’s steaming heap of bovine excrement.
DREM’s fairy tale where the object rotating on its axis stops rotating on its axis (requiring the application of an external torque in the opposing direction) as it moves, some unspecified distance, from the centre of revolution is depicted here.
https://i.postimg.cc/XVMdQk89/death-spiral-last-rites.gif
I have paused the action for a few seconds in order to fully appreciate DREM’s awesome concept.
I have also enhanced visually the fact that the object inside the square at left displays the objects motion minus the orbital motion. I wouldn’t have thought it necessary but we know who we are dealing with.
Finally, I don’t know if there is anything more to say, except DREM’s persistence in attempting to play defence as the slam dunks build up, is impressive.
Maybe he could try going on the offence and introduce something new to the debate so that the perception, that he is an intellectual gnat, is not continually being reinforced.
He might then exit these exchanges with some small vestige of respect.
The object is not going from spinning to non-spinning. It is continually rotating about an axis in the center of the turntable. The turntable provides all the required torque. It is just that when the center of mass of the dumbbell happens to align with the center of mass of the turntable (if indeed that ever does truly happen) you can say that the dumbbell is rotating on its own axis. When the dumbbell moves away from the center, it is still rotating, just not on its own axis. It is instead rotating about the center of the turntable (orbiting). It is effectively just another part of the turntable.
All of your responses to date prove that you cannot correctly decouple axial rotation from orbital motion. I am amazed you cannot see that despite how clearly it has been explained to you.
By the way, the transmographer demonstrates that what I write is correct – rotation about an external axis is already motion like a ball on a string. Axial rotation is then separate and independent of that motion. If you followed the links I posted earlier, and followed ftop_t’s instructions, you would already have seen that. But you ignore anything that challenges your views.
“followed ftop_t’s instructions”
In doing so the moon moves over Earth N pole and back into orbit on the opposite side of Earth never having rotated on moon’s own current axis.
“just not on its own axis”
So the stars move in the sky observed from on the moon surface when it is on a turntable exactly on its S pole but move the turntable more than 1 Planck length N and the stars immediately stop moving in the sky as the moon suddenly grinds to a spin halt orbiting as always but rotating on its own axis no longer. Wrong.
MikeR, DREMT will not ever exit these exchanges with even some small vestige of respect. Although DREMT runs away mad at times, DREMT and twin will always return with the same looney tunes.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-517994
Misrepresent us all you like, Ball4. Ftop_t’s comments speak for themselves. The transmographer rotates an object “around a point” (about an external axis, orbiting) or “around center” (on its own axis). The results also speak for themselves. All anybody reading has to do is try it out.
“All anybody reading has to do is try it out.”
I encourage anybody to do so, especially DREMT, to find out for themselves where ftop_t went wrong. Then correctly use the transmographer to show the moon rotates once on its own axis per rev. like the ball on string, carousel bolted horse, phone anywhere on turntable, and toy train.
We at least agree that anybody reading should use the transmographer for themselves.
“rotation about an external axis is already motion like a ball on a string. ”
Sure that satisfies the definition of rotation about axis, since all parts ofvthe ball move in circles around the axis.
But the TEAM loses all potentential recruits when they falsely claim that the Moon or any orbiting planet satisfies this definition of rotation about an external axis.
Astronomers and geometers understand that orbits are not circles, and thus not rotations around an external axis, the barycenter, but are translations along an elliptical trajectory..
“Axial rotation is then separate and independent of that motion.”
Exactly. Thus will the TEAM apply this logic to the Earth and Moon orbits, and agree that their rotation is separate and independent of that motion?
Unlikely, cult members are in too deep to follow logic.
Unfortunately, the transmographer is far too complicated for idiots to use. They can’t even understand the wooden horse, or the ball on a string.
Unfortunately, the transmographer is far too complicated for DREMT and ClintR to use and find out where ftop_t goes wrong just following the steps. Then way too complicated to use correctly to show the rectangle or triangle rotating on its own axis once per rev. like the easily observed ball on string, moon, phone, bolted horse so forth.
DREM -“The object is not going from spinning to non-spinning. It is continually rotating about an axis in the center of the turntable. The turntable provides all the required torque”.
There are only two fundamental flaws in your insane scenario but firstly let’s remind DREM of the defintion of torque
For a single rigid body
Torque = mass of the body times the rotational acceleration of of the body.
or inverting
Accelleration =Torque / mass
Ptoblem no. 1.
If the turntable was providing the necessary external torque to get the dumbbell non rotating on its axis then it would have to provide a torque in the opposite direction to the initial rotation of the dumbbell, not in the same direction !!!!@!?!!!!!!!!#$%& (sorry my cat walked across the keyboard again, he tends to get very agitated when he reads nonsense).
Needless to say the rotation of the turntable did not suddenly reverse, the moment the dumbbell moved away from the centre.
Problem no, 2.
Assuming the turntable was the source of an external torque, then why did the torque then stop after the dumbbell progressively moved further away from the centre of revolution?
This is the the only explanation consistent with the speed of rotation of the dumbbell (irrespective of the axis of rotation) to be constant in that situation.
Conversly if the torque did not stop then and there was continuous contact between the dumbbell and the turntable, there would have been a corresponding continuous torque that would accelerate the rotation of tbe dumbbell indefinitely, irrespective of the axis.
The only conceivable explanation to account for the non acceleration of the dumbbell is that it levitated suspended above the turntable. DREM, is that your explanation?
Clearly there was no external torque applied to the dumbbell by the turntable.
Another slam dunk.
True, Clint. Though it could help somebody reading along to understand.
I wonder if MikeR will stop twisting my words long enough to actually address what the transmographer shows…
Apparently MikeR has given up trying to pervert reality with his phone and turntable. I was really enjoying that failed effort.
Of course someone with a knowledge of the motions could easily use the phone and turntable to prove Moon is not rotating about its axis. Simply put the phone on one edge of the turntable and slowly rotate the turntable 90 degrees. The same side of the phone still faces the center of the turntable, since it was only orbiting, not rotating about its axis. (Same as Moon.)
Now, at the new loccation, actually rotate the phone 90 degrees, either CW or CCW. Notice that the movements were “synchronized”, that is, the phone rotated 90 degrees about its axis as the turntable rotated 90 degrees about its axis.
In either CW or CCW rotation, the same side of the phone no longer faces the center of the turntable. Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
I seldom read all of MikeR’s comments, for obvious reasons. But luckily I happened to see this a couple of days ago:
“Makes me nostalgic for the old days of teaching physics to the undergrads.”
MikeR is trying to claim that he was a physics teacher. Of course, there’s no need to spend much time with that, as he never gets any physics correct.
But, then I saw this, where he was attempting to define “torque”:
“Torque = mass of the body times the rotational acceleration of of [sic] the body.”
The clueless idiot can’t even get a simple definition right.
These idiots entertain us regularly. And, it’s all free!
Bloody hell. Apologies to all. I wrote mass instead of moment of inertia in the formula for torque. Yet again another example of the dangers of posting after midnight.
Thank-you to ClintR for picking up that.
Of course it makes zero difference to the argument because the moment of inertia (like the mass) of the dumbbell is constant throughout!
Clint @ 4:37pm, that is the same lesson you can learn from following ftop_t’s instructions with the transmographer.
Whoops! Should have been Clint @ 1:35pm.
ClintR -“Of course someone with a knowledge of the motions could easily use the phone and turntable to prove Moon is not rotating about its axis.”
That is a very clear explaination as to why you haven’t done the experiment.
“Simply put the phone on one edge of the turntable and slowly rotate the turntable 90 degrees. The same side of the phone still faces the center of the turntable, since it was only orbiting, not rotating about its axis. (Same as Moon.)”
The experiment was actually done here,
See YouTube video number 4 at the following
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-516743
Note that the phone orbited and the internal gyroscopes showed rotation about the relevant axis.
“Now, at the new loccation, actually rotate the phone 90 degrees, either CW or CCW. Notice that the movements were synchronized, that is, the phone rotated 90 degrees about its axis as the turntable rotated 90 degrees about its axis.”
ClintR. This is equivalent to the baseballer stopping at each base and rotating 90 degrees to continue in the direction of the next base or home plate.
See https://i.postimg.cc/kJbFJNKs/Baseball3.gif
And by the way, the baseballer always faces in the direction of the pitcher at the centre of the diamond as he completes the circuit.
This analogy is spot on.
ClintR has been tagged trying to run to second base, yet again, as he didn’t realise he had to turn 90 degrees (and in the right direction).
Back to the Little League for ClintR. Maybe with enough practice, he will get the idea? I suspect not.
“…that is the same lesson you can learn from following ftop_t’s instructions with the transmographer.”
Of course, the thing with the transmographer is that it proves your understanding of the motions is correct, and that MikeR and the others are incorrect in their understanding.
All any readers out there need to do, is use it.
DREMT, is this transmogrificator, the new piece of evidence you are bringing to the debate, actually from 2018? I know that since the advent of Covid, time has stood still, but from my understanding the pandemic didn’t start that long ago.
Back at that time, this evidence was succesfully demolished by Nate and the author of the piece subsequently fled the scene.
Ball4 and Nate are just finishing the job again as we speak.
Interestingly, I thought a transmogrificator was a device that was used to clone both yourself and Clint from the charred remains of g**ran/Huffnpuff.
…and here are the relevant links, so the readers can give it a go, and understand the context:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329311
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329363
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
The transmographer rotates an object “around a point” (about an external axis, orbiting) or “around center” (on its own axis). The results speak for themselves.
DREMT says: “…that is the same lesson you can learn from following ftop_t’s instructions with the transmographer.”
Well, that’s if the person is normal….
The transmographer is too complicated for idiots. MikeR can’t even understand my recommended demonstration with a phone and turntable. He thinks it’s the same as a base runner! He doesn’t understand that the base runner is turning 90 degrees 4 times to complete the 360° “orbit”. That’s why the runner is always facing forward. If he turned another 90 degrees at each base, as they claim Moon does, then he would not be facing forward.
They can’t understand the two motions involved. They can’t understand the simplest things. That’s why they’re idiots.
But, they’re entertaining. Especially when one of them claims to have taught physics! Many belly laughs here.
“Well, that’s if the person is normal….”
True. I forgot who we were dealing with.
ClintR now admits in ClintR’s own words “the base runner is turning” just like the toy train, ball on string, phone anywhere on turntable, rectangle in transmographer, and fig. 2b. Once per rev. on their own axis. As observed & just like the moon.
No Clint, look again, the smiley face of the baseballer is always facing inwards towards the centre of the diamond where the pitcher stands.
Get your eyesight fixed or you are liable to collect a ball in the head (best case scenario) or somewhere lower. These Little Leaguers can pitch quite a fast ball.
“He doesn’t understand that the base runner is turning 90 degrees 4 times to complete the 360° “orbit”. That’s why the runner is always facing [inwards]. If he turned another 90 degrees at each base, as they claim Moon does, then he would not be facing [inwards]..
They can’t understand the two motions involved. They can’t understand the simplest things. That’s why they’re idiots.”
The TEAM just doesnt believe us.
So lets ask the TEAMs trusted dynamicsofrigidbodies source what he thinks.
“2. Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). ”
The Moon in its elliptical orbit with all its libration clearly FAILS TO QUALIFY as ROTATION AROUND AN EXTERNAL AXIS.
What does he say we can do about motion like Moon’s that is not a pure rotation?
He says this:
“3.0 General plane motion: Any plane motion which is neither a rotation nor a translation is referred to as a general plane motion.”
and “4.0 General Plane Motion
A general plane motion can always be considered as the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
See Figure 7A.
He says that motion like the Moon’s must be described as a translation (in fact curvilinear translation) plus a rotation around an axis thru its CM.
“If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation”
They’ll have to argue it out with their trusted source.
Looks like the penny might have finally dropped, for MikeR.
“They cant understand the two motions involved.”
Yep that sums up the TEAM’s problem.
That and their ceaseless peddling of proven BS.
DREM -“He doesnt understand that the base runner is turning 90 degrees 4 times to complete the 360 orbit. Thats why the runner is always facing [inwards].,, ,
I am not sure who the “He” is that is being referred to here. It obviously could not have been referring to myself as that was my intended take home message of my painstaking depiction. I am glad that you understood it, unlike your colleague.
Also ehere do you get the requirement for the extra 90 degrees rotation on its axis for the moon?? I am not aware of any such claims, that would involve 180 degree rotation on its axis for each 1/4 of its orbit.
I think you must be one confused puppy to come up with such nonsense.
Good night.
No, he is still acting just as confused as ever. Oh well.
It’s no act, DREMT.
They’re actually that stupid. And in several cases, they are falling into insanity.
They can’t fight reality very long. Reality always wins.
I just find it hard to believe that people can be this dumb…
…they don’t even get that the four 90-degree turns only represent the change in orientation of the moon due to orbital motion. So, for the supposed axial rotation of the moon, if that was indeed happening synchronously, you would need the runner to turn an additional 90-degrees at each base to represent the two motions happening at the same time. Of course, your original example with the turntable and phone was probably clearer. Still, it’s not hard to understand. Especially when you can just use the transmographer…
…he didn’t even notice that all I was doing was quoting you!
They can’t follow discussions.
They can’t correctly separate the two motions.
They can’t seem to even think clearly.
The 4 axial turns are independent of the orbit, the player does not have to make the 4 turns on own axis while running the bases just like the moon does not have to turn while orbiting. Transmographer has two buttons!
The transmographer rotates an object “around a point” (about an external axis, orbiting) or “around center” (on its own axis). The results speak for themselves.
Where are DREMT’s transmographer step results? Nowhere. Using the transmographer to correctly show the baseball player running the bases normally both options are needed, just like the moon, ball on string, phone anywhere on turntable except the center, and toy train etc.
Rotate an object “around a point”. The object moves like the moon, with one face always towards the center of the orbit. That is without rotating the object on its axis at any point.
Huh? “Rotate an object “around a point”…That is without rotating the object on its axis at any point.”
Show your steps.
1) Click “New Triangle”.
2) Under “Around a Point” enter x = 0, y = 0, degrees: 45
3) Click “Rotate”.
Repeat step 3) until the object has completed an orbit.
DREMT, you are mistaken yet again like ftop_t, doing those steps the object is NOT rotating about its cg. Please note the readout for center of mass is different than the around a point location you selected.
An object rotates around center of mass, you know, like a turntable or ball on string. Try again, make those two points the same to rotate about cg. THAT motion is rotation about center of mass, no orbiting on repeated clicking rotate. Sheesh.
Ball4 appears to be having some sort of nervous breakdown.
DREMT runs away again. Any reader (any competent reader) can replicate my work and the incorrect steps of DREMT (and ftop_t).
“..doing those steps the object is NOT rotating about its cg”
Exactly. It is rotating “around a point”, or external axis, without rotating on its own axis. It is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis…and it keeps the same face pointed towards the center of the orbit whilst it does so. Just like the wooden horse, ball on a string, etc. All orbiting and not rotating on their own axes.
Sheesh DREMT. Any competent reader can just keep pushing rotate about 0,0. As can be easily observed, transmographer triangle is both orbiting “around a point” 0,0, an external axis, while also rotating on its own internal axis once per rev. as it keeps turning to present the same face pointed towards the center of the orbit 0,0 just like the wooden horse, ball on a string, moon etc. All orbiting while rotating once on their own axis per rev.
If the transmographer rectangle kept same face pointing up all the way around THEN it would not be rotating once per rev. on its own axis just orbiting an external axis though 0,0.
Hint: click the check box to turn on “show original polygon” to see the polygon rotation (turn) about its own internal axis at each 45 degree step coming back to 360 dgree turn or same position after one rev. of 0,0.
Rotating an object “around a point” is one motion only. There is no axial rotation programmed into the motion. That’s why there is a separate option to rotate the object “around center” (on its own axis).
Follow my hint DREMT. To observe one kinematic motion, not two:
1) Click “New Triangle”.
2) Under “Around a Point” enter x = center of mass x, then y = center of mass y, degrees: 45
3) Click “Rotate” and again & again.
THAT is pure rotation about cg, no orbiting. One kinematic motion, not two.
Or, you can just check the “about center” box. You’re learning!
If you want to see pure orbital external axis motion and no rotation on own internal axis, compute the coordinates on an orbit say at 90 degree locations from a starting point:
1) Click “New Triangle”. Mine had cg point at 5.67,2.
2) Under “Translate” enter x = first 90 degree point on ccw orbit away from 5.67, 2 e.g.: 0,2
3) Click “Translate”
This is rectilinear translation, no rotation about internal axis.
Revolution is a rotation about an external axis (“around a point”), and not a translation.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution:
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
There is no about center box, perhaps DREMT means check on “around center” which is also pure rotation about cg, one motion, no triangle cg translation second motion of orbiting.
Yes. “Around center”, I should have said.
“not a translation.”
Easily refuted with transmographer, make sure “around center” is unchecked:
1) Click “New Triangle”.
2) Under “Around a Point” enter x = 0, then y = 0, degrees: 45
3) Click “Rotate” and again & again.
Watch the center of mass translate about external axis (center 0,0) AND the triangle rotate about an internal axis once per rev. coming back to start position after 360 orbit (check on “original polygon”).
No, Ball4…what you are watching is one single motion. A rotation of the triangle about an external axis passing through 0,0.
You have to separate the independent motions as does the transmographer, a translation OF the cg is calculated, that is one independent motion and a triangle orbital rotation is a second independent motion combined into each picture of the triangle at the major compass points. I know, I really, really know, DREMT thinks of them as one motion but DREMT didn’t say no to the baseball player turning and orbiting independently; the transmographer similarly does actually refute DREMT’s thinking.
That case was closed long ago, DREMT has not succeeded in reopening.
What you are watching is one single motion. A rotation of the triangle about an external axis passing through 0,0.
Axial rotation is then separate and independent of this motion.
You do have two separate and independent motions, you just have to separate them correctly.
“What you are watching is one single motion.”
“You do have two separate and independent motions”
Two is the new one huh? No that’s confused. The transmographer clearly refutes DREMT first statement and shows 1) the cg translation new point calculated separately one motion, AND 2) rotation about the internal axis second motion. Just like the moon orbiting external axis and rotating once on its own internal axis per rev. keeping same face torward earth as does the orbiting & rotating once per rev. triangle.
DREMT keeps trying to reopen a closed case without grounds, to no avail.
After a short break from this nonsense.
Here is another depiction that should clarify the relationship between the baseball example and the moon’s approximately circular orbit.
https://i.postimg.cc/KZ3GcVCM/Orbital-Polygons.gif
It starts with a truncated base ball game with 3 bases and moves up to 64 bases.
This is kind of based on the work of a very clever fellow see-
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/approximating-pi.html#:~:text=Archimedes'%20method%20finds%20an%20approximation,is%20greater%20than%20the%20circumference).
So possibly even DREM (I don’t give ClintR much hope) will follow the concept here, that as the runner runs linearly from base to base in his “orbit” he needs to rotate on his axis 360/N degrees (N is the number of bases) at each base. The distance between bases (segments) gets successively smaller as N increases. I would have gone beyond 64 to get a more perfect digital circle but it was taking too long to render.
p.s. The analog version of circle a requires calculus to explain why the instantaneous rotation angle (for the infinite number of bases with infinitely small segments ) is just the tangent at that location on the circle. I don’t want blow DREM’s mind totally,
I should also add that the left hand side of the pacman always faces the centre of the polygon.
We understand the concept, MikeR, you don’t understand the refutation that has already been given.
Ball4, the transmographer “around center” option programs one motion only. That’s why it has separate options for translation and axial rotation, so you can do those things separately if you wish. “Around center” merely rotates an object about 0,0, one single motion. Get over it.
MikeR, the transmographer settles our disagreement. Sorry for your loss.
“Around a point” option, I meant to say…not “around center”.
Two separate and independent motions:
1) Orbiting (represented by the “around a point” movement).
2) Axial rotation (represented by the “around center” movement).
Doctor of Zero Spin.
You are just being more silly than usual,
You spend half your time arguing that tidal locking is just one motion (orbital motion ), which is the primary point of contention.
The other half of your time is spent making the general point that orbital dynamics involves two types of motion (orbital motion and axial rotation) which from day one (some 3 years ago) absolutely no one, I repeat no one, has ever disputed.
It’s just pointless rinse and repeat arguments and/or resurrection of transmogrified arguments that have already been settled long ago.
Why don’t you head directly to the nearest exit (after rotating on your axis to locate it), before you end up making a bigger fool of yourself.
1) Orbiting (represented by the “around a point” movement) is both translating the cg as shown by transmographer cg movement and rotating about an internal axis as shown by the triangle rotating 360 per rev. around it. This is curvilinear translation. Like the moon, two motions.
2) Is pure rotation about a central axis like a turntable. One motion.
DREMT lost the case long ago and will not succeed in reopening as the transmographer demonstrates DREMT is wrong.
Yes, MikeR. Nobody disputes that there are two separate and independent motions, orbiting and axial rotation. What is being disputed is what orbital motion actually is. The “Spinners” say orbital motion is motion in which the object moves in a circle, with one face always oriented towards a distant star. The “Non-Spinners” say orbital motion is motion in which the object moves in a circle, with one face always oriented towards the center of the circle.
Have you really not worked that out yet?
The transmographer confirms that “around a point” motion, orbital motion, is the way the “Non-Spinners” describe.
DREMT puts up a strawman then neatly stabs it.
The transmographer correctly used shows the orbital kinematics for the moon, turntable, phone on turntable, ball on string and any another object in rectilinear or curvilinear translation.
It’s not a straw man.
DREM,
Yes, we are in furious agreement about the context of the dispute. Why do you keep making obvious statements reiterating our well known positions?
It is like you are trying to avoid responding to my preceding comment that illustrates the baseball runner and moon orbit equivalence, that debunks the following nonsense.
DREM ‘s inane comment at , September 3 4:02 am
“He doesnt understand that the base runner is turning 90 degrees 4 times to complete the 360 orbit. Thats why the runner is always facing [inwards]. If he turnedanother90 degrees at each base, AS THEY CLAIM THE MOON DOES then he would not be facing [inwards”
I have capitalised his ridiculous claim regarding the mysterious “THEY”.
My comment is at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-519120
DREM, care to respond directly this time? Please do not use your usual avoidance procedures (Gish Galloping off into the sunset or just boring old repetition).
The comment you have quoted was originally written by ClintR. All I did was quote him, changed a couple of the words (adding the “[inwards]”) and highlighted one word. The reason for this should have been clear from the context of the discussion at the time. You may have noticed the quotation marks at the beginning and end of the comment.
Go back and read through until you understand.
Also:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-519134
They haven’t progressed at all since the “chalk circle”. They still believe the ball on a string is rotating on its axis, because it APPEARS as such from idiot space.
They can’t make progress. They are stuck in a rut. They are completely unresponsive to logic and reality.
They’re idiots.
What is remarkable is how they claim to understand the argument, for instance:
“Why do you keep making obvious statements reiterating our well known positions?”
…asks MikeR. Then, in the same comment, he asks about the baseball scenario again. Now, if he understood our position, he would not be asking about it – he would already understand how and why our positions differ on the subject. But he is mystified. Thus, we know he is full of it!
You’re right…they are stupid. They have made not one iota of progress.
“What is being disputed is what orbital motion actually is.”
Everyone, astronomers, physicists, engineers, and the DREMT textbook agree that an orbit is a translation, and not a rotation around an external axis.
There is no dispute.
As predicted DREM lived up to his well earned reputation and steadfastly refused to respond intelligently to my comment above. Quelle surprise!
I didn’t realize that a village idiot was required to have an understudy. ClintR’s masterful performancec made it hard to determine which idiot is Dunning and which is Kruger.
Ok, to attempt nail you guys down , let’s play a very simple game of multiple choice,
1.Firstly i will ask you to identify which of these three depictions of an object rotating on its axis ( denoted by a red dot ) CANNOT possibly (hint there is only one) be involved in any scenario where the object is also revolving, so that the object always faces the centre of revolution.
2. Secondly which ones are thee possible candidates ( hint there could be more than one).
https://i.postimg.cc/m4pX0W1b/Guess-Which-One-is-Rotating.gif
You can consult with each other or call a friend and you are permitted to use all the devices available at your disposal including any reference on the Internet or even your local transmographer.
To demonstrate the full extent of your capabilities you should calculate the angular velocity and the rotational kinetic energy, if you are capable (to simplify assume that the moment of inertia is 1 in the appropriate units ). You can you use a stop watch to measure how long it takes for each object to rotate through 360 degrees. In one case you may need take as many toilet, sleep and meal breaks as required, but i may have to impose a time limit.
Finally you can, by carefully considering this data, answer if the one ( or two) you have selected is rotating on its axis or not.
I await your response and will provide the answer corresponding to each of the 3 cases.
Neatest correct entry wins a holiday to Disneyland to ride on the King Arthur merry-go-round and Dumbo the Flying Elephant at Fantasy Land (bring your mobile phones).
So lets see what these two are made of. Can they bluster their way through this one? I am breathless with anticipation. Will I expire before they provide the answer?
I linked to a response to your comment.
DREM
“I linked to a response to your comment.”
Really? Where is this comment?
Are we playing ” round and round the garden” yet again or you are just off on some tangent?
I suspect I will just get a link to one of his repetitive comments. Sigh?
September 4th @ 11:26 am.
Exactly as predicted. A link to another link from DREM! Has he no shame?
No need to answer.
This teddy bear always takes the most circuitous route around the garden, just to avoid responding to something that is well beyond him.
I will make it really easy for him.
Which of the three dumbbells labelled A,B or C is not rotating on its axis?
https://i.postimg.cc/m4pX0W1b/Guess-Which-One-is-Rotating.gif
It is easy as ABC. Even a teddy bear should know the answer.
You said:
“As predicted DREM lived up to his well earned reputation and steadfastly refused to respond intelligently to my comment above. Quelle surprise!”
I responded that I had linked to a response to your comment, which you must have missed.
You asked where, I told you.
MikeR can’t even follow a discussion.
I see DREM has had a stab at answering in another thread.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-520334
I might have the slippery customer cornered. It will be fascinating to see his exit strategy.
So now we can return to the fact that you are unable to follow a simple discussion…
… it’s when he goes into his fascinating endless loop.
That’s how you know DREMT is cornered.
Svante is also unable to follow a simple discussion.
DREMT’s reputation is famous for running away when proven wrong, especially running away from steps on the transmographer.
My reputation runs away when I’m proven wrong? That’s a strange thing to assert. How does a reputation run? Does it have legs?
The EveryReady Bunny is back. Yes, as has ben explained N times already ( N approaching infinity), with respect to the reference frame of the orbit the dumbbell’s motion can be described in these terms.
With respect to the reality of an external observer who can measure physical quantites such as kinetic energy etc. then B is clearly rotating at the same rate, and in the same direction as it is revolving.
Both views can co-exist.
However, DREM , your original claim back, in the days of g*r or huff’npuff, was that the moon does not rotate on it axis and you still maintain that assertion irrespective of the frame of reference, despite the masive mounds of evidence suggesting otherwise.
Accordingly , I think in the interests of everybody’s sanity, (particularly mine), I think it is time to invoke the Mercy Rule and terminate this debate.
DREM you can now go dizzy with delight or vertigo on your ceremonial victory lap (he thinks debates are won and lost on who has the last comment) waving your handkerchief, the one you inherited from Neville Chamberlain, and I can go outside and enjoy the spring sunshine.
So good luck DREM, make sure you run your lap slowly and not in too tight a circle. The reality of rotational inertia can play havoc on your inner ear so take a vomit bag. I am sure the audience will also be appropriately equipped.
p.s. I might pop in later to see how the lunatic is progressing.
Still stuck in reference frames. Unable to learn, and unable to follow a discussion. Oh well.
The problem here is that the TEAM has their own dialect of english.
In their obscure language ‘orbit’ means revolve around a planet keeping the same face to the planet.
The translation of ‘orbit’ to regular english is ‘synchronous orbit’
In regular english ‘orbit’ means translate on a closed trajectory around a planet.
And ‘synchronous orbit’ means orbit and rotate with the same period.
You see, its quite simple. Having ones own personal obscure definitions of words doesnt change physics or reality.
#2
Still stuck in reference frames. Unable to learn, and unable to follow a discussion. Oh well.
The lunatic is on lap 2.
#3
Still stuck in reference frames. Unable to learn, and unable to follow a discussion. Oh well.
My goodness. On lap 3 already. How’s the nausea going?
I think you need to slow down and now might be a good time to think about the answer to the totally reference frame free question which you have done your utmost best to avoid. Sorry to use the r.f. words, I know how much that upsets you.
Which of A,B and C has the most rotational energy and which has the least?
https://i.postimg.cc/m4pX0W1b/Guess-Which-One-is-Rotating.gif
Don’t worry about orbital, K.E. we can come to that later
MikeR says: “My goodness. On lap 3 already.”
Is he orbiting and/or rotating on his own axis?
It is hard to tell from this distance. He might be from the Ministry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_of_Silly_Walks
I think because this emperor has lost his clothing, he could attach a mobile phone to his appendage and combine his lap with a Foucault pendulum experiment. Something I suggested Mike Flynn should do. Again testicular torsion could be a hazard.
#4
Still stuck in reference frames. Unable to learn, and unable to follow a discussion. Oh well.
DREM, I take it from your response that you have no idea how to calculate the kinetic energy of rotation.
Please confirm by pressing the #5 key and stay on the line.
A high school physics teacher will be with you shortly.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-521085
studentb,
Are you truly stunned? What do you intend to do about it?
..like a mullett.
student…”It is also stunning how some people become so focussed on coloured plates”.
It was started by one of your fellow alarmists, Eli Rabbett, aka Josh Halpern, a physicist who can’t get a job in physics so he teaches chemistry classes.
In case you missed the intent, the blue plate is supposed to represent the AGW version of the planet’s surface and the green plate is supposed to represent GHGs in the atmosphere.
Rabbett thinks the GHGs at a cooler temperature can send radiation to the surface and raise the surface temperature. He should be teaching home economics.
In a debate with Gerlich and Tsceuschner, who falsified the GHE using thermodynamics arguments, they insisted that heat can only be transferred a la the 2nd law, from hot to cold. Rabbett argued in rebuttal that in a 2 body system, with two bodies radiating EM, that would mean one body is not radiating.
Duh!! No Eli, it means one body, the cooler one, radiates EM but it is not absorbed by the hotter body.
Ah ha – the old “photons know the temperature of their source and will refuse to be absorbed by any cooler body they encounter on their travels” argument.
How many times do idiots need to be told that two identical photons from different objects have no idea/memory of their source temperatures and therefore cannot “decide” whether or not to be absorbed.
One last time: if I shine a light/laser at the sun, where do the photons go? (Remember, the light/laser is cooler than the sun).
student…”How many times do idiots need to be told that two identical photons from different objects have no idea/memory of their source temperatures and therefore cannot decide whether or not to be absorbed”.
You should change your nym from student to stupid.
Before you can understand the whys you have to understand basic quantum theory. The photons to which you refer are emitted by electrons in atoms as they fall form a higher orbital energy level to a lower level. There is no other source of EM in an atom.
In order to reverse that movement, from a lower to a higher energy level, a quantum of EM (aka photon) must have a specific frequency and intensity. A photon from a cooler mass lacks the critical frequency and intensity to move an electron to a higher energy state therefore it cannot be absorbed.
Don’t blame me, blame Neils Bohr and Edwin Schrodinger, who laid out the theory and the math.
Idiot – Imagine here is a photon of a particular frequency.
Tell me what was the temperature of the body that emitted it?
You can’t.
studentb,
Ah ha – the old “all photons interact equally with all matter” lunacy.
You don’t understand physics, and refuse to accept reality. Try using the photons from as much ice as you like, to heat as little water as you like. why doesn’t it work?
Because you’re stupid, stupid, stupid.
“Because you’re stupid, stupid, stupid.”
Something tells me I hit a nerve.
The photon has frequency F, tell me what the temperature of its source is.
If a photon has an IR frequency F, but encounters a molecule with a higher frequency, the photon gets reflected.
As Gordon mentioned, that’s why ice cubes cannot warm water.
There you go ClintR
making shit up again.
Can you source that argument?
the answer is no.
Can you provide evidence that you accept reality?
The answer is “no”.
ClintR,
What’s the frequency of a molecule?
Can you provide any evidence that you accept reality?
The answer is “no”.
ClintR,
Maybe I should have asked how do you determine the frequency of a molecule.
Or how does a photon know the temperature of the object that emitted it?
But you would have to have studied some physics to be able to answer, apparently ClintR has not studied enough physics to give correct answers.
(Sigh.)
Can you provide any evidence that you accept reality?
The answer is “no”.
ClintR,
My lack of acceptance of what you think is reality is not germane to any discussions.
Your view of reality is wrong, and I’m not going to accept it.
The moon spins, energy can transfer from cold to hot, the greenhouse effect causes the Earth to be warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Q/t= sigma(Th-Tc) is a valid thermodynamic equation, Mann was a member of an institution that was awarded a Nobel Prize, gravity can put torque on an object, the sky is blue and everybody is playing in the Heart of Gold Band.
Yes bob, you actually believe all that nonsense.
My favorite one was your “valid thermodynamic equation”, Q/t= sigma(Th-Tc)
That’s a hoot!
ClintR,
Actually I don’t “believe” any of that, it’a all supported by reality, or what I like to call evidence.
You just make shit up.
ClintR,
Oh, and one more thing,
What’s the reality concerning the frequency of a molecule?
Let’s see if you can come up with something other than from your made up shit box.
Relationship frequency vs temperature. Planks Law.
*The wavelength of the emitted radiation is inversely proportional to its frequency, or λ = c/ν. The value of Planck’s constant is defined as 6.62607015 × 10−34 joule∙second.*
bob, I’m still chuckling over your made-up “valid thermodynamic equation”,
Q/t = sigma(Th – Tc)
What an idiot you are!
Somebody doesn’t know the difference between bosons and hadrons.
bobdroege wrote “Somebody doesnt know the difference between bosons and hadrons.” Pointless and irrelevant. Just like bobdroege.
LOL.
Svenson,
Nope, not irrelevant,
Because when you were asked for the frequency of a molecule you answered with the equation for the frequency of a photon.
Hence you don’t know the difference between photons (bosons) and molecules (hadrons).
Care to try again to answer the question, what is the frequency of a molecule.
“I don’t know” would be a correct answer, but why you don’t know would be more complete and get you a better score on the quiz.
“If a photon has an IR frequency F, but encounters a molecule with a higher frequency, the photon gets reflected.”
OMG. Where does this garbage come from?
Nate, where does your stupidity come from?
GR said: In a debate with Gerlich and Tsceuschner, who falsified the GHE using thermodynamics arguments, they insisted that heat can only be transferred a la the 2nd law, from hot to cold.
And yet countless NDIR sensor deployments which have saved countless lives and which exploit the the GHE mechanism seem to work just fine. I wonder how Gerlich and Tsceuschner reconcile this?
bdgwx, do you have any idea how convoluted and stupid your nonsense is?
bdgwx,
The NDIR sensor manufacturers don’t seem to mention the GHE mechanism being exploited. You just mad that up, didn’t you?
Desperation.
No need for the manufacturers to explain GHE.
nate…”There just are very few topics that the current President has not tried to politicize.”
You trying to tell me the fake claim by the Democrats about Trump’s connection to Russia and their alleged interference in the 2016 election is not politicized BS? And how about the Democrats supporting and enabling rioters, terrorists, and defunding police. Biggest load of political crap I have ever seen and taken to the bottom of the sewer.
The Democrats think they are saving the world, in much the same deluded way the Nazis tried to do the same.
No Russian interference? Then why does comrade Putin have such a large grin on his face watching as the USA degenerates. He is no fool (unlike DT).
President Xi reportedly also struggles to keep a straight face while Kim Jong-Un can’t wait for DT to visit Korea again so he can run rings around him.
student…”Then why does comrade Putin have such a large grin on his face watching as the USA degenerates”.
Trump is the only Western leader smart enough to engage in a dialog with Putin. The US is not disintegrating due to Trump it is due to the politically-correct idiots in the Democratic Party who will stop at nothing to disrupt the office of a legally elected President.
The Democrats are acting like bl**dy traitors. I have never witnessed such rotten back-stabbing in my entire life, and I am not a Republican supporter due to their economic beliefs.
Putin has his own problems. He is trying to govern a country run by gangsters who are equal to the Mafia. Gorbachev, who was regarded highly by the West claimed Putin is alright. He was KGB, and could have continued in that genre, but he supported the Russian democratic movement which capitalists in the west undermined by expecting them to jump from a century of a bad communism to a right wing capitalism overnight, so they could line their pockets.
hey – you have forgotten that the Republicans are in charge.
Therefore they are responsible. Don’t try to blame others.
.. and Putin is still grinning.
At idiots like you. I do too.
doris…sorry, lost my place while posting
doris…”I understand physics enough to know that the BP would continue to radiate according to its temperature, even if another plate is placed nearby”.
I answered this in another reply to you but in Swannie’s (not Swenson) original experiment he set up a BP in an evacuated bell jar. He did not specify the material used and I presumed metal. I also presumed the GP, when raised in front of the BP was metal of the same size.
If you have a sheet of metal with negligibly thin dep-th, as opposed to length and width, just about all its radiation will emerge from either side of its length/width side. If you put a metal shield (GP) right in front of one side of the BP it will absorb the electric field of the emitted EM and negate it. That action will also raise the temperature of the GP and so will absorp-tion of the EM by electrons in the GP.
Unless the GP temperature exceeds the temp of the BP, it cannot transfer heat to the BP. Swannie’s argument is that a cooler GP can transfer heat to the BP, explaining why the BP warms when the GP is raised in front of it.
You are arguing that q = sigma.T^4 will continue at the same intensity regardless of whether the GP is raised in front of it. That’s not true. There is another equation that explains a mass radiating near another surface or in an ambient atmosphere of T colder.
If a mass at temp Thot is radiating into room air at Tcold then q = e.sigma.A[Thot^4 – Tcold^4], where q = the rate of dissipation of heat from the mass. Obviously, the degree of radiation is affected by the difference of Thot – Tcold. That makes sense. If T hot = T cold then we have thermal equilibrium and no heat is transferred. If T cold > T hot, mass T hot stops radiating and warms via absorp-tion. If T hot > T cold, then heat is transferred T hot to T cold.
It seems obvious to me that a mass at temp T hot can sense a nearby plate T cold just as it can sense the temperature of the air surrounding it at T cold, possibly by some kind of feedback. If the electrons in the mass T hot are emitting quanta at a certain rate, it would seem to expect that quanta to keep moving away from it in a typical inverse square law manner.
If a metal plate nearby is absorbing that quanta and setting up an electric current in the metal (Eddy currents), that current will set up its own EM field which will likely interfere with the original EM field from the mass at T hot.
At ant rate, the EM field due to the Eddy currents, is likely sensed by the electrons in the T hot mass. This phenomenon is used in electric motors as a brake. EM absorbed by a metal cylinder. In this case it’s the magnetic portion of the EM wave that opposes the magnetic field that produced it. If that cancels the EM field in the BP, then the BP cannot radiate at the same rate, and the BP warms.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
“Thats my story and Im sticking to it.”
A very good fairy tale.
Hansel and Gretel say
“It seems obvious to me that a mass at temp T hot can sense a nearby plate T cold just as it can sense the temperature of the air surrounding it at T cold, possibly by some kind of feedback.”
That’s a good story, but in reality the plate just radiates according to its temperature and nothing else.
Gordo begins his rant about my demonstration with:
From my Green Plate paper:
Gordo apparently didn’t read my paper very closely. The fabricated plates were each 1/4 inch thick aluminum coated with flat black paint over the original anodized coating.
The rest of the rant is his usual delusional physics.
Looks like Pangburn threw you under the bus, Swanson. Unless you can explain why his criticisms of Hughes experiments don’t equally apply to yours:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-510582
DRsEMT forgets my previous critiques of Hughes’ experiment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2020-0-76-deg-c/#comment-442024
…and you forget those critiques were already discussed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2020-0-76-deg-c/#comment-442118
But that is not what Pangburn is getting at:
“In simple terms, the blue plate, before the green plate is installed, ‘sees’ radiation from the room, etc. at ambient temperature. After the green plate is installed the blue plate ‘sees’ radiation from the green plate, etc. also at ambient temperature. Oblivious to the experimenter, the environment for the blue plate has not changed thermally. There is no reason for the temperature of the blue plate to change. The experiment demonstrated exactly what a skilled engineer/scientist with an understanding of heat transfer phenomena would expect. This experiment has nothing to do with the GHE which partially shields the earth’s surface from the 3 K or so background temperature of space.”
DRsEMT wrote:
And you forget that: Hughes’ experiment was deeply flawed. For starters, he setup can’t measure the temperature of his Blue plate:
etc, etc, etc…
Already discussed.
Now…“In simple terms, the blue plate, before the green plate is installed, ‘sees’ radiation from the room, etc. at ambient temperature. After the green plate is installed the blue plate ‘sees’ radiation from the green plate, etc. also at ambient temperature. Oblivious to the experimenter, the environment for the blue plate has not changed thermally. There is no reason for the temperature of the blue plate to change.”
That’s true for your experiment too, right Swanson?
DRsEMT, Your posts contained no rebuttal to my point about Hughes’ temperature measurement. His thermometer is not placed within the Blue plate such that it is actually reading the plate’s temperature.
Pangburn’s comment has no bearing on my demonstration, since both plates are contained within the bell jar. The energy supplied to the Blue plate results in it’s temperature becoming greater than the surrounding bell jar before the Green plate is moved upwards. After the Green plate is lifted, the temperature of the Blue plate increases further.
“DRsEMT, Your posts contained no rebuttal to my point about Hughes’ temperature measurement.”
Yes, they did. You then responded with another comment, I asked you what your point was, but you never clarified. All there for anyone to read, if they wish. But this is all besides the point. According to Pangburn, there was no reason for Hughes to expect his blue plate to rise in temperature in any case. You are (and always have been) acting like he should have been expecting that. Hence you bothered to critique his experiments in the first place, because you seemed surprised by the results, that the temperature did not increase.
Pangburn said:
“In simple terms, the blue plate, before the green plate is installed, ‘sees’ radiation from the room, etc. at ambient temperature. After the green plate is installed the blue plate ‘sees’ radiation from the green plate, etc. also at ambient temperature. Oblivious to the experimenter, the environment for the blue plate has not changed thermally.“
I’m not following from your response why you believe this does not apply equally to your experiment. Before the green plate is raised into position, the blue plate sees radiation from the room, etc, at ambient temperature, through the bell jar. Yes? And the rest also applies. No?
DRsEMT, In my experiment, the plates and their thermocouples are within a bell jar. They are not directly receiving thermal IR from the room. The bell jar does exchange thermal IR with the room and given that the jar is warmer than the room, thus that energy flows from the jar to the room. The Bell jar maintains a sealed high vacuum environment for the duration of the experiment.
Yes, before the Green plate is raised, the Blue plate exchanges energy with the Bell jar, again, the flow is from the warmer plate to the jar. The experiment was run long enough so that the temperatures of the plates stopped increasing, then the Green plate was raised and the temperatures of both plates increased further.
Youall have not as yet explained how the Blue plate could warm without the action of back radiation from the Green plate.
Swanson, in Hughes experiments, the plates and the thermometer are within a transparent vacuum chamber. They are not directly receiving thermal IR from the room. The vacuum chamber does exchange thermal IR with the room and given that the chamber is warmer than the room, thus that energy flows from the chamber to the room. The vacuum chamber maintains a sealed high vacuum environment for the duration of the experiment.
Yes, before the Green plate is added, the Blue plate exchanges energy with the chamber, again, the flow is from the warmer plate to the chamber.
So, again, I ask: why do Pangburn’s criticisms not also apply to your experiment?
Either Pangburn is full of it with his criticisms, or you are, for pretending they don’t also apply to your experiment. You don’t get to both be right.
DRsEMT, In his experiment, Hughes failed to accurately measure the temperature of his Blue plate. He didn’t attempt to measure the temperature of his Green plate.
His use of a mechanical vacuum gauge is not a proof of his attaining a “high vacuum”, which I was able to provide for my experiment using a better gauge. In his second “improved” experiment, he used a 40 watt bulb at the bottom of his glass tube, which would drive a strong convective flow if there was even a minute quantity of air remaining within the chamber.
My Blue plate was heated via an external light source which was carefully masked to illuminate only the Blue plate. It’s true that the light source also emitted IR radiation, much of which was intercepted by the bell jar, but the illumination was a constant for the entire experimental run. The run was continued until the temperatures of the plates stopped increasing, which Hughes did not do.
Pangburn’s criticisms were directed toward Hughes experiment, not my efforts.
You are repeating your previous criticisms of Hughes experiments, which have already been discussed, as anybody can read, and deliberately missing the point I am making.
So, again, I ask: why do Pangburn’s criticisms not also apply to your experiment?
Either Pangburn is full of it with his criticisms, or you are, for pretending they don’t also apply to your experiment. You don’t get to both be right
Dre,
It was Hughes who demonstrated incompetence. Swanson obviously understands the engineering/physics of heat transfer, considered potential confounding factors and set up a valid experiment.
Why do your criticisms not apply equally to Swanson’s experiment?
*crickets*
Dre,
Swanson “set up a valid experiment” and Hughes did not. The criticism of Hughes’ faulty experiment does not apply to Swanson’s valid one. If you had any understanding of heat transfer phenomena, you might have recognized that; at least after it was described in detail.
So…you don’t have an actual answer.
Dre,
Apparently not an answer that can be comprehended by someone lacking understanding of heat transfer phenomena.
Just literally no answer.
I did a little digging, and may have found the inspiration for Gordons nonsense:
Page 127, The Secret Life of Metals,
– Unbeknownst to so-called experts, God has equipped metallic substances with an array of sensors. These sensors are able to detect the magnetic field of an intruder – whereby an alarm is sounded and defensive measures are put into action. These measures include the reduction of radiative output, which serves to conserve energy and increase temperature.
The invading metal is kept at bay for fear of getting too close and melting. –
(Crackpot Publishing, 2012)
Well done. Hands up who else has been reading this book!
And so the idiots not only admit it, they are proud of it!
Those people who oppose
the death penalty could
propose this alternative —
Reading all the comments here
three times.
richard…conversely, anyone who makes such a comment without supplying an intelligent input is already dead.
Various people seem to deny that a vacuum flask reduces the rate of temperature change of its contents. Two highly reflective surfaces, separated by a vacuum, in essence.
If you accept Thermos reality, work out the reality of what is happening in terms of interactions between photons and matter. It still wont support a GHE.
“Relationship frequency vs temperature. Planks Law.”
*The wavelength of the emitted radiation is inversely proportional to its frequency, or λ = c/ν. The value of Planck’s constant is defined as 6.62607015 × 10−34 joule∙second.*
Nice try. But, as usual, completely wrong. Planck’s law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body. It effectively tells you how many photons are emitted at each frequency. Therefore you can have two photons of equal frequency coming from two different sources at different temperatures. For the umpteenth time:
THE PHOTONS CARRY NO INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR SOURCE TEMPERATURE.
Even my cat understands this.
The photons at the peak of the spectrum are directly related to the emission temperature by WDL. Those photons carry the “information about their source temperature”.
see cat’s reply below.
clint…” Those photons carry the information about their source temperature”.
Agreed. The intensity E and the frequency f tells you the likely temperature from which the photon emanated. That’s why the frequencies/wavelength in the EM spectrum have colour temperatures. It’s also how Stefan was able to attain the T^4 relationship between the temperature of a body and its EM.
Photons with the same frequency do not have different intensities.
I repeat, intensity only refers to the NUMBER of photons at a particular frequency.
How hard is it to understand such a basic concept!
student…”intensity only refers to the NUMBER of photons at a particular frequency.
How hard is it to understand such a basic concept!”
Obviously pretty tough for you.
The intensity, E, is the difference in electron volts between electron orbital energy states in the atom. The frequency is the angular velocity of the electron, the number of times it orbits per second.
You are fudging now. What do you mean by “the likely temperature” ? That is just crap.
Admit it, you cannot define a temperature given just frequency.
BTW: the units (spectral radiant emittance) are (W cm−2 μm−1).
Gordon,
Sorry but Quantum Theory says this is wrong
“The frequency is the angular velocity of the electron, the number of times it orbits per second.”
The electrons orbit the nucleus idea was dumped in the trash a long time ago.
That idea was replaced with the concept that the location of the electron bound to a nucleus is determined by a probability density function.
ClintR,
You have been found guilty of making shit up again,
“Those photons carry the information about their source temperature.”
Nope, photons can only carry three pieces of information according to the modern Standard Model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#:~:text=The%20Standard%20Model%20of%20particle%20physics%20is%20the%20theory%20describing,classifying%20all%20known%20elementary%20particles.
Those three pieces are two for the direction of travel and one for the energy/wavelength/frequency.
bob, you have been found guilty of being an idiot again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
Have you made up any more equations yet? Your last one was a hoot.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511101
ClintR,
That law is for the peak wavelength, not the actual individual photon wavelengths that could be emitted from an object.
Go ahead, keep on demonstrating that you don’t know what you are going on about.
But keep going, you and the my little pony show are keeping me amused.
Have you made up any more equations yet? Your last one was a hoot.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511101
ClintR demonstrates he doesn’t understand one concept and Gish gallops to another and demonstrates he doesn’t understand that one either.
Thanks for the compliment, bob. But the reality is, I’m nowhere close to Dr. Gish.
We all have to live with reality, like the fact that you’re an idiot:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511101
ClintR,
I’ll remind you that endlessly repeating that that equation is bogus doesn’t make it so.
Your equation is bogus, bob.
And that makes you a fraud.
studentb,
Now that your cat has told you all about quantum mechanics, maybe you can ask your cat why you can’t heat water with ice, using all of the more energetic photons that you claim are being emitted from a body below 0 C.
As you say, the water doesn’t know how hot it is, and the photons from the ice don’t know where they came from!
Typical alarmist. The usual dummy who doesn’t realise that Watts/m2 does not measure temperature. Doesn’t realise he can’t even define temperature using his cat’s knowledge of quantum mechanics. Boasts about being as smart as a cat.
I repeat, the frequency is f, what is the source temperature?
studentb,
I repeat, how are you going using all your theoretical hot ice photons to make some water hotter? Has your cat been any more successful? Maybe you need to ask your cat more forcefully.
Miaowww.
(translation: tell me the temperature please)
“Now that your cat has told you all about quantum mechanics, maybe you can ask your cat why you cant heat water with ice, using all of the more energetic photons that you claim are being emitted from a body below 0 C.”
Maybe our strawman specialist can directly quote someone, anyone, making this idiotic claim that he so artfully deconstructs.
bobdroege appears to be smarter that studentbs cat, at least.
bobdroege –
*in reality the plate just radiates according to its temperature and nothing else.* Wow, just wow!
Riouw.
(translation: this guy is dumber than the dog)
Zzzzz.
(translation: Zzzzz)
Purr.
(translation: even the dog is fast asleep)
student…”Plancks law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body. It effectively tells you how many photons are emitted at each frequency”.
Huh? When Planck put out that law the photon was unknown. Planck never talked about photons, he talked about quanta. His spectral relationship was an answer to the conundrum of the ultraviolet catastrophe. The intensity of EM energy was seen to increase with its frequency so eventually, beyond the UV range, the intensity should head toward infinity.
Planck reasoned that the intensity had a statistical relationship to frequency based on the probability that higher intensity wavelengths would be less frequent. Hence, he built in a fudge factor to the equation to dampen it as frequency increased. You can see the fudge factor as the exponential, e^x in the denominator. Rather than the equation heading to infinity, it now falls off exponentially to form a Bell curve.
Nothing to do with photons. The origins of the photon come from Einstein and his photoelectric effect circa 1905. He reasoned that particles of EM could be absorbed/emitted and Planck noted that what he called heat rays were absorbed and emitted in discrete quanta. The word photon was not used till 1926.
Einstein insisted that no one knows if light is a wave or a series of particles. However, although Planck’s distribution is supposed to represent individual oscillators they are described using frequency/wavelength, the terminology of a wave.
Let’s make it simple. Forget about photons.
A radiometer detects incoming radiation with a frequency f.
What was the temperature of the source?
Answer: You can’t tell, because objects emit radiation over a wide spectrum (described by Planck’s Law). i.e. you can detect a whole range of frequencies from an object which is at a single temperature.
(Even the cat is bored now)
Let’s make it even simpler. According to your imagination, you can warm water with ice. You claim ice is emitting photons which have energy higher than those emitted by frozen water.
Why can’t you use ice to make water hotter? Cat got your tongue?
By the way, if the frequency is f, the temperature was t. Go away troll.
Just answer the question. What is the temperature?
I’d like to hear the answer as well. A photon has a frequency f. What is the equation that relates f to the temperature t of the body that emitted the photon?
A right pair of idiots. Refuse to accept an answer, because it makes them look stupid. Too lazy to look up a formula on the Internet. Do your own work. Are you really that stupid?
I can’t find a formula on the internet that relates a photon’s frequency f to the temperature t of the body that emitted it.
Yes bdgwx, the internet is a poor place to learn physics.
b,
If you believe you know the answer, why indulge in a pointless charade? If you dont, why ask me?
I suggest you learn physics.
Do you still want updates on that catastrophic antarctic sea ice meltdown ? or no
https://bit.ly/3h3tcm4
Eben
You still are the same stubborn manipulator.
No one speaks about any ‘catastrophic sea ice meltdown’, excepted those who love to discredit others.
Here is a much more accurate representation of the absence of what you uselessly try to destillate:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bg7XDrP5JipQWuu6NWPej7v4YBfZrTuD/view
It represents the daily sum of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent.
Meltdown? Who is dumb enough to pretend that???
*
Try this time to reply in a manner less dumb than previously:
You have been acting like a total alarmist nutjob ever since you got here and now you tell us you’re no warmista , some king of self delusion on top of it.
This too stupid for me.
*
At least you keep away from the stoopid claim about our Moon’s allegedly inexistent spin about its center of mass.
J.-P. D.
Should we tell Eben that the melt season in Antarctica ended several months ago?
Miouw!
How do you know if the frequency of a photon is from the peak or the wings of the spectrum?
You can’t tell. Again, you have no information.
(and absolutely no idea what you are talking about)
student…”How do you know if the frequency of a photon is from the peak or the wings of the spectrum”?
It comes from the frequency of the emitting electron.
But wait, how does a particle have a frequency?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
studentb,
You can make water warmer with ice. You are more powerful than a locomotive, faster than a speeding bullet, and you can leap tall buildings at a single bound.
Not everything your cat tells you is true.Maybe you are actually fat, lonely, bitter and ignorant. Have you asked your cat?
Frequency f, temperature = ?
Answer please.
studentb,
Dimwit. Frequency f, temperature = t.
How are you going using all the spare energy from ice, to heat water? Answer, please.
Not an answer. What is the temperature?
Swenson (aka: Mike F) ignores the fact that ice emits thermal IR radiation which acts just like the IR radiation from other solid materials. As I demonstrated in my Ice Plate experiment, that IR radiation can cause an increase in the temperature of a heated body, just as the Green plate warms the Blue plate in the GPE.
Thanks for admitting you have no clue about physics, Swanson. That goes along nicely with your inability to conduct experiments correctly.
Cli,
You apparently lack an understanding of heat transfer phenomena given your failure to recognize that Swanson obviously does. Swanson has performed several valid experiments that demonstrate the phenomena in question.
Dan, I’m glad to see someone willing to support poor Swanson.
Please provide a schematic of the energy flows, including temperatures of course, for his bogus experiment.
You janitors have to stick together.
Cli,
Again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of heat transfer phenomena. I will try to keep it simple enough for you to understand. Energy flows from higher temperature to lower temperature. Swanson’s results provide the temperatures. His test setup provides the configuration from which the resistances to the energy flow and thus the magnitudes of energy flow can be determined.
This is a straight-forward problem that engineers who are competent in heat-transfer analysis know how to solve, but many science types have no idea how to even begin. I could solve it easily (albeit time consuming), including the temperature transients, using any general purpose heat-transfer analysis program like SINDA or even a simpler one that I wrote decades ago that runs on a PC. It would require inputs including emissivity of surfaces and view factors as well as contact thermal resistances and the usual thermal conductivities and specific heats of the materials of construction.
Thermal analysis is usually done to estimate/predict what will happen in the real physical device before it is built. Since the experiment has already been done and actual data are available, an analysis adds nothing.
You are in way over your head here and your arrogance just makes it worse.
The famous Ice Plate Experiment that proves what we already knew, that radiative insulation works via reflectivity and not back-radiation.
Correcting DREMT to observed reality yet again: radiative insulation works via reflectivity and back-radiation (DREMT term).
Incorrect.
Dan, you could have just said you don’t have a clue.
bdg…”Gravity puts a torque on body A when A’s center of mass and center of gravity are displaced”.
Ever heard of a torque wrench? A torque is produced when a force is applied to a level arm. The torque wrench level arm is about 12″ to 18″ and applying a force to the handle torques a bolt head and the amount of force added to the lever arm is indicated on a scale.
Torque wrenches come in foot-pounds or inch-pounds and I’m sure there is a metric equivalent. If you add one pound of force on a foot long lever arm it produces a torque of 1 foot-pound at the axis on the other end of the lever arm.
How do you get such a torque on the Moon or the Earth if the force is uniform across either body? If you could fire a whole bunch of rockets tangentially on the Moon’s surface it might start to rotate about its axis.
Riaow!
(translation: even the dog (who weighs 10 kg) uses the metric system. He demands a 5km walk every day. I couldn’t be bothered, I get exhausted just reading the tripe here)
studentb,
Ah hah! A fat, lazy, and stupid alarmist!
Go away, troll
How many meters would you like me to go?
GR said: How do you get such a torque on the Moon or the Earth if the force is uniform across either body?
The gravitational force is not uniform across the Earth or Moon. This tidal force distorts the bodies forming a bulge. The bulge forms along the perpendicular line between the center of mass of both bodies. The bulge is the lever-like protrusion by which gravity acts upon to torque the body. For the Moon, which is tidally locked to the Earth, the rotational inertia tries to shift the bulge away from the perpendicular line but is countered by the opposing torque from the Earth. For the Earth, which has a faster rotational angular velocity than the Moon’s orbital angular velocity, the bulge puts a braking torque on Earth’s rotation causing it to slow down. There are explanation you can easily find by googling that articular and describe the tidal forces far better than I so I encourage you to look them up.
bdgwx, how long have you been obsessed with such nonsense?
bdgwx, Gordon is of the opinion that the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis, like the other charlatans. So arguments based on moon rotational inertia will fail with Gordon.
Imagine a barbell with 10# on one side, 50# on the other, you drop it level on earth at STP and there will be no rotation induced by gravity alone during the fall. Now what happens when the barbell with nonuniform mass is rotating before it is dropped, what happens for gravitional torques?
Ball4, I’m absolutely amazed! You got some physics correct: “…and there will be no rotation induced by gravity alone during the fall.”
You and Tim F. are the only “rotators” that have admitted that.
Let’s put the rotating barbell, with uneven ends, in high enough orbit the atmosphere is not a factor. Then, it will keep rotating. Gravity can not create a torque, and it takes a “reverse” torque to stop the rotation. That’s why it’s unlikely Moon was ever rotating about its axis.
Uneven barbell will keep rotating just like moon until locked just like moon rotate once on its axis per orbit. I see the charlatans are unusually thick today.
You started out on the right track, but you then derailed yourself.
Getting very slightly back on track, according to NASA, Wikipedia, and Government bodies, the Greenhouse Effect is a *process*. There doesnt appear to be a Greenhouse Theory, so all references to such are imaginary.
“Warming Greenland ice sheet passes point of no return.”
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-greenland-ice-sheet.html
StudentB,
Swenson uses the same debate tactic over and over – when he cant answer a question (which is more often than not), he simply asks a question instead. And while that works for him now, it didnt go over so well during his school years:
Test question, 5th grade math:
what is 247 divided by 19?
Stumped, frustrated and angry, the young Swenson responds: why do rabbits have whiskers?
DW, maybe you haven’t been here long enough to know what is going on. The troll “studentb” is attempting a “gotcha question”. He has an agenda to make it appear all photons will cause a surface temperature increase. That false hope is necessary to promote the GHE.
Swenson is just letting studentb know that his tricks won’t work.
The so-called gotcha question has succeeded brilliantly.
Everybody can clearly see where the crackpots got it wrong.
But I don’t expect any thanks for helping with their education.
Trolls only fool other trolls.
ClintR
Confirmation Bias:
– For example, a person may cherry-pick empirical data that supports one’s belief, ignoring the remainder of the data that is not supportive. –
StudentB asked a straightforward, relevant question. You call it a gotcha because the correct answer might poke a hole in your belief system. Chickenshit science.
Crackpots fear scrutiny.
Exactly DW. You, and studentb, ignored my answer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511174
That’s a perfect example of your confirmation bias. And then you followed up with obscene language and insults.
Your false name was the first clue. Now you are fully exposed, just another uneducated, immature troll.
ClintR and others
Your discussion of the possibility that gravity can create a torque reminded me of this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6308669/
This is the rotating accelerometer gravimetric gradiometer.
A similar instrument was invented by Robert Forward and called the Forward Mass Detector.I
Larry Niven wrote a story in which a spacecraft made a close hyperbolic orbit around a neutron star, called Neutron Star.
His spacecraft stabilised nose down to the star and kept pointing towards the star throughout, so it rotated during periastron.
Unfortunately Niven made one mistake. The spacecraft would have been spun up during periastron and kept the spin.
Entropic man, there is no “possibility that gravity can create a torque”.
Gravity gradient stabilisation generates a torque which stabilizes a satellite with its long axis perpendicular to the surface.
Perhaps you should tell the satellite engineers that “there is no possibility that gravity can create a torque. It would be interesting to see if their GGS systems stopped working.
Manmade satellites suffer something called “atmospheric drag”.
Look it up and learn, or remain an idiot.
Are you saying that atmospheric drag keeps a satellite’s major axis pointed towards Earth’s center of mass?
bdgwx, you are an idiot. Did you forget? You believe the wooden horse is “rotating about its axis”.
You never gets the physics right. How many times have you avoided learning?
You have no credibility.
b,
Are you trying to put words in his mouth?
You never gets the physics right. How many times have you avoided learning?
Help me out…Are you saying that atmospheric drag keeps a satellite’s major axis pointed towards Earth’s center of mass? If no then what does atmospheric drag have to do with anything?
bdgwx, I don’t try to teach physics to idiots.
Until you can admit that the wooden horse is not rotating about its axis, you are an idiot.
In the meantime I guess I’ll just have to accept that gravity can put a torque on body, the Moon is rotating, that the GHE is a real phenomenon, and that the St. Louis Cardinals beat the Chicago White sox twice today.
The question is whether the moon is rotating on its own axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif
bdgwx, you are an idiot. Did you forget? You believe the wooden horse is “rotating about its axis”.
You never gets the physics right. How many times have you avoided learning?
You have no credibility.
I hope I’m not repeating myself….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511164
DR EMPTY,
You are spinning like the Moon with your circular logic.
Premise: The Moon is not spinning on its axis
Conclusion: Therefore the Moon is not spinning on its axis.
Pretty funny, ever take a logic class?
Straw man.
After that would you mind explaining in your own words how a NDIR sensor works?
b . . . ,
Either you know, and are trying for a gotcha, or you dont, and are stupid.
Why dont you ask a manufacturer?
I’m interested in hearing from a GHE contrarian.
b,
And I should be interested in your desires because . . .? Feeling self important and full of yourself are you?
There is also gravity gradient stabilisation, which keeps a spacecraft’s long axis pointed towards the centre of the Earth.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/spacecraft-dynamics-and-control/gravity-gradient-stabilization/2E924B9B5C8A1B130F272901071D4D58
There is also devotion to a false religion.
You need to first understand the simple wooden horse on a merry-go-round before you confuse yourself with links you can’t understand.
Baby steps….
ClintR: “I dont try to teach physics to idiots.”
The idiots refused to be made more stupid !
Hopefully….
It’s also called tidal stabilization. It’s the same phenomenon that causes the Moon (and other astronomical bodies) to achieve and sustain tidal lock.
Tidal lock – which from the “Non-Spinner” perspective is a state in which the moon does not rotate on its own axis. Just like the wooden horse, locked onto the platform of the carousel, the same face is always pointed towards the center of the orbit.
Except, DR EMPTY,
The face of the Moon is not exactly pointed at the Earth, nor to the center of the orbit, like the my little pony is actually pointed at a direction always 90 degrees from the center of the carousel.
Fine, the same side of the wooden horse is always pointed towards the center of the orbit.
DR EMPTY,
Which makes my little pony a totally worthless model for discussing whether or not the Moon is rotating or not.
Why, because it doesn’t literally face towards the center of the orbit!? blob, if it means that much to you, you can mentally remove the bolts, turn the wooden horse 90 degrees, then bolt it back down again if you like.
ER EMPTY,
You are missing the point again.
The point is not that it is pointing in different directions but always 90 degrees from the center of the carousel, the point is the Moon is not always pointing in the same direction, it wobbles or librates.
Which my little pony does not do, which makes my little pony a bad model for the motion of the Moon.
Model bad, bad model.
You have missed the point of the wooden horse, if you believe it is meant to capture every nuance of the moon’s orbital motion.
But missing the point is what you do best.
DR EMPTY,
That’s what it has to do in order to explain the motion of the Moon, if you claim it’s like the my little pony on the carousel but it doesn’t move like the Moon, then something is wrong with your theory.
Your theory that the Moon doesn’t rotate on it’s axis does not fit the observations of the Moon, so kindly put it in the rubbish bin where it belongs.
The wooden horse doesn’t need to move exactly as per the moon. Roughly will suffice, for the point being made.
DR EMPTY,
Roughly don’t work in science.
It’s only your opinion that the Moon doesn’t rotate.
Scientific facts say otherwise.
Roughly will suffice, for the point being made.
Rubbish,
Your model is wrong.
Your conclusion is wrong, you initial premise is wrong, your logic is circular.
#2
Roughly will suffice, for the point being made.
DR EMPTY,
If you have to ignore data to make your point, then you are not making that point.
Correct bob, DREMT ignores observation of reality; DREMT just makes stuff up for the continuing entertainment of the local commenters.
#3
Roughly will suffice, for the point being made.
In my line of work, that would be fraud, I’d be cuffed and stuffed, if I ignored data that did not support my claims.
#4
Roughly will suffice, for the point being made.
bob, you are a fraud.
Your “valid thermodynamic equation”, Q/t= sigma(Th – Tc)
ClintR,
Sorry, I left the exponents off.
Q/t = sigma (Th^4-Tc^4)
you got me
That’s not all that is wrong.
If you’re going to start correcting your nonsense, you’ve got a long way to go.
CLintR,
What about this gold gem from you
“If a photon has an IR frequency F, but encounters a molecule with a higher frequency, the photon gets reflected.”
Where did you get that one?
Is pretty funny
You just can’t understand my clear description. That’s not my problem.
Your made-up equation is a horrible perversion of reality.
ClintR:
– Exactly DW. You, and studentb, ignored my answer. –
Your answer?
The question I am referring to had not yet been asked. Here:
– I repeat, the frequency is f, what is the source temperature? –
Or more clearly:
– Lets make it simple. Forget about photons.
A radiometer detects incoming radiation with a frequency f.
What was the temperature of the source? –
Your alleged answer is really just a statement:
– The photons at the peak of the spectrum are directly related to the emission temperature by WDL. Those photons carry the information about their source temperature. –
–
How do know if the incoming radiation, with frequency f, was from the peak or tail of an emissions curve?
The photons at the peak of the spectrum are directly related to the emission temperature by WDL.
Try to understand my answers.
Also, learn how to place your comments like an adult. You keep moving down the thread, like you can’t figure it out.
We already have enough incompetent trolls here.
Wrong again. You are assuming the photons you have detected come from the peak. If they don’t, WDL is of no use to you.
So I repeat, given f, what is the source temperature ?
Wrong again, studentbs. I didn’t assume anything. I provided the correct physics.
Try to understand my comments.
We already have enough incompetent trolls here.
“We already have enough incompetent trolls here.”
Speak for yourself.
ClintR,
Trolls and their gotchas! The idiots are trying to imply that a useful percentage of photons emitted from a real body carry energy greater than those at the peak of the spectrum. They refuse to accept the reality that you cant heat water using ice.
For alarmists, ignorance is bliss.
In their perverted physics, if you add more ice, you’re adding more “heat”. Just as in their GHE belief, if you add more CO2, you’re adding more “heat”.
Reality always catches up to idiots.
Guys, if you cannot answer the question I suggest you stop digging. You have been comprehensively exposed as nincompoops when it comes to basic physics.
studentb,
Why should I respond to your gotcha? If you don’t already know the answer, you are stupid. If you do know the answer, pretending you don’t makes you both stupid and a troll.
We both know the answer. The problem is that you cannot bring yourself to say it aloud and expose for all to see your utter ignorance to date.
It doesn’t really matter, since everybody can see what is going on.
How do know if the incoming radiation, with frequency f, was from the peak or tail of an emissions curve?
Good question. And here’s a follow up. How does a photon know if it was emitted by a black body? What do we do if it was emitted by gray body?
bdgwx, how do we know if you are an idiot or not?
Easy. You believe that the wooden horse, bolted to the platform, is rotating on its axis.
You’re an idiot.
Everybody can see you are struggling. Can’t answer a simple question so reverts to some irrelevant distraction.
What a loser!
Sorry bs, I don’t try to teach physics to idiots.
ClintR
You don’t have a certificate to teach physics, now do you?
studentb,
Are you really so stupid that you don’t know the answer? Why would you assume that ClintR and myself are are the custodians of all physical knowledge?
“I don’t try to teach physics to idiots.”
Thats because the idiots avoid you like the plague – they cannot afford to be made dumber.
Only Swenson listens to your rubbish.
studentb,
It is obvious that you cannot afford to be any dumber. Will avoiding reality make you any smarter?
A good point bdgwx.
Idiot 1 agrees with idiot 2. One hundred percent consensus that both are idiots.
☺
ClintR
If one side of the moon continuously faced the sun during its orbit around Earth, we would say the moon IS NOT rotating WRT the sun.
Using the same scenario, but from a vantage point on Earth, we would no longer see just one side of the moon, but rather a continuously changing face. We would therefore say the moon IS rotating WRT Earth.
The reality is just the opposite.
The reality is Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
I say it is.
The dog says it isn’t.
The master tells us both to shut up.
Say it all you want, bs. No one but idiots believes your bs.
As I expected. You are as stupid as the dog you agree with. Why not go outside and chase a car?
studentb,
Because you are a pointless troll?
doris…”We would therefore say the moon IS rotating WRT Earth”.
Nope. The apparent rotation is a property of the Moon’s orbit as it performs curvilinear translation. The apparent rotation is actually a continuously changing position due to the constraints of the orbit.
Doris Dimwit,
You would therefore say whatever errant notion possessed you at the time. Who would pay attention?
Funny thing. Our darling couple, Clint and Swenson, ask questions like how could you raise the temperature of water using ice, believing that if they are unable to think up a way, it must be impossible. This is an example of the hubris so common among skeptics.
Ie, – If it seems impossible to ME, it must be impossible, and anyone who says otherwise is stupid.
Took me maybe 5 minutes to find a fairly obvious method, a little longer for a couple of others.
Let me guess…you surround the water in something colder than ice, then switch to ice, and claim that the ice has warmed the water?
DREMT,
Let him make a fool of himself. I dont think hes realised that water is liquid. Once hes turned the water into ice, all the ice in the world wont turn it back into water again.
Oh wait. I forgot. He has a secret hidden heat source, imaginary of course. My bad.
doris…”Clint and Swenson, ask questions like how could you raise the temperature of water using ice, believing that if they are unable to think up a way, it must be impossible”.
Clint and Swenson are talking known science. Do you know of a way to raise the temperature of water by radiating it with the IR from ice? You can’t even raise the temperature of water at 20C by radiating it with the radiation from water at 20C or below.
And if you happened to be in an ice field in winter, with ambient T < 0C, why does radiation from the ice not warm you? Rather, you will eventually die through losing heat to such an environment, if you are not properly insulated and nourished.
Gordon,in that situation you would prefer the higher temperature of the warmer water ice over colder dry ice or deep space. Just like you do on Earth surface, on avg about 33K warmer due the opacity of the 1bar atm.
Doris,
you can lead a horse to water but ….etc. etc.
bobd..”Or how does a photon know the temperature of the object that emitted it?”
It’s in the frequency. Planck’s curve represents an infinite series of imaginary oscillators each one representing a certain frequency. For each frequency in the visible portion of the spectrum there is a colour temperature. That means if you heated a piece of iron hotter and hotter, it would begin glowing red, just above the IR spectrum, then move through a series of colours (tempering colours if you will) till it iss glowing white hot. Each frequency in the visible spectrum is related to a colour and a temperature.
You have to be careful when using the word photon since it represents an imaginary particle with momentum but no mass. Talking about photons ‘knowing’ something or other is purely fiction. The real science has more to do with resonance.
An electron in an orbit, fictitious or not, orbits at a certain rate, or frequency, depending on the temperature of mass in which the atoms and associated electrons are found. If you increase the temperature, the electrons move to a higher orbital, a higher kinetic energy, and a higher frequency. If you raise the temperature enough, the electrons will jump right out of orbit and become free. That’s why uv frequencies and above are emitted from very hot objects.
If an electron is orbiting at so many times per second and it encounters and EM wave/quanta vibrating at a lower frequency, the EM has no effect on the electron.
The EM frequencies in communications are not temperature-dependent since the EM is generated in another manner. Electrons are run up and down an antenna at a high frequency and they create an electromagnetic field. It’s similar to the EM fields produced by electric motors and transformers. However, the concept of resonance is similar.
Communications systems are dependent on resonant circuits where an electron current is exchanged rapidly between an inductor and a capacitor, for example. In order to affect such a resonant circuit you must hit it with a pulse that enhances the resonant oscillation. A tuned resonant circuit will progressively reject frequencies outside the centre frequency of the tuned circuit. I have no idea where the rejected energy goes.
An antenna that receives EM must be tuned to the frequency of the EM. Any EM outside the tuned frequency is simply rejected.
In an atom it is slightly different. It’s not just the frequency it’s the intensity that matters as well. In order for EM to be absorbed by an electron in an atom, it must have sufficient intensity to excite the electron to jump to a higher orbital energy level. EM from colder sources simply lack that intensity.
The logic is simply. The intensity, E, of an emitted quanta, is the difference in energy between orbital levels. In cooler bodies the difference is lower whereas in hotter objects the difference is greater.
It should be noted that emissions in hydrogen correspond to electron jumps over singular and multiple energy orbitals. These jumps are quantum and discrete, it’s all or nothing. The electron is simply in a higher orbital then, poof, it is in a lower orbital with no time element in the jump.
This may all be wrong physically, Bohr simply proposed the quantum orbitals as a theory. However, it worked, even though the actuality may be far different.
“Its in the frequency.”
You have got to be kidding!
Again, here is the frequency f, what is the source temperature?
(WDL doesn’t apply)
You cannot provide an answer other than inventing your own voodoo physics.
studentb,
Again, (and again and again), if frequency is f, then temperature is obviously t. I have typed this very slowly so you can understand.
f is for Fail in your case
That equation is for light, not matter, you guys need to pull out that Quantum Physics textbook, though I think you sold it to buy drugs.
Gordon,
Your science is totally out of date as usual.
Electrons do not orbit with a certain frequency. Bohr’s work has been updated.
In solids, metals and semi-metals the electron energy levels are very close together allowing the photons to be abbbbbbsrrrobed and emitted.
Gordon,
Another one for you to rethink,
This
“In cooler bodies the difference is lower whereas in hotter objects the difference is greater.”
Is not correct, the difference in energy levels has nothing to do with temperature.
You are just making stuff up cause it sounds like what you want to believe.
DRE,
– Let me guessyou surround the water in something colder than ice, then switch to ice, and claim that the ice has warmed the water?
Sure, that would work. This is not rocket science.
–
First example: put a pot of water over a little camp stove… someplace where its really cold, like – 40 F
Adjust the flame so the water is at a steady temp, just above freezing.
Now, surround the pot and stove with blocks of ice, like a little igloo.
The igloo will reduce convective heat loss, raising the ambient T surrounding the water.
The water will get warmer as a result, no need to turn up the flame.
Same idea, BTW, is how clothes manage to keep a person warm on a cold day. In this case – Ice instead of a jacket.
–
2nd example: prior to the winter freeze-up, there are chunks of ice floating around in the Arctic Ocean. Suppose the mean temperature of that ice is – 20 C.
Imagine if you could quickly raise the temperature of the ice to, say, – 5 C .
The ocean would likely warm by a few degrees.
All hypothetical of course, so no way to prove the result, but seems very reasonable to me.
3rd example: Chill a bucket of salty water to 28 F. Add a bunch of ice cubes that had been frozen by an ambient air temperature of 31 F.
The ice is warmer than the water, so the water will get a little warmer.
Doris Dimwit,
First, out pops the heat source to warm the water. Fail.
Second, just plain idiocy. Ice is frozen water. Minus 5 or minus 50, the water is above zero, you dolt. Fail.
Third, try turning your water into ice by keeping it above its freezing point. Oh I see. Youre playing with words! Now we have two types of water, ice and salt. Nice try. Maybe I should have been clearer. I assumed I was addressing someone of reasonable comprehension and intelligence. No extra heat source, no adding salt.
You cant raise the temperature of a warmer object by exposing it to radiation from a colder object, like alarmist GHE proponents claim. Back in your hole, troll.
Doris Dimwit,
I forgot to mention that you said your frozen fresh ice is warmer than the salt solution. Its fairly well known that you need a heat source to raise the temperature of an object. Maybe I should have stated the water was free of additives?
dan…”Swanson has performed several valid experiments that demonstrate the phenomena in question”.
I have credited swannie with setting up good experiments but unfortunately he arrived at the wrong conclusion. Given the history of the 2nd law since 1850, why would anyone doubt its veracity and claim that heat can be transferred, by its own means, from a colder object to a hotter object?
Why not look for an alternative explanation which is shouting out to be recognized? It’s a problem of heat dissipation and how blocking radiation can affect it. If you block the means of dissipating heat in a heated body its temperature will rise. That’s because the dissipation has already lowered the temperature.
Duh!!!
No one is claiming that heat can be transferred, by its own means, from a colder object to a hotter object. Swanson certainly isn’t. His apparatus is not isolated. It is receiving an influx of energy. It is not evolving by its own means.
That’s not accurate, bdgwx. The original plates nonsense involves that claim.
With the plates together, equilibrium is established:
Ein = Eout = 400A Joules
TBlue = TGreen = 244K
With the plates slightly apart, the (bogus) claim is:
Ein = Eout = 400A Joules
TBlue = 262 K (bogus value)
TGreen = 220 K (bogus value)
Notice that internal energy has moved from cold (TGreen) to hot (TBlue), without any additional energy going into the system. The thermal energy has been transferred, “by its own means”. A violation of 2nd Law.
Either you and Swanson are ignorant of thermodynamics, or purposely trying to pervert reality, or both.
Cli,
There is something wrong with your understanding. The energy has not moved from cold to hot. The energy comes to blue from the source at its left. If the green plate is warmer than what the blue plate ‘saw’ before the green plate was put there, the green plate slows the flow of heat from the right side of the blue so blue heats up. The 2nd law is not violated. Apparently you really don’t understand how this stuff works . . .
Either you, and Swanson, and Pangburn are ignorant of thermodynamics, or purposely trying to pervert reality, or both.
Cli,
It is disturbing that you obviously do not understand this stuff at all. Apparently you missed this: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511790 or are simply in denial.
Dan, slightly separating the plates does not change the properties of the plates. In the perfect situation intended (vacuum, no losses, emissivities = 1, etc.), no bulid up of internal energy would occur. You are trying to claim the green plate is a reflector. You’re trying to change the initial conditions.
You are incompetent, dishonest, or both.
ClintR continues to display a lack of understanding of heat transfer. The two or three plate cartoons from DRsEMT is incorrect as the plates are never in direct contact. For the three plate model to work, once separated, the two green plates must be cooler than the center heated blue plate. His model ignores the thermal IR radiation between the plates as he refuses to accept the evidence that the green plates emit the at the same rate from both sides.
ClintR (DRsEMT, etc) just keeps tossing out the same Red Herring, just to interrupt any effort at real scientific discussion. Don’t feed the sock puppet trolls…
Swanson, that comment is both incompetent and incoherent, indicating your desperation.
Here’s a more scientifically accurate version:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511762
ClintR blunders again: “without any additional energy going into the system.”
The sun is still shining adding additional energy going into the system so I notice ClintR blunders into turning off the sun in the stated problem. It’s entertaining watching & correcting all ClintR blunders just like a 3 ring circus.
Ein = Eout, troll Ball4.
There is no additional energy entering the system.
(I will not respond to nonsense.)
Ein new = Eout new; yet another ClintR blunder.
…that would be nonsense, Ball4.
Translated from the lunatic reference frame:
Nate gets everything right, so there’s no need to correct him. He cares about reality, and can learn easily.
Poor Svante. Unable to think for himself.
Phew, I got away with commenting in the wrong place.
Not quite.
How could you guess?
It was pretty obvious from context.
“Unable to think for himself.”
This from the most prolific poster of opinion pieces from ‘authority’ figures like PSI, Tesla and Sophistry!
#2
It was pretty obvious from context.
For the lurkers…the original BP/GP discussion comes from the Rabett Run blog.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
If the system to be analyzed only includes the BP and GP without the Sun (red) then there is an influx of energy into the system from the outside. Entropy decreases in this system. That is consistent with the 2LOT because the system is not evolving by its own means.
If the system to be analyzed also includes the Sun (as depicted graphically) then there is no influx of energy into the system from the outside. The system is evolving by its own means. Entropy is increasing in this system. This is consistent with the 2LOT.
There is no claim in that blog post that heat is moving from cold to hot or that entropy is decreasing by its own means. The “by its own means” clause is crucial here.
And Eli even states in the blog post that the GHE operates in a 3 body system. The hot body (Sun) transfers heat to a warm body (Earth) which then radiates that heat to a cold body (space). Heat is moving from hot to cold in this system. Entropy is increasing in this system. There is nothing inconsistent with the 2LOT in this system.
Swanson’s experiment confirms the concepts discussed in the blog post.
bdgwx, you’ve got internal energy piling up in the blue plate, with no additional energy being added. That’s a violation of 2nd Law. It can’t happen.
Either you, and Swanson, and Pangburn are ignorant of thermodynamics, or purposely trying to pervert reality, or both.
…and these experiments suggest that Eli was wrong:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
Dre,
Eli is right. Hughes did not understand his own experiments as I told you before at https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-510582
Dan, the two plates are together. Then slightly separated. The temperature of the blue plate then jumps 18 K, with no addtional energy and no restriction to energy leaving.
You’ve violated 2nd Law.
Either you’re ignorant or dishonest, or both.
What is particularly funny is that you claim Hughes should never have expected to see warming in his experiments…meanwhile, over the last few months, the rest of the GHE Defense Team have been attacking them on the basis that warming was expected, so have been trying to pick holes in every aspect of the experimental design, etc. in order to explain the results.
If only you had spoken up sooner…
According to Eli the blue plate has a constant supply of additional energy coming from the Sun.
additional:
adjective
added, extra, or supplementary to what is already present or available.
bdgwx, there is a constant input of energy, and a constant output. That means there is no new energy coming into the system. That means there is no way temperatures can reorganize.
You have no knowledge of thermodynamics. Don’t blame your incompetence on someone else. You have chosen to belief in a cult. You have no one to blame but yourself.
ClintR-DRsEMT, The problem isn’t just thermodynamics, it’s the combination of thermo and thermal IR radiation between the plates and with the surrounding environment.
The PROBLEM is the violation of the relevant laws.
For the BP/GP (sans the sun and space) system Ein > 0 and Eout > 0. It doesn’t matter if Ein – Eout = 0 or not. “by its own means” means the system has no exchange of matter or energy with the outside. If Ein > 0 or Eout > 0 then the system is NOT evolving “by its own means”. Eli’s description is consistent with the 2LOT.
On the other hand, both plates remaining at 244K is inconsistent with the 1LOT because the BP would be receiving 200 W/m^2 (via 400 from red on one side) plus 100 W/m^2 (via 200 from green on one side) equally 300 W/m^2 of input yet only radiating at 200 W/m^2 since the plate is at 244K. You’re effectively claiming 100 W/m^2 just…disappears.
Your numbers are messed up, bdgwx. Here are the two situations again:
With the plates together, equilibrium is established:
Ein = Eout = 400A Joules
TBlue = TGreen = 244K
With the plates slightly apart, the (bogus) claim is:
Ein = Eout = 400A Joules
TBlue = 262 K (bogus value)
TGreen = 220 K (bogus value)
Notice that internal energy has moved from cold (TGreen) to hot (TBlue), without any additional energy going into the system. The thermal energy has been transferred, “by its own means”, A violation of 2nd Law.
There are no “100” or “300” values.
“without any additional energy going into the system. The thermal energy has been transferred, “by its own means”, A violation of 2nd Law.”
No violation. ClintR blunders, trys to hide the sun is still shining, won’t work on this site.
More nonsense from the Ball4 troll. Nothing new.
ClintR,
The plates have two sides. 400 W/m^2 on only one side is equivalent to 200 W/m^2 on both sides. Ein=Eout=200A joules where A is the total area of the system. The system has two sides. Each side is 1/2*A. If the plate heights are 1 meter then their area is 2 m^2. 400 W across 1 m^2 is equivalent to 200 W across 2 m^2. This is why the BP starts out radiating at 200 W/m^2 even though you see a 400 W/m^2 arrow. And this point is actually crucial for understanding how Eli comes up with the equations 400 = cT1^4 + cT2^4 and cT2^4 = 1/2*cT1^4.
If that 200 W/m^2 input into the system were actually 0 W/m^2 then and only then would the entropy decrease violate the 2LOT. But, because Ein=200 W/m^2 the system is not being allowed to evolve by its own means. The 2LOT cannot be invoked to declare that entropy cannot decrease in this system.
If you want to invoke the 2LOT then you must broaden the system boundaries to include the energy source (sun,red) of 200 W/m^2 and the energy sink (space) of 200 W/m^2 such that Ein=Eout=0 for this system. This is now a 4 body problem. The sun (hot), BP (warm), GP (cool), and space (cold). The flow of energy is hot->warm->cool->cold which is completely consistent with the 2LOT and hopefully intuition as well. The entropy of the entire system is increasing even though it is decreasing in certain regions within the system.
Energy in this system has NOT moved from cold (TGreen) to hot (TBlue). It has moved from hot (Tsun) to warm (Tblue) to cool (Tgreen) to cold (Tspace or Tsun->Tblue->Tgreen->Tspace. And when you separate the BP and GP the flow is sun->BP and from GP->space. There is brief moment when BP->GP is zero, but that’s okay. No violation of the 2LOT in any of this.
“If that 200 W/m^2 input into the system were actually 0 W/m^2 then…”
…the plate temperatures would drop to either 3 K, or 0 K, depending on whether the thought experiment is meant to be in space or not. bdgwx, you can’t contend that there is some magical get-out clause that applies in literally every situation other than one where plate temperatures are 3 K or 0 K. That’s just stupid.
When ClintR says: “Notice that internal energy has moved from cold (TGreen) to hot (TBlue), without any additional energy going into the system.”
Additional means:
added, extra, or supplementary to what is already present or available.
“What is already present or available” referring to the energy from the sun!
bdgwx, I’m not even going to try to sort through that garbled nonsense. If you can’t make it clear and straightforward, then you don’t know what you’re doing.
Translation: You don’t know what you’re doing.
Look at my example as to how to do it.
You can’t recognize the violation of 2nd Law. Don’t miss the upcoming demonstration of the violation of 1st Law, coming soon….
Here is another equally valid way of explaining why the BP warms and the GP cools in the 4 body system.
At the moment of separation the sun->BP transfer proceeds unrestricted but the BP->space transfer is restricted by the addition of the GP radiation shield. The BP warms as heat is transferred from the sun to the BP because of a positive energy imbalance.
At the moment of separation the GP->space transfer proceeds unrestricted but the Sun->GP transfer is restricted by the addition of the BP radiation shield. The GP cools as heat is transferred from the GP to space because of a negative energy imbalance.
Tsun > Tblue >= Tgreen > Tspace
The flow of heat in this 4 body system is always from warmer to cooler and in complete accordance with the 1LOT and 2LOT. At no point is heat flowing backwards in this 4 body system.
ClintR said: Look at my example as to how to do it.
I’ve seen your example. It shows 300 W/m^2 of entering the BP but only 200 W/m^2 leaving. The 300 W/m^2 coming from 400 W/m^2 @ 1/2*A from the sun and 200 W/m^2 @ 1/2*A coming from the green plate. The 200 W/m^2 coming from the SB law at 244K. If you think the BP is going to stay at 244K with that configuration then you are violating the 1LOT.
The BP cannot maintain a 100 W/m^2 imbalance and a 244K temperature indefinitely. It is that simple.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-512185
bdgwx can’t even do a proper energy balance on the plates!
These idiots are off the charts.
Too much fun….
DREMT said: the plate temperatures would drop to either 3 K, or 0 K, depending on whether the thought experiment is meant to be in space or not.
Yep. Agreed. If you remove the 400 W/m^2 input directed at one side of the BP and only expose the BP and GP to space then both the BP and GP will equilibrate to 3K.
DREMT said: bdgwx, you cant contend that there is some magical get-out clause that applies in literally every situation other than one where plate temperatures are 3 K or 0 K. Thats just stupid.
It’s a good thing that I’m not defending that line of reasoning then.
DREMT said: What is already present or available referring to the energy from the sun!
And if you’re assuming that this energy is internal to “the system” then that means “the system” is comprised of the bodies sun, BP, GP, and space. And in that system the entropy is increasing and heat is flowing sun->BP->GP->space with the temperatures always satisfying Tsun > Tblue >= Tgreen > Tspace. There’s no violation of the 1LOT or 2LOT here.
Whatever you say, sophist.
bdgwx, let’s see your “energy balance” for the plates. Don’t forget your “100” and “300” values.
You’re not going to runaway from your own nonsense, are you?
Your solution with red at 400 W/m^2, blue at 244K, and green at 244K breaks down as follows.
The BP and GP are radiating at 200 W/m^2 on both sides (SB law).
400 W/m^2 from red on only half (0.5A) of the BP is 200 W/m^2 upon the BP as a whole (1.0A).
200 W/m^2 from green on only half (0.5A) of the BP is 100 W/m^2 upon the BP as a whole (1.0A).
That’s 300 W/m^2 incoming to the BP as a whole (1.0A).
The BP is at 244K which means it is radiating at 200 W/m^2.
300 W/m^2 – 200 W/m^2 = +100 W/m^2
Again…a +100 W/m^2 imbalance and 244K cannot both be sustained indefinitely.
Here’s a blast from the past. Anyone remember this?
“You do not use a heat flow equation in your solution.
One can not add the emission from the green plate back to the blue plate. You assume that you can because you don’t use the heat flow equation.
You’ve now repeated the same comment, what, 3 times in a row now. If you come back another time and repeat the same thing, you will experience Slayer wrath.
Here’s the solution to your problem:
The source supplies 400 W/m^2 to the blue plate. Given the geometry and view factors involved, the blue plate splits the 400 W/m^2 to emission on either side of itself, hence warms to a temperature to emit 200 W/m^2 on either side, thus conserving energy for said geometry.
We now introduce the green plate, which can be approximated as infinite plane parallel with the blue plate, and for this geometry the heat flow equation between the blue and green plate is simply
Q = sigma * (Tb^4 – Tg^4)
The green plate stops rising in temperature when Q = 0, i.e. when the heat flow to it goes to zero which is thermal equilibrium. Therefore when Q = 0 the green plate has a constant temperature of
0 = Tb^4 – Tg^4 Tb = Tg
The green plate thus achieves the same temperature of the blue plate, and emits 200 W/m^2 on its outside, this conserving the input energy from the sun source.
In the above correct solution, I utilize the laws of heat flow and hence the 2nd Law. You ignore the 2nd Law and claim that your solution is correct because you believe you’ve used the 1st Law. Your solution is therefore insufficiently based in reality, and hence wrong.”
DREMT said: The green plate thus achieves the same temperature of the blue plate, and emits 200 W/m^2 on its outside, this conserving the input energy from the sun source.
And what does the GP emit from the face pointed toward the BP?
And this:
“Eli Rabett says:
2017/10/19 at 2:48 AM
Well, late to the party, but WTH. The point about using large flat plates is that they simplify the geometry of the problem so a bunny does not have to worry about viewing angles and edge effects.
[JP: The comment thread got really long since your visit, but I explained everything about the geometry involved and the view factors, etc. View factors are central in radiative transfer and the view factor between the source to the first plate is different than between the plates, etc.]
There are books on thermal radiation that go into page after page of the details but that add little to understanding of the basic effect which is what the green plate effect post does.
[JP: View factors are central in radiative transfer. Nothing else can be right if the view factors aren’t understood. The problem here is that you assume the effect which you wish to arrive at, by having the energy from the green plate add back to the blue plate – this is wrong.]
Going back to something Robert K posted above, it is worth noting that the Stefan Boltzmann law sums over all angles of emission so the diagrams at Rabett Run are accurate for the total emission and ab.sorp.tion of radiation.
[JP: The point through all that was to understand why the view factors are different between the source and first plate, and between the other plates. The first plate must be distant from the source so that the source’s rays are parallel with each other and uniform on the first plate, otherwise the source flux on the first plate can’t be uniform and your diagram wouldn’t make sense. They were making it clear what the physical situation actually looked like, since it can’t actually be drawn at scale.]
Perhaps also it is worth stating even at this late date that the Green Plate Effect assumed that the blue plate uniformly absorbed 400 W/m2 across the entire plate, so that geometric gymnastics about a point source sum are rather besides the point if you are trying to discuss the Green Plate Effect.
[JP: The uniform flux on the blue plate means that the blue plate must subtend a small angular area of the sky as seen from the source. Likewise the source must subtend a small angular area as seen from the first plate. It has to be this way so that the energy on the blue plate gets split by two. The view factors between the plates are such that the plates subtend the entire angular area of their respective skies, and this has an effect on whether energy can be split into two directions for them, which it can not any longer as opposed to the source/blue plate relationship.]
To summarize, if you want to discuss Eli’s post don’t bring in curved iron balls or whatever, don’t bring in a point source sun. If you want to discuss something else, feel free, but you are discussing something else.
[JP: Nothing was brought in that changed the relationship between the source and the blue plate. They simply wanted to understand how the flux on the blue plate could be uniform, which requires that the blue plate subtends a small angular area of the Sun’s sky. Likewise the Sun should also subtend a small angular area of the blue plate’s sky on that hemisphere, so that the energy on the blue plate can be split by two. So they just gave physical validity to your initial set up, and did not change it. What does change is how you handled the relationship between the plates. The energy from the green plate can not add back to the blue plate. You assume that it does because that’s what you want to show, but it’s not possible, because it is the energy from the blue plate which is adding to the green plate because this is the direction of heat flow.]”
“And what does the GP emit from the face pointed toward the BP?”
The GP emits 200 W/m^2. The author of that comment did not mean to give the impression that the GP only emits in one direction, obviously.
Right. And with the BP receiving 400 W/m^2 on the left side and 200 W/m^2 on the right side how is it possible for the BP to remain at 244K?
I’ll make some small changes to help your understanding:
“Here’s the solution to your problem:
The source supplies 400 W/m^2 to the blue plate. Given the geometry and view factors involved, the blue plate splits the 400 W/m^2 to emission on either side of itself, hence warms to a temperature to emit 200 W/m^2 on either side, thus conserving energy for said geometry.
We now introduce the green plate, which can be approximated as infinite plane parallel with the blue plate, and for this geometry the heat flow equation between the blue and green plate is simply
Q = sigma * (Tb^4 – Tg^4)
The green plate stops rising in temperature when Q = 0, i.e. when the heat flow to it goes to zero which is thermal equilibrium. Therefore when Q = 0 the green plate has a constant temperature of
0 = Tb^4 – Tg^4
Tb = Tg
The green plate thus achieves the same temperature of the blue plate, and emits 200 W/m^2 on its outside (and inside), this conserving the input energy from the sun source. So (overall) there is 400 W coming in from the sun, and 400 W leaving (200 W from the left of the blue plate to space plus 200 W from the right of the green plate to space).
In the above correct solution, I utilize the laws of heat flow and hence the 2nd Law. You ignore the 2nd Law and claim that your solution is correct because you believe you’ve used the 1st Law. Your solution is therefore insufficiently based in reality, and hence wrong.”
OK?
All wrong, bdgwx. (It sure seems like I write that a lot.)
With the plates together, equilibrium is established:
Ein = Eout = 400A Joules
TBlue = TGreen = 244K
The blue plate receives 400 W/m^2. “A” is the area of ONE side of the plate.
Both plates are emitting 200 W/m^2.
No wonder Earth’s energy budget confuses you.
“And with the BP receiving 400 W/m^2 on the left side and 200 W/m^2 on the right side how is it possible for the BP to remain at 244K?”
Because of the view factors involved, and the directionality of the heat flow, as explained in detail in the old comments I posted.
DREMT,
You didn’t answer the question nor even discuss it. I’ll repeat…
With the BP receiving 400 W/m^2 on the left side and 200 W/m^2 on the right side how is it possible for the BP to remain at 244K?
ClintR,
So you’re using “A” to represent half of the plate’s surface area? Weird. But okay. Let’s use S to represent the area of the plates such that S=2A. Here is my previous response using both S and A for clarity.
400 W/m^2 from red on only half (0.5S or 1.0A) of the BP is 200 W/m^2 upon the BP as a whole (1.0S or 2.0A).
200 W/m^2 from green on only half (0.5S or 1.0A) of the BP is 100 W/m^2 upon the BP as a whole (1.0S or 2.0A).
Thats 300 W/m^2 incoming to the BP as a whole (1.0S or 2.0A).
The BP is at 244K which means it is radiating at 200 W/m^2.
300 W/m^2 200 W/m^2 = +100 W/m^2
There’s still a +100 W/m^2 so nope, that didn’t change the analysis.
Obviously there is some cross-posting going on…
DREMT said: Because of the view factors involved, and the directionality of the heat flow, as explained in detail in the old comments I posted.
First, my apologies for the interleaving of our posts. I didn’t see the response until after I repeated my question.
Second, what does view factors or directionality of the heat flows have to do with anything?
The BP is literally receiving 400 W/m^2 on the left side and 200 W/m^2 from the right side.
Let’s see if some other old comments will help you out. I will amend them slightly:
“It is the directionality from which energy is gained in relation to where it can be lost that matters. With the sun as a point source the area over which energy can be gained is only the side facing the sun, but the area over which energy can be lost is the entire surface area of the plate (both sides). This is because the side facing the sun can lose energy in any direction other than that which is exactly pointing towards the sun (more or less). That energy emitted in those other directions effectively misses the sun. The energy emitted straight at the sun doesn’t “count” as energy lost overall since the sun is emitting energy straight at the plate along this path in the first place. But this is infinitesimal in comparison to all the other directions in which the sun-facing side can lose energy.
With the blue plate as a plane parallel (passive) energy source to the green plate, the green plate can only gain energy on the side facing the blue plate (same as before), but the crucial difference is that it can only lose energy on the other side facing away from the blue plate. So only that half of the overall plate surface area which is losing energy is compared to the other half of the plate surface area which is gaining energy from the blue plate. So it is 1:1 on surface area, rather than 1:2 above. The reason none of the side of the green plate facing the blue can be seen as losing energy is because at every point along the surface area of that side of the plate energy is being received directly from the equivalent point on the surface of the blue plate. So using the same logic as in the first paragraph this doesn’t count as energy lost overall. It just sums to zero, cancels out, whatever way you want to express it.”
bdgwx, you have no clue what you’re doing. Stop trying to be an idiot and pay attention to the correct solution.
400 W/m^2 —> (to BP)
200 W/m^2 GP —> 200 W/m^2
Ein = Eout = 400A Joules
TBlue = TGreen = 244K
The blue plate receives 400 W/m^2. “A” is the area of ONE side of the plate. BP receives 400A Joules.
Both plates are emitting 200 W/m^2.
No wonder Earth’s energy budget confuses you.
(Crap, the blog ate some of the text. One more try.)
bdgwx, you have no clue what you’re doing. Stop trying to be an idiot and pay attention to the correct solution.
400 W/m^2 —> (to BP)
200 W/m^2 GP —> 200 W/m^2
Ein = Eout = 400A Joules
TBlue = TGreen = 244K
The blue plate receives 400 W/m^2. “A\” is the area of ONE side of the plate. BP receives 400A Joules.
Both plates are emitting 200 W/m^2.
No wonder Earth’s energy budget confuses you.
Same thing!
I don’t know why I’m wasting my time trying to help an idiot that rejects reality, anyway.
ClintR said: Both plates are emitting 200 W/m^2.
Right. At 244K both plates emit 200 W/m^2 from both sides.
But…the BP is receiving 400 W/m^2 on its left side and 200 W/m^2 on its right side. That’s your problem.
No, that’s your problem.
The blue plate is NOT receiving 200 W/m^2 from the green plate. The net energy flow is 200 W/m^2 from blue to green. The blue plate emits 200 W/m^2 from the system and the green plate emits 200 W/m^2 from the system.
DREMT said: With the blue plate as a plane parallel (passive) energy source to the green plate, the green plate can only gain energy on the side facing the blue plate (same as before), but the crucial difference is that it can only lose energy on the other side facing away from the blue plate.
Well there’s your problem. Bodies, especially black bodies, radiate energy in all directions. It doesn’t matter if the surface is pointed toward a 3K body or a 244K body. It will still radiate in accordance to the SB law depending on its temperature.
ClintR said: The blue plate is NOT receiving 200 W/m^2 from the green plate.
Then where’s the 200 W/m^2 coming from the left side of the GP going?
“Well there’s your problem. Bodies, especially black bodies, radiate energy in all directions. It doesn’t matter if the surface is pointed toward a 3K body or a 244K body. It will still radiate in accordance to the SB law depending on its temperature.”
I am not arguing otherwise. Both plates radiate according to their temperature and emissivity, as per the SB law. However, the green plate can only lose energy on one side. It can radiate on both sides, but it can only lose energy on one side. To understand why, re-read the comment, more carefully.
DRsEMT, ClintR and the rest of the sock puppets continue to claim that the temperatures of the Blue and Green plates in their three plate cartoon must exhibit the same temperature, 244K. Trouble is, the Second Law requires that there be a difference in temperature for energy to be transferred between the Blue plate and Green plate(s). Therefore, the sock puppet(s) claims must be false.
Of course, since they can not refute this fact, they will continue to incessantly spew their usual garbage in an attempt to drowned out these with the correct understanding of the physics.
So by “lose energy” you mean Ein – Eout = 0 for the left side of the GP. That’s fine. And I agree. Though that is the crux of another problem with the GP remaining at 244K. But we’ll put a pin in that for now since we are focused on the energy budget of the BP right now.
What I’m talking out is the fact that Eout = 200 W/m^2 on the left side of the GP. This is received as Ein = 200 W/m^2 on the right side of the BP. The Ein for the BP is then Ein = (200/2) + (400/2) = 300 W/m^2. And the Eout for the BP is then Eout = (200/2) + (200/2) = 200 W/m^2. Note that I’m dividing by 2 here because my Ein and Eout figures are for the entire BP; not just one side of it.
See the problem? Ein – Eout = +100 W/m^2 for the BP. The BP has a positive energy imbalance.
You have not understood. Please try again.
“…in their three plate cartoon…”
We have been talking about the original 2-plate setup, Swanson, try to keep up.
I posted three old comments, from about a month after Eli first came up with his thought experiment, which are part of the original debunk of the GPE. There should be enough there for you to understand why there is no GPE. If you are struggling, let me know what you are struggling with and I will try to help.
I don’t see any debunking of the GPE in any of those comments. In fact, I see more problems.
For example, “So using the same logic as in the first paragraph this doesn’t count as energy lost overall. It just sums to zero, cancels out, whatever way you want to express it” And this highlights the other problem I was talking about with the GP’s energy budget. If the energy cancels out on the left side then we’re only left with the right side emitting at 200 W/m^2. And because the right is only 1/2 of the whole the energy imbalance on the GP is -100 W/m^2. The GP can’t sustain the -100 W/m^2 imbalance and 244K indefinitely.
But that’s a distraction from the first problem no one has reconciled yet. The BP still has +100 W/m^2 energy imbalance on it. The BP can’t sustain the +100 W/m^2 imbalance and 244K indefinitely.
How are you guys going to get around this without violating either the 1LOT or 2LOT?
Incorrect interpretation. How can I improve you? What are you struggling to comprehend?
bdgwx said: How are you guys going to get around this without violating either the 1LOT or 2LOT?
Eli, Swanson, myself, etc. have any easy solution. The BP has a +100 W/m^2 imbalance and the GP has a -100 W/m^2 imbalance. There is no longer an equilibrium. The sun begins warming the BP while the GP begins cooling to space. An equilibrium is achieved when the BP radiates at 267 W/m^2 and the GP begins radiating at 133 W/m^2.
For the BP…
Ein = (400/2) + (133/2) = 267 W/m^2
Eout = 5.67e-8 * 262^4 = 267 W/m^2
Ein – Eout = 0 W/m^2
For the GP…
Ein = (267/2) = 133 W/m^2
Eout = 5.67e-8 * 220^4 = 133 W/m^2
Ein – Eout = 0 W/m^2
For the BP/GP system together…
Ein = (400/2) = 200 W/m^2
Eout = (267/2) + (133/2) = 200 W/m^2
And for the 4 body system (sun, BP, GP, and space)…
Ein = 0 W/m^2
Eout = 0 W/m^2
entropy is increasing as heat flows sun->BP->GP->space
Notice how nicely all of the energy flows balance? Notice how the BP and GP have a net zero gain/loss of energy? Notice how everything is in equilibrium now? Notice there is no violation of the 1LOT. Notice there is no violation of the 2LOT. Everything just falls into place.
Have you been able to follow that the blue plate loses energy from both of its sides, whilst the green plate only loses it from the side facing space? Due to the difference in view factors between the plates compared to in-between the blue plate and the sun?
The blue plate is losing energy to the green you see, whilst the green is gaining its energy from the blue. That is why the green cannot heat up the blue. That 200 W/m^2 going from green to blue that you are so worried about…it cannot warm the blue.
DREMT said: What are you struggling to comprehend?
I’m struggling to comprehend what you and ClintR are going to do with the +100 W/m^2 and -100 W/m^2 energy imbalances on the BP and GP respectively without violating the 1LOT or 2LOT.
How are you getting around the fact that when the two plates are pushed together, then pulled slightly apart, the temperature of the blue plate jumps 18 K, with no addtional energy and no restriction to energy leaving?
DREMT said: Have you been able to follow that the blue plate loses energy from both of its sides, whilst the green plate only loses it from the side facing space?
You are clearly using the term “lose” in the context of Ein-Eout < 0 so let's examine each of the 4 faces separately and see if your statements are correct.
BP-left:
Ein = 400 W/m^2
Eout = 200 W/m^2
Ein-Eout = +200 W/m^2 (gain)
BP-right:
Ein = 200 W/m^2
Eout = 200 W/m^2
Ein-Eout = 0 W/m^2 (zero)
GP-left:
Ein = 200 W/m^2
Eout = 200 W/m^2
Ein-Eout = 0 W/m^2 (zero)
GP-right:
Ein = 0 W/m^2
Eout = 200 W/m^2
Ein – Eout = -200 W/m^2 (loss)
See the problem? When you say “the green plate only loses it from the side facing space” you are correct. But when you apply the same analysis to the BP you make this incorrect statement “the blue plate loses energy from both of its sides”. The BP is NOT losing energy from both sides. In fact, it is gaining energy from its left side.
Graphically it looks like this…
sun –> (gain) BP –> GP (loss) –> space
DREMT said: How are you getting around the fact that when the two plates are pushed together, then pulled slightly apart, the temperature of the blue plate jumps 18 K, with no addtional energy and no restriction to energy leaving?
There is additional energy on the BP. It is accumulating because of the +100 W/m^2 energy imbalance on it. Heat is not restricted from flowing sun->BP but it is restricted from flowing BP->space because of the GP. Meanwhile heat is not restricted from flowing GP->space but it is restricted from flowing sun->GP because of the BP.
And think about the issue Swanson just brought up. There is no flow of heat from BP to GP if they both stay at 244K. Heat only flows (warm gets cooler and cooler gets warmer) when there is a temperature differential.
“The BP is NOT losing energy from both sides. In fact, it is gaining energy from its left side.”
No, the blue plate loses energy from both its sides. You just don’t understand view factors. I’ll try to explain it again.
The plates do not emit energy in only one direction, perpendicular to the plate, in one single straight line. Rather, the plates emit energy in an entire hemisphere of directions, from either side of the plate. On the side of the BP facing the sun, the BP emits in an entire hemisphere of directions away from the plate. However, the sun only subtends a small angular area of the sky from the blue plate’s POV.
Most of the energy emitted from the BP effectively misses the sun, only the energy emitted from that one direction perpendicular to the plate is aimed straight at it. All the rest of the energy emitted in that entire hemisphere of directions is aimed past the sun. Hence the side of the BP facing the sun is also a “losing side”. Energy can be lost in most of the possible directions. Yes, the BP gains its energy from the sun on this side, but that is only along the one vector perpendicular to the plate.
“There is additional energy on the BP”
No, there isn’t. There is no additional energy entering the system. The sun provides the only energy.
You have plates warming simply due to separation. There is no change in energy in/out. This is impossible.
DREMT,
First…you’ve totally missed the point of Eli’s thought experiment. He gives us the energy flows as they are sent and received by the plates already so that we don’t have to concern ourselves with POV nuances. When you see 400 W/m^2 and 200 W/m^2 they are exactly 400 W/m^2 and 200 W/m^2 respectively. No more and no less. No adjustments are needed to compensate for POV technicalities. If you want to drum up a different thought experiment in which those nuances need to be considered then by all means go for it. I’ll even participate in the discussion. Just understand that we are’t talking about Eli’s GPE anymore.
Second…it’s moot anyway. A body that emits 200 W/m^2 radiation is literally emitting 200 W/m^2 of radiation regardless of which direction that radiations shoots off towards. Some of those photons will heads towards the 400 W/m^2 source. Some will head off toward the dead of space. It doesn’t matter. They all still carry energy all the same.
The fact remains…as Eli posted on his blog at time t=0 when the BP and GP are separated there are +100 W/m^2 and -100 W/m^2 imbalances on those plates respectively.
I am not changing Eli’s setup at all. I am just attempting to explain the view factors involved to you. I will repost part of the discussion between Eli and JP to just reiterate:
“To summarize, if you want to discuss Eli’s post don’t bring in curved iron balls or whatever, don’t bring in a point source sun. If you want to discuss something else, feel free, but you are discussing something else.
[JP: Nothing was brought in that changed the relationship between the source and the blue plate. They simply wanted to understand how the flux on the blue plate could be uniform, which requires that the blue plate subtends a small angular area of the Sun’s sky. Likewise the Sun should also subtend a small angular area of the blue plate’s sky on that hemisphere, so that the energy on the blue plate can be split by two. So they just gave physical validity to your initial set up, and did not change it. What does change is how you handled the relationship between the plates. The energy from the green plate can not add back to the blue plate. You assume that it does because that’s what you want to show, but it’s not possible, because it is the energy from the blue plate which is adding to the green plate because this is the direction of heat flow.]”
There many different ways of explaining the fallacy that the BP and GP can remain at 244K indefinitely. Anyone of them is sufficient to challenge this claim. But I want to jump back to Swanson’s point for a moment because it is interesting angle as well.
Here is the 4 body arrangement…
sun -> BP -> GP -> space
And here are those body’s temperatures (I’ll use 0K for space since that is what Eli’s calculations assumed)…
290K –> 244K 244K –> 0K
As you can see in this arrangement heat flows sun->BP and GP-space but because BP and GP are at the same temperature there is no flow either way between the BP and GP. That means heat is accumulating in the BP and depleting in the GP.
And using the heat transfer equation and assuming the view factor is 1 we have…
sun-BP: 5.67e-8 * (290^4 – 244^4) = 200 W/m^2
BP-GP: 5.67e-8 * (244^4 – 244^4) = 0 W/m^2
GP-space: 5.67e-8 * (244^4-0^4) = 200 W/m^2
As you can see mathematically there is transfer from sun to BP and from GP to space. But, there is no transfer from BP to GP. The BP gets warmer and the GP gets cooler.
Yeah…clearly JP is trying to change the thought experiment. He envisions a different thought experiment, raises a concern with it, and then plays it off as if that was Eli’s thought experiment. If JP cannot understand a simple idealized thought experiment then there’s no way he’s going to understand a more complex thought experiment in which view factors really do need to be considered.
No, he is not changing the thought experiment at all. The false accusations begin.
The heat flow is at 0 between the BP and GP when they are both at 244 K, correct. Equilibrium has been reached. That won’t change. You have for some reason calculated heat flow between a sun at 290 K and the BP, and between the GP and space. 290 K does equate to a 400 W/m^2 flux, however Eli never specified the temperature of his sun. It could be 5000 K, but the BP is at such a distance from it that it only receives 400 W/m^2.
When the BP is on its own, it comes to a temperature of 244 K. Heat is then no longer flowing from the sun to the BP. Energy is flowing, but not heat. So what you are trying to do there (imply that there is continual heat flow from the sun to the BP) is incorrect. The BP is at equilibrium with the sun before the GP is introduced. Heat flow is at zero.
As for the heat flow you calculate from the GP to space, that is unnecessary. That the GP radiates 200 W/m^2 to space is already factored into the heat flow equation between BP and GP, since there is already a term in that equation for the GPs emission.
You’re the one that brought it to our attention that JP is invoking view factors. I also noticed Eli’s response that JP missed the point. I’m not the one that initiated any of that. It should be obvious to any reader that the view factors are assumed to be 1. At any rate I’ll try to analyze the thought experiment with view factors BP. A similar but opposite energy imbalance develops in the GP which causes heat to flow GP->space.
Wow…that got garbled. I think my use less than and hyphen symbols confused the blog. Let’s try that again.
You’re the one that brought it to our attention that JP is invoking view factors. I also noticed Eli’s response that JP missed the point. I’m not the one that initiated any of that. It should be obvious to any reader that the view factors are assumed to be 1. At any rate I’ll try to analyze the thought experiment with view factors less than 1 and see if it makes any difference.
My intent wasn’t to imply there was a continual flow of heat. Only that when the bodies are not in equilibrium the heat flows in that direction. When you shield the BP (at 244K) from space (at 0K) with a warmer body (at 244K) the energy flow from the BP gets restricted. But since there is no restriction from the sun an energy imbalance develops in the BP which causes heat to flow sun to BP. A similar but opposite energy imbalance develops in the GP which causes heat to flow GP to space.
Ok, lets consider different view factors between the BP and GP. Obviously we’ll assume the VF is 1 on the left of the BP and to the right of the GP. For the BP to GP interface a VF less than 1 means that only a portion of the radiation gets transferred to the neighboring plate with the remaining portion obviously transferring to space such that the sum of the view factors still adds to 1 to comply with the 1LOT.
We’ll start with VF = 0.9.
For the BP…
Ein = (400/2) + 0.9 * (200/2) = 290 W/m^2
Eout = (200/2) + (200/2) = 200 W/m^2
Ein-Eout = +90 W/m^2
For the GP…
Ein = 0.9 * (200/2) = 90 W/m^2
Eout = (200/2) + (200/2) = 200 W/m^2
Ein-Eout = -110 W/m^2
Hmm….how about VF = 0.1?
For the BP…
Ein = (400/2) + 0.1 * (200/2) = 210 W/m^2
Eout = (200/2) + (200/2) = 200 W/m^2
Ein-Eout = +10 W/m^2
For the GP…
Ein = 0.1 * (200/2) = 10 W/m^2
Eout = (200/2) + (200/2) = 200 W/m^2
Ein-Eout = -190 W/m^2
Ok, so that is interesting. The BP and GP still have positive and negative energy imbalances respectively. But look what happens. The lower the VF the less the BP warms but the more the GP cools. I wasn’t expecting that. But any rate clearly JP’s reframing of the thought experiment to consider VF less than 1 doesn’t change the essential result that the BP warms and the GP cools.
I am hesitant to intrude in the bdgwxs brilliant and succinct mauling of DREMT, but I want to just put in some historical perspective.
The irascible DREMT has resurrected another of his long term sagas and this dead horse is getting another flogging. How many times does this poor horse need to be euthanized before it is finally laid to rest?. How many times can one go through with same old crap with this guy? Maybe the answer is blowing in the wind but my patience is, unlike bdgwx, is limited so, I will just add something stemming from the dim distant past, when the debate first started (circa 2017).These are depictions showing the various analyses of the two plate problem.
https://i.postimg.cc/NjkDpzbK/plates.png
These depictions may be useful for ClintR and others. If ClintR is numerate, he should be able to understand the fundamental flaws with the DREMT analysis ( based on earlier work of his mentors whose names are shown on the depiction). I use the word analysis in conjunction with DREMT loosely here (as in the Tobias Funcke context). Anyway none of this is rocket science, you just have basic ability to balance a ledger.
If DREMT thinks this depiction is a disservice to him then he is very welcome to generate his own version with the appropriate energy balance equations shown, for clarity sake on the diagram itself. He may have done this already (I have vague memory he may have done so) but I dont recall his version being fundamentally different.
p.s. to further clarify the labels on the depiction and for those that haven’t been following this debate over the years, the current protagonist DREMT is the spiritual (or possibly carnal) successor to a number of commentators and their associated sickpuppets(sic). These characters were subsequently banned by Roy Spencer for egregiously bad behaviour.
Presumably Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team survived these culls by cunning use of his nom-de-guerre. Banning by keyword, as has been done in past, would cause mayhem for this blog so unfortunately we all have to endure his presence.
bdgwx, JP is not changing the thought experiment. The view factors are 1 between the plates, but they are not 1 between the blue plate and the sun. If they were, and if the sun was 290 K, then the BP on its own would warm to 290 K before adding the GP. Then with view factors of 1 between the plates, the GP would also warm to 290 K. Once again:
“Here’s the solution to your problem:
The source supplies 400 W/m^2 to the blue plate. Given the geometry and view factors involved, the blue plate splits the 400 W/m^2 to emission on either side of itself, hence warms to a temperature to emit 200 W/m^2 on either side, thus conserving energy for said geometry.
We now introduce the green plate, which can be approximated as infinite plane parallel with the blue plate, and for this geometry the heat flow equation between the blue and green plate is simply
Q = sigma * (Tb^4 – Tg^4) [because View Factors = 1 between the plates]
The green plate stops rising in temperature when Q = 0, i.e. when the heat flow to it goes to zero which is thermal equilibrium. Therefore when Q = 0 the green plate has a constant temperature of
0 = Tb^4 – Tg^4
Tb = Tg
The green plate thus achieves the same temperature of the blue plate, and emits 200 W/m^2 on its outside (and inside), this conserving the input energy from the sun source. So (overall) there is 400 W coming in from the sun, and 400 W leaving (200 W from the left of the blue plate to space plus 200 W from the right of the green plate to space).
In the above correct solution, I utilize the laws of heat flow and hence the 2nd Law. You ignore the 2nd Law and claim that your solution is correct because you believe you’ve used the 1st Law. Your solution is therefore insufficiently based in reality, and hence wrong.”
OK?
DRsEMT’s (and ClintR’s) comments demonstrate that for the two plate cartoon model:
DRsEMT is apparently oblivious to the fact that those two claims are totally opposite. The Green plate can’t possibly be receiving zero energy input from the Blue plate while simultaneously emitting 200 W from a 1 m^2 plate. Without the energy flowing from the Blue plate, the Green plate would cool.
DRsEMT’s analytical results for the two and three plate cartoon models violates the Second Law which requires that for energy to be transferred, the two plates must exhibit different temperatures.
More misinterpretations and errors from Swanson.
Heat requires a temperature difference to be transferred, energy does not.
DREMT,
I already accounted for the fact that 400 W/m^2 on only half the plate spreads evenly to 200 W/m^2 on the whole plate. You see that quite clearly in my Ein accounting where I do (400/2). I do the division by 2 for each flux sent/received on only one side. And I do this before I invoke any view factor adjustment.
Let’s analyze the Q between each body in the system where Q = sigma*(Ta^4-Tb^4). I’ll put the Q in W/m^2 in () for brevity.
For the 3 body system sun-BP-space…
[1] 290K –> (200) –> 244K –> (200) –> 0K
For the 4 body system sun-BP-GP-space with energy budgets balanced…
[2] 290K –> (133) –> 262K –> (133) –> 220K –> (133) –> 0K
For the 4 body system sun-BP-GP-space with energy budgets imbalanced…
[3] 290K –> (200) –> 244K –> (0) –> 244K –> (200) –> 0K
You can see in scenario [1] the heat transfer is balanced at 200 W/m^2. You can see in scenario [2] the heat transfer is balanced at 133 W/m^2. But in scenario [3] there is an imbalance on the BP and GP.
Remember…the BP and GP are interfaced with 2 other bodies. It is not sufficient to do the Q analysis for just the BP-GP interface. By neglecting the other two bodies you are implicitly assuming that BP cannot receive heat from another body and that the GP cannot send heat to another body. By writing 0 = Tb^4 – Tg^4 you have assumed that the BP and GP are in equilibrium at 244K but you never actually showed why you made that assumption. The analysis above shows why that assumption does not work.
bdgwx, you agree that with the BP on its own, it equilibrates to 244 K, right?
You think the sun is as 290 K, correct?
Well, when your GP is added and your magic 18 K increase in the BP happens, your sun is now receiving 67 W/m^2 more than it was previously, and must increase in temperature beyond 290 K.
According to your own logic.
you agree that with the BP on its own, it equilibrates to 244 K, right?
Absolutely. 244K is the point where Q on the left balances with Q on the right and Ein=Eout for the BP as a whole.
You think the sun is as 290 K, correct?
Yes. Well…the hypothetical Eli Rabbett sun anyway. The real Sun is obviously much warmer, emits spherically, and is at a distance. To avoid confusion he probably should have labeled it the red source or whatever.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-513053
and must increase in temperature beyond 290 K.
Well…no. The thought experiment as Eli intended assumes the 400 W/m^2 remains at 400 W/m^2 regardless of what happens to the BP and GP.
Sorry, bdgwx, you do not get to apply your logic when you want to, then not apply it when inconvenient. The sun is receiving 67 W/m^2 extra, after the BP raises in temperature, according to you.
Do you now begin to understand why view factors between sun and BP are important?
Bdgwx,
Good job. It is really difficult dealing with someone who is incapable of balancing an equation or understanding the difference between steady state and equilibrium. It is little wonder that he can not understand that there is no net transfer of energy between two plates at the same temperature. Even the basic concept of the blue plate screening the green plate from the source is beyond him.
However he is rather good at trying to tie one up in verbal knots. That is why I prefer to portray things pictorially. Less room for him to manoeuvre.
#2
Sorry, bdgwx, you do not get to apply your logic when you want to, then not apply it when inconvenient. The sun is receiving 67 W/m^2 extra, after the BP raises in temperature, according to you.
Do you now begin to understand why view factors between sun and BP are important?
DREMT said…Sorry, bdgwx, you do not get to apply your logic when you want to, then not apply it when inconvenient. The sun is receiving 67 W/m^2 extra, after the BP raises in temperature, according to you.
First…I don’t get to reframe the thought experiment when I want to. Holding the 400 W/m^2 constant was given to us by Eli. It is his thought experiment. We are tasked with discussing it as-is.
Second…It is completely reasonable to assume the 400 W/m^2 is constant because that’s the way the real Sun-Earth system works. TSI does not change (in any meaningful way) as a result of changes in Earth’s temperature. So yeah, holding the 400 W/m^2 constant isn’t just reasonable; it is the most appropriate thing to do in keeping with the spirit of the thought experiment.
Third…Even if we did reframe the problem and treat the 400 W/m^2 as coming from yet another plate (red) and we solve for the temperatures of the RP, BP, and GP simultaneously you still come to the same conclusion that the BP must warm. In fact, I actually did this last night because I was curious about it. And guess what…the BP warms even more. So just understand that if you want to go down that rabbit hole it does more to hurt your argument than to help it.
DREMT said: Do you now begin to understand why view factors between sun and BP are important?
Absolutely not. The view factor between the source and BP is irrelevant because Eli tells us exactly what the flux being received by the BP is…400 W/m^2 on only one of its faces. The sun-BP VF could be 0.1, 0.5, or 0.9 and it would not change the fact that the BP is still receiving 400 W/m^2 from it.
If you want to envision a scenario where the BP isn’t receiving a constant 400 W/m^2 then reframe the thought experiment, layout the parameters, and we’ll all resubmit our analysis for review.
MikeR said: Good job.
Thanks I appreciate that. But I just to make sure people understand that I make more than my fair share of mistakes so I encourage everyone to take a good look at my posts and identify any mistakes so that I can fix them. I’d much rather make the mistake once and take it on the chin that time than to shamelessly promulgate the mistake over and over again.
“Holding the 400 W/m^2 constant was given to us by Eli.”
Incorrect, nowhere does Eli state that it is or must be “held constant”.
“Second…It is completely reasonable to assume the 400 W/m^2 is constant because that’s the way the real Sun-Earth system works. TSI does not change (in any meaningful way) as a result of changes in Earth’s temperature.”
The view factors between Earth and Sun are not 1.
“Third…Even if we did reframe the problem and treat the 400 W/m^2 as coming from yet another plate (red) and we solve for the temperatures of the RP, BP, and GP simultaneously you still come to the same conclusion that the BP must warm…”
…and then the sun must warm even further…
…bdgwx I am just showing you where your logic leads. As for the rest of what you wrote in your 8:41am comment, it appears I need to repeat myself again:
The heat flow is at 0 between the BP and GP when they are both at 244 K, correct. Equilibrium has been reached. That won’t change. You have for some reason calculated heat flow between a sun at 290 K and the BP, and between the GP and space. 290 K does equate to a 400 W/m^2 flux, however Eli never specified the temperature of his sun. It could be 5000 K, but the BP is at such a distance from it that it only receives 400 W/m^2.
When the BP is on its own, it comes to a temperature of 244 K. Heat is then no longer flowing from the sun to the BP. Energy is flowing, but not heat. So what you are trying to do there (imply that there is continual heat flow from the sun to the BP) is incorrect. The BP is at equilibrium with the sun before the GP is introduced. Heat flow is at zero.
As for the heat flow you calculate from the GP to space, that is unnecessary. That the GP radiates 200 W/m^2 to space is already factored into the heat flow equation between BP and GP, since there is already a term in that equation for the GPs emission.
“Absolutely not. The view factor between the source and BP is irrelevant because Eli tells us exactly what the flux being received by the BP is…400 W/m^2 on only one of its faces.”
The only reason you can split that incoming 400 W/m^2 into an output of 200 W/m^2 is because the BP has two “losing sides”, as was explained in great detail. So yes, view factors are very relevant.
The GP has only one “losing side”. The incoming 200 W/m^2 then translates to an output of 200 W/m^2.
bdgwx writes: “By neglecting the other two bodies you are implicitly assuming that BP cannot receive heat from another body and that the GP cannot send heat to another body.”
bdgwx, again, good job, you have used the term “heat” correctly, if you completely drop the “heat” term, your answers will be the same
.
The problem is with the charlatans DREMT, ClintR et. al. (Gordon) who use the “heat” term incorrectly; if they drop the heat term, then they can no longer arrive at their incorrect solutions so they have to continue to invoke the term “heat” to cover up their ignorance.
In the charlatans view, the BP is a perfect mirror on the side facing the GP. ClintR has illustrated that view many times in the past. The charlatans arrive at that change in the problem statement (BP one side from black body to perfect mirror) by incorrectly invoking the term “heat”.
bdgwx can expose the charlatans incorrect physics more obviously by simply dropping the term “heat” so that term drops out of the charlatans attack dog repertoire.
Give it a try.
DREMT said: Incorrect, nowhere does Eli state that it is or must be “held constant”.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Last graphic. The red arrow says 400 W/m^2. The blue and green arrows are variables T1 and T2 respectively that we solve for.
DREMT said: The view factors between Earth and Sun are not 1.
Absolutely. And its actually quite low…about 0.0000107 projected onto the lit hemisphere. Thats why the TSI of 1360 W/m^2 remains unchanged as Earth warms and cools.
But you’ve totally missed the point. If you want to reframe the thought experiment to better match reality you would specify the red arrow as 1360 W/m^2 directed towards a flat blue plate or 680 W/m^2 directed towards a spherically shaped blue plate.
The 400 W/m^2 in Eli’s thought experiment or the 1360 W/m^2 or 680 W/m^2 fluxes in our reframed thought experiment already accounts for view factors of 1, 0.0000215, and 0.0000107 respectively.
DREMT said: …and then the sun must warm even further…
If you want to reframe the problem and treat the red source as a variable then sure. But as I’ve already pointed out this doesn’t help your argument. In fact, it hurts your argument because the BP must then warm past 262K to achieve equilibrium with the red source and the green plate.
For the real Sun the warming is insignificant. For a VF=0.0000107 a change in temperature of 10C at Earth causes the Sun to warm by a whopping 0.00000001K. 0.00000001K of warming isn’t going to substantially change the TSI at Earth of 1360 W/m^2 in any substantial way.
DREMT said: The only reason you can split that incoming 400 W/m^2 into an output of 200 W/m^2 is because the BP has two losing sides, as was explained in great detail.
Yep. And in every one of my energy budget and heat transfer analysis I posted I accounted for that…fully.
DREMT said: The GP has only one losing side. The incoming 200 W/m^2 then translates to an output of 200 W/m^2.
Nope. Sorry. Like the BP the GP has two sides as well. It radiates per the SB law on both sides just like the BP does.
Pretty much all wrong, or missing the point. Never mind.
The GP has 2 sides. Both radiate. But it only has 1 “losing side”. So you do not split the input by two again, like you do with the BP.
Don’t worry about it, bdgwx. Just continue to ignore reality.
DREMT said: So you do not split the input by two again, like you do with the BP.
At the moment of separation and when the BP and GP are still at 244K the BP has 400 W/m^2 hitting the left face and 200 W/m^2 hitting the right face. The GP has 200 W/m^2 hitting the left face and 0 W/m^2 hitting the right face.
For the BP Ein = (400/2) + (200/2) = 300 W/m^2.
For the BP Eout = 200 W/m^2.
For the GP Ein = (200/2) + (0/2) = 100 W/m^2.
For the GP Eout = 200 W/m^2.
In what reality would you distribute the 400 W/m^2 received on the left face but not the 200 W/m^2 received on the right face of the BP? There is nothing magical about either the 400 W/m^2 from the left nor the 200 W/m^2 from the right. They are contributions to the BP’s energy budget all the same.
This is reality…
“In what reality would you distribute the 400 W/m^2 received on the left face but not the 200 W/m^2 received on the right face of the BP?”
In the reality where the charlatans DREMT, ClintR change the right side of the BP into a perfect mirror from the original problem statement of the right siide of the BP being a black body.
You don’t split the GP input by two, like you do with the BP.
Plates do not increase in temperature by 18 K, with no change in energy in/out of the system, just because you separate them.
bdgwx, as DREMT has been told, there is a change in energy in/out BP/GP because when DREMT separates BP/GP, the process changes from conductive energy transfer to radiative energy transfer. DREMT simply obfuscates as usual.
Ball4 obfuscates, doing himself what he falsely accuses others of doing.
Bdgwx,
“Thanks I appreciate that. But I just to make sure people understand that I make more than my fair share of mistakes so I encourage everyone to take a good look at my posts and identify any mistakes so that I can fix them. Id much rather make the mistake once and take it on the chin that time than to shamelessly promulgate the mistake over and over again.”
Yes likewise, I have made a number of booboos in my time (fortunately Tim Folkerts helped me out last time).
I like to admit my mistakes and move on, in stark contrast to our Dunning Kruger representative who just blunders on while doubling and dumbing down. His only defence seems to be obfuscation.
In the interest of de-obfuscation, I present once again the following.
https://i.postimg.cc/NjkDpzbK/plates.png
I love the fact that DREMT claims that the green plate does not re-emit radiation back towards the blue plate as in the bottom right of this diagram
So where does the energy arriving at the green plate go, one must ask this poor fellow? Under steady state conditions the green plate is not continually heating up, so all this energy must be all leaving the green plate, on the side facing away from the blue plate.
In other words the green plate is transparent or is not physically present. However if it is physically present DREMT has invented a totally novel type of black body.
The standard boring old black body always emits the same amount of energy from all sides but his novel blackbody doesn’t need to obey such bourgeois restrictions. DREMT may have invented a new field of physics, libertarian physics which does not have to be constrained by such petty matters as the laws of Physics.
After he has his theories verified by experiment by the shambolic Mr Hughes , DREMT’s long held dream of a Nobel Prize in Physics is in his grasp. So DREMT prove the doubters wrong and publish your theory in that online journal of high repute principia-australia.org. The wider world desperately needs to be exposed to your genius.
Therefore I give you permission to use my graphics. Use them wisely.
#2
Ball4 obfuscates, doing himself what he falsely accuses others of doing.
DREMT said: You don’t split the GP input by two, like you do with the BP.
First…I’m not “splitting” the GP input by two just because I want to. The division by 2 is an acknowledgement that the BP has two sides.
Second…This argument is not going to help you solve the energy imbalance on the BP. In fact, it only makes things worse.
Ein = (400/2) + 200 = 400 W/m^2
Eout = 200 W/m^2
Ein-Eout = +200 W/m^2
As you can see using geometrically incorrect accounting the energy imbalance increased from +100 W/m^2 to +200 W/m^2. The BP warms even more.
MikeR, your diagrams actually help.
The 244 K for both plates is the correct solution. That’s the same temperature as if the plates were together. In a perfect scenario, moving the plates slightly apart would not change temperatures.
The other solution is a violation of the laws of thermo, as mentioned here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-512147
bdgwx, study the diagrams provided by MikeR. In the correct solution (plates at 244 K), you will find the energy balances.
ClintR said: study the diagrams provided by MikeR. In the correct solution (plates at 244 K), you will find the energy balances.
https://i.postimg.cc/NjkDpzbK/plates.png
v1.0…
BP Ein = (400/2) + (200/2) = 300 W/m^2
BP Eout = (200/2) + (200/2) = 200 W/m^2
BP Ein-Eout = 300 – 200 = +100 W/m^2
BP T-sblaw = ((200/2 + 200/2) / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 244K
BP T-mean = (244 + 244) / 2 = 244K
GP Ein = (200/2) = 100 W/m^2
GP Eout = (200/2) + (200/2) = 200 W/m^2
GP Ein-Eout = -100 W/m^2
GP T-sblaw = ((200/2 + 200/2) / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 244K
GP T-mean = (244 + 244) / 2 = 244K
v2.0…
BP Ein = (400/2) = 200 W/m^2
BP Eout = (200/2) + (200/2) = 200 W/m^2
BP Ein-Eout = 200 – 200 = 0 W/m^2
BP T-sblaw = ((200/2 + 200/2) / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 244K
BP T-mean = (244 + 244) / 2 = 244K
GP Ein = (200/2) = 100 W/m^2
GP Eout = (0/2) + (200/2) = 100 W/m^2
GP Ein-Eout = 0 W/m^2
GP T-sblaw = ((0/2 + 200/2) / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 205K
GP T-mean = (0 + 244) / 2 = 122K
In v1.0 the BP and GP have +100 W/m^2 and -100 W/m^2 energy imbalances respectively.
In v2.0 the GP radiates at 0K and 244K on the left and right sides respectively. This gives a mean temperature of 122K or an SB temperature of 205K. The GP is no longer at 244K nor is it a black body.
Address the energy imbalance issue in v1.0 and/or address the temperature and black body issue in v2.0. Please resubmit for review with Ein, Eout, Ein-Eout, T-sblaw, and T-mean included.
bdgwx, you can make this very confusing, or you can keep it simple so you can understand. Let’s keep it simple.
Looking first at ONLY the blue plate in the Version 1, we have:
(Since all areas are equal, we can treat flux as energy, and drop units for clarity.)
Energy in = 400
Energy out = 400
You do not divide the energy from “sun” by 2. The entire energy strikes the blue plate.
We’ll stop here to see if you understand so far.
“First…I’m not “splitting” the GP input by two just because I want to. The division by 2 is an acknowledgement that the BP has two sides”
bdgwx…do you actually listen to anything anybody else writes? Go back through my comments and tell me what you are missing.
ClintR said: Looking first at ONLY the blue plate in the Version 1, we have:
Sure. Let’s look at version 1 and use joules instead of W/m^2. To do this we’ll assume the plates of 1 meter dimensions and examine what happens in 1 second.
Ein = (400 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) + (200 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) = 600J
Eout = (400 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) + (200 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) = 400J
Ein-Eout = 600J – 400J = 200J
Every second the BP accumulates 200 joules. This is 200 watts. And since the BP has a surface area of (1 m * 1 m) + (1 m * 1 m) = 2 m^2 that means the imbalance in terms of W/m^2 is 200 W / 2 m^2 = +100 W/m^2.
There’s still a +100 W/m^2 or 200 watts per sq. meter imbalance on that BP.
ClintR said: You do not divide the energy from “sun” by 2. The entire energy strikes the blue plate.
Duh. And since the energy from the “sun” is striking only 1/2 of the blue plate that means the flux upon the BP as a whole is 200 W/m^2. That’s the just way geometry works out. And as you can clearly see from the math above it works out perfectly regardless of whether you analyze the BP in terms of W/m^2 or joules. The BP has an energy imbalance in version 1.
bdgwx said: Theres still a +100 W/m^2 or 200 watts per sq. meter imbalance on that BP.
Doh. That should have read…
There’s still a +100 W/m^2 or 200 watts over 2 sq meters imbalance on that BP.
No, bdgwx…the blue plate receives 400 W/m^2 over 1 side, and emits 200 W/m^2 over the entire surface area (i.e both sides). It does not receive 200 W/m^2.
DREMT said: do you actually listen to anything anybody else writes? Go back through my comments and tell me what you are missing.
I’m missing the physics complying explanation for why you think the W/m^2 green plate on the right and falling on only 1/2 of the BP should be counted twice but the 400 W/m^2 from the red source on the left and falling on only 1/2 of the BP should be counted only once.
In the real world we only count those energy flows once. The real world also requires us to consider that each of those flows are occurring on only one side or 1/2 of the BP. And in this real world that BP has two sides which means that its total surface area is 2x as much as the surface area on only one side.
DREMT said: the blue plate receives 400 W/m^2 over 1 side
Yep.
DREMT said: emits 200 W/m^2 over the entire surface area (i.e both sides)
Yep.
DREMT said: It does not receive 200 W/m^2.
It receives 400 W/m^2 on its left side from the red source.
It receives 200 W/m^2 on its right side from the green plate.
Therefore…
Ein = (400/2) + (200/2) = 300 W/m^2
Eout = (200/2) + (200/2) = 200 W/m^2
bdgwx, you seem incapable of correctly following somebody else’s argument. Any reason why I should waste my time trying to educate someone so completely inept?
As a reminder to anybody else reading…
…the BP has two “losing sides”, the GP only has one. This is due to the view factors involved, as explained earlier. So, you take the input to the BP of 400 W/m^2, and divide by the two “losing sides”, and the result is an output from the BP of 200 W/m^2. The GP receives 200 W/m^2, but it only has one “losing side”. Dividing 200 W/m^2 by 1 results in an output of 200 W/m^2 from the GP.
Thus, both BP and GP emit 200 W/m^2, at temperatures of 244 K.
That’s not even remotely what I typed. The blog is stripping out characters (probably because I’m not careful with my use of HTML markup). Let’s try this again…
DREMT said: do you actually listen to anything anybody else writes? Go back through my comments and tell me what you are missing.
Im missing the physics complying explanation for why you think the 200 W/m^2 from the green plate on the right and falling on only 1/2 of the BP should be counted twice but the 400 W/m^2 from the red source on the left and falling on only 1/2 of the BP should be counted only once.
In the real world we only count those energy flows once. The real world also requires us to consider that each of those flows are occurring on only one side or 1/2 of the BP. And in this real world that BP has two sides which means that its total surface area is 2x as much as the surface area on only one side.
DREMT said: but it only has one losing side
So you’re treating as something other than a black body?
“It [the BP] receives 200 W/m^2 on its right side from the green plate.”
Again, just for the readers…
…the 200 W/m^2 from the GP is not to be treated as an input to the blue. The BP has two “losing sides”, the side facing the GP is losing energy to the GP. It cannot gain energy from the GP on the side over which it is losing energy!
bdgwx, you remind me of a hyper-active 4 year-old. You’re bouncing all over the place, typing as fast as you can.
I’m trying to make it simple, and you’re trying to confuse things.
Here’s the kind of nonsense you end up with:
Eout = (400 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) + (200 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) = 400J
You’re adding 400J to 200J and getting 400J!
Slow down, take a valium, and try to understand what I am teaching.
“Idiots can’t learn.” Prove that wrong.
“So you’re treating as something other than a black body?”
Again, just for the readers…
…the GP has only one “losing side”. It has 2 sides, both radiate, but it only has one “losing side”.
DRsEMT wrote:
DRsWMT (ClintR, et al.) is apparently unaware that he definition of heat and energy are inexorably related. For example, recall that:
Furthermore:
Watts are joules per second and are thus energy transferred/transformed per unit of time. The BTU and the joule are units of energy, there’s no difference except in the system of units used. “Heat” is defined as the result of energy transfer, as in, external energy added or removed from a body. Heat transfer is thermal energy transfer and requires a temperature difference to occur. With the Blue plate/Green plate model, the Green plate is never as warm as the Blue plate, therefore the energy flows from the Blue plate to the Green plate and eventually to the surrounding colder environment.
Your delusional cartoon physics without a temperature difference violates the Second Law, which you have claimed to be a universal law. Sorry, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
ClintR said: Here’s the kind of nonsense you end up with:
Eout = (400 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) + (200 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) = 400J
You’re adding 400J to 200J and getting 400J!
Eeek. Clearly a typo. Let me correct that whole post.
ClintR said: Looking first at ONLY the blue plate in the Version 1, we have:
Sure. Let’s look at version 1 and use joules instead of W/m^2. To do this we’ll assume the plates of 1 meter dimensions and examine what happens in 1 second.
Ein = (400 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) + (200 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) = 600J
Eout = (200 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) + (200 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) = 400J
Ein-Eout = 600J – 400J = 200J
Every second the BP accumulates 200 joules. This is 200 watts. And since the BP has a surface area of (1 m * 1 m) + (1 m * 1 m) = 2 m^2 that means the imbalance in terms of W/m^2 is 200 W / 2 m^2 = +100 W/m^2.
There’s still a +100 W/m^2 or 200 watts per sq. meter imbalance on that BP.
ClintR said: You do not divide the energy from “sun” by 2. The entire energy strikes the blue plate.
Duh. And since the energy from the “sun” is striking only 1/2 of the blue plate that means the flux upon the BP as a whole is 200 W/m^2. That’s the just way geometry works out. And as you can clearly see from the math above it works out perfectly regardless of whether you analyze the BP in terms of W/m^2 or joules. The BP has an energy imbalance in version 1.
DREMT said: the 200 W/m^2 from the GP is not to be treated as an input to the blue.
Why? Does that energy just disappear or something?
DREMT said: the GP has only one losing side. It has 2 sides, both radiate, but it only has one losing side.
What relevance does the GP having “one losing side” have on the way the BP receives radiation?
Swanson, you looked up the definitions only to then demonstrate you can’t understand DREMT’s comment?
Thanks for another demonstration that idiots can’t learn.
Idiot bdgwx, you need to recognize and admit your mistake here:
Eout = (400 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) + (200 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) = 400J
You’re adding 400J to 200J and getting 400J!
You can’t even own up to your own nonsense, when you get caught.
That’s just ONE of the reasons you’re an idiot.
ClintR said: bdgwx, you need to recognize and admit your mistake here:
Eout = (400 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) + (200 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) = 400J
You’re adding 400J to 200J and getting 400J!
You can’t even own up to your own nonsense, when you get caught.
Not only should I own it, but I should correct it too. I think I did that sufficiently in a comment above. See my comment at August 20, 2020 at 1:15 PM.
I’ll repost the corrected bit below.
Eout = (200 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) + (200 W/m^2 * 1 s * 1 m^2) = 400J
bdgwx continues to demonstrate that he is incapable of correctly following somebody else’s argument.
bdgwx, your mistake is bigger than just arithmetic. You are clearly trying to confuse the issue, because you fear reality and don’t want to learn.
I tried to keep it simple, so it is easy for non-tech people like you to understand. If you want to learn, then do as I mentioned, and drop the confusing units.
Assuming you want to learn, let’s start over:
Looking first at ONLY the blue plate in the Version 1, we have:
Energy in = 400 (400 + 200 – 200)
Energy out = 400 (200 + 200)
We’ll stop here to see if you understand so far.
(To avoid confusion, stay ONLY on the blue plate until you understand it.)
ClintR said: Energy in = 400 (400 + 200 – 200)
The BP receives negative energy? Well now that is a new twist. Where does this negative energy come from?
bdgwx, If an arrow is pointed to the plate, it is “+”. If it is pointed away, it is “-“.
Maybe my shortcut confused you. Let’s do it the long way:
Left side of blue plate–
-200 +400 = +200
Right side of blue plate–
-200 -200 +200 = -200
Blue plate energy balance = +200 -200 = 0
ClintR said: If an arrow is pointed to the plate, it is +. If it is pointed away, it is -.
So why did you put the -200 on the Ein?
ClintR said: Left side of blue plate
-200 +400 = +200
Got it. The BP emits 200 acquires 400 on the left.
T-sblaw = (200 / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 244K
Looks great. It is a black body on the left.
ClintR said: Right side of blue plate
-200 -200 +200 = -200
Got it. The BP emits 400 and acquires 200 on the right.
T-sblaw = (400 / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 290K
Oh oh. Its radiant temperature is 290K.
ClintR said: Blue plate energy balance = +200 -200 = 0
Got it. The energy balance is zero.
Unfortunately…
BP-left-T-sblaw = 244K
BP-right-T-sblaw = 290K
BP-T-mean = (244 + 290) / 2 = 267K
…which obviously is a problem.
Your BP is not a black body and has an undisclosed internal energy source.
Please resolve this issue and resubmit for review.
“So why did you put the -200 on the Ein?”
It was a shortcut. I should have known you couldn’t understand. I’ll try to keep it simple from now on.
“Oh oh. Its radiant temperature is 290K.”
and
“Your BP is not a black body and has an undisclosed internal energy source.”
Wrong. The green arrow leaving was not emitted by blue. It was emitted by green. Understand the energy balance first. There is no “undisclosed energy source”. Quit making things up.
bdgwx writes 2:59pm: ”Your BP is not a black body”
You almost got it.
To ClintR the BP is a black body on the left and perfect mirror on the right after a change to the original problem statement, 3:18pm:
The green arrow leaving BP was not emitted by blue, the green arrow was reflected by blue as a perfect mirror, after that green arrow was emitted by green.
Ball4, your “perfect mirror” idea might help bdgwx understand. Or, he could just consider the Version 2, which leaves out the cancelling green arrows. Either one should help those that don’t understand the physics involved.
Right now, the effort is to get bdgwx to the point he can get the simple arithmetic right. He seems to have trouble with basic accounting, let alone physics.
Ah…so the left side is a black body and the right side is a perfect mirror. In addition to the fact that this will put the GP out of energy balance it is substantially reframing the original thought experiment.
bdgwx gets it wrong, again: “In addition to the fact that this will put the GP out of energy balance it is substantially reframing the original thought experiment.”
Wrong on both, bdgwx.
We can come back to ths later, if you need help. But for now concentrate on getting the energy balance right. You need to learn basic energy flows so you won’t do stupid stating things like claim Earth has an “energy imbalance of +0.6 W/m^2”.
So the right side of the BP has a layer that reflects radiation but only the radiation represented by the green flows while leaving the blue flows to proceed as-is and we should not refer to that layer as a mirror? Is it a filter that knows if the radiation is “blue” or “green”?
bdgwx, don’t try to do physics. I told you we could come back to this after you learned how to do a simple energy balance. So far, you haven’t even been able to handle arithmetic.
Look at this disaster you came up with yesterday, at 3:16 pm.
For the BP Ein = (400/2) + (200/2) = 300 W/m^2.
For the BP Eout = 200 W/m^2.
For the GP Ein = (200/2) + (0/2) = 100 W/m^2.
For the GP Eout = 200 W/m^2.
You’ve got a lot to learn.
Observing the ridiculous contortions of Cliff and DREMT to try and justify their versions has been highly amusing but why don’t we take a break and ask the two savants. What are your objections to the Eli Rabbett solution? This solution is straight forward. The equations balance for both plates and are consistent with the Stefan Boltzman equations.
No need for green plates that are blackbodies that have to be transparent to the radiation or acting as mirrors ( i.e not blackbodies) in order to satisfy the energy balance equations.
So over to the twins. What exactly is wrong with the Eli Rabbett solution to his own thought experiment? If you guys cannot identify something, without redefining the problem, then these exchanges can be safely terminated.
Try to avoid some of your signature evasions and obfuscations* if you can.
* answers such as I have already answered that (clearly you haven’t ) or just a link back to one of the numerous preceding discussions are part of DREMT’s repertoire. This is not an exhaustive list so I am sure we will get to see more. Maybe Cliff has is own manoeuvres.
MikeR, the twins (and Gordon, Swenson) must object to Rabbett’s solution since in their failed view a warmer object reflects (mirrors) ALL radiation from a cooler object to comply with 2LOT.
The GP is the atm., the BP the L&O surface so there is no planetary GHE due 2LOT, the cooler atm. can’t possibly warm the warmer surface in their unnatural view. The twins will always defend their failed position. Always. Defend. Position. Fun to watch the entertainingly ridiculous nature they are forced to dream up.
MikeR, we know you are extremely impressed with yourself, as you continually demonstrate, including not knowing how to spell others’ names. But sorry, this blog is not about you.
The current issue is trying to teach bdgwx how to do an energy balance. If you want to impress us, show us you know what is wrong with bdgwx’s energy balance:
For the BP Ein = (400/2) + (200/2) = 300 W/m^2.
For the BP Eout = 200 W/m^2.
For the GP Ein = (200/2) + (0/2) = 100 W/m^2.
For the GP Eout = 200 W/m^2.
(This should be entertaining!)
ClintR,
I gather you can’t identify an issue with the Eli Rabbett analysis so further discussion is rather moot but anyway…
“For the BP Ein = (400/2) + (200/2) = 300 W/m^2.
For the BP Eout = 200 W/m^2.
For the GP Ein = (200/2) + (0/2) = 100 W/m^2.
For the GP Eout = 200 W/m^2.
(This should be entertaining!)”
Yes your contributions are always perversely entertaining.
ClintR. Is this supposed to be a steady state solution?!!!!
The blue plate is going to get hotter indefinitely while the green plates temperature heads towards absolute zero.
The correct solution requires not only energy balance for the system as a whole but additionally for each plate (see the Eli Rabbett solution). You managed one out three.
To learn about steady state you could try https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state.
Finally if I have misspelled someone’s name I give my heartfelt apology to them. I hope they are managing to cope and are not feeling too bereft.
As expected, MikeR could not correct bdgwx’s energy balance disaster. Even more interesting and entertaining, Swanson, Ball4, Nate, or any of the other idiots could make the corrections either. (And we know they saw it, because they lurk/troll here constantly.)
So here are the corrections, in bold:
For the BP Ein = (400/2) + (200/2) = 300 W/m^2.
BP Ein = 400 + 200 = 600
For the BP Eout = 200 W/m^2.
BP Eout = 200 + 200 + 200 = 600
For the GP Ein = (200/2) + (0/2) = 100 W/m^2.
GP Ein = 200 + 200 = 400
For the GP Eout = 200 W/m^2.
GP Eout = 200 + 200 = 400
Notice in all four calculations, bdgwx got it WRONG. At least he was consistent….
The cultists have revealed their ignorance once more.
But the big selling point of the TEAMS theory for the uncommitted, is their heat flow idea.
Heat flows in one side, heat flows out the other side, but no heat flows through the middle!
Heat flow interruptus.
Brilliant!
ClintR,
Sorry I misread your post and assumed that the crazy values for the blue and green plates was your own work.
I see that numbers you quote are what you extracted from the bdgx comments where he used them to show that one of the 244,244K versiond are incompatible with the conservation of energy laws.
There are 8 times bdgwx commented how crazy these numbers are.
Here are just two of these http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-512195 and http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-512140 .
What is particularly amusing about your last comment is your 3 sided blue plate that emits 200 W from each face. Enough said.
ClintR,
There is no magic mirror between the BP and GP that reflects “green” radiation but allows “blue” radiation to pass though in Eli’s original thought experiment. The task was to discuss Eli’s thought experiment as-is.
And besides if you wanted to make up a different thought experiment where the BP and GP really do maintain 244K at steady state then there are valid configurations you could have chosen that do not require invoking a magic mirror between the BP and GP.
MikeR,
Yeah…my +100 W/m^2 and -100 W/m^2 energy imbalances on the BP and GP respectively are at the instant the BP and GP are separated and while they are still at 244K each. Clearly neither the BP nor the GP are in steady state. The BP must warm and the GP must cool to drive their energy imbalances down to zero. Balance is achieved at 262K and 220K respectively and requires no reframing of Eli’s original thought experiment.
ClintR, on the other hand, invokes a magic mirror between the BP and GP that reflects the “green” radiation but allows the “blue” radiation to pass though as a method of balancing the energy budgets for the BP and GP.
Good point Nate. Another nail in the coffin.
On that note these guys are supposedly guided by common-sense.
However they appear to not have the sense to realise that only the blue plate is directly exposed to the external source. The green plate is shielded totally from the external source by the blue plate, as the view factors are 1. Consequently the plates cannot be at the same temperature and herefore not in equilibrium.
I have tried many times fruitlessly to explain this to DREMT and those who preceded him (shout out to g*, j.d.H and the succcesion of sock puppets) but they got bogged down as they didn’t understand the difference between thermal equilibrium and steady state.
By the way reviewing the long standing history of the 244,244K model version 1.0 was superceded by version 1.1, see
https://postimg.cc/dDYbnWS8
The difference was that the colour of one the 3 green arrows in v1.0 was changed to blue (which makes all the difference.as there are now 3 blue arrows leaving the blue plate!). This is probably what led ClintR astray.
ClintR, bdgx’s calculations are for the transient state when the two plates are first separated.
In the longer term the steady state values that are reached correspond to the Eli Rabbett solution.
Let’s count the ways the idiots are attempting to pervert reality:
1) By MikeR’s count, bdgwx has tried 8 times to get the energy balance correct. bdgwx has failed every time.
2) bdgwx doesn’t understand Ball4’s “perfect mirror”, because he doesn’t understand the physics involved, and can’t learn.
3) Nate tries to redefine “heat flow”.
4) MikeR misreads comments, adding to the confusion.
5) MikeR thinks blue plate has 3 faces.
6) bdgwx doesn’t understand “steady state”.
7) MikeR is now changing the color of the arrows to add to the confusion.
They MUST confuse, ignore, distort, connive, misrepresent, in order to deny reality.
I am getting exasperated by ClintR. I think he might have reached peak stupidity but perhaps it might be just a local maximum.
I will just comment at this late hour on some of ClintR points.
1. Bdgw tried to explain that, at the transient stage, the energy equations are not balanced for the plates as the temperatures of the plates are changing immediately after the plates are separated.
The requirement for energy balance is for steady state. ClintR, do you understand the difference between a transient state when the temperatures are changing and the steady state where the temperature of the plates are constant? Clearly not.
3. Nate can answer for himself but according my textbooks heat (net energy) does not flow between plates that are at thermal equilibrium i,e. at the same temperature.
4. I often misread comments especially when I make assumptions about the incompetence of the author. Sorry.
5, A plate which is a blackbody radiates the same amount from each face then yes Your wonderful equation (200W + 200 W+200W) only makes sense if the plate has 3 faces otherwise all these equations should have 2 terms. Of course in reality the plate has only 2 faces and this is why Clint’s equation is nonsense.
6.bdgwx is more than capable of speaking for himself but from my perspective, he definitely understands transient and steady state behaviour.
7. The originator g* of the 244, 244K model requested the change in colour back in 2017/18 and I obliged. ClintR your memory is very poor. Do you now have a new colour preference?
Clearly a change in colour will make the calculations totally different (Clint clearly doesn’t understand my tongue in cheek comments and tends to take them seriously so I have to state explicitly that in this case that I am kidding).
And this post…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-513618
…incoming negative energy is invoked to balance the energy budget on the blue plate.
So we have multiple versions now. Is it 4 or 5? In each one the BP and GP either have energy imbalances, aren’t black bodies, have a magic mirror between them, negative energy is involved, or in some cases more than one of these issues is evident.
1. All 3 plate graphics are in steady-state equilibrium. Get over it MikeR.
(MikeR omitted “2” for some reason. Likely something to do with his incompetence.)
3. Yes, Nate tried to redefine “heat flow”. Good catch.
4. You often make wrong assumptions and misread. Those are some of the reasons you’re an idiot.
5. There might be a reason they color-coded the arrows, idiot.
6. Both you and bdgwx test positive for idiocy. It is highly contagious to sheep, and there is no known cure.
7. Your original 3 graphics appear to have the correct color schemes. The only reason you would change is to create confusion.
bdgwx, the count is probably now approaching 50.
Your 8 failed attempts = 8
My indentification of 7 more = 7
MikeR’s attempt to pervert my 7 = 7
That’s 22 already. Ball4, Swanson, Svante, and others probably can equal that.
You guys constantly seek to pervert reality.
bdgwx displays his ignorance again.
“…incoming negative energy is invoked to balance the energy budget on the blue plate.”
I explained this to bdgwx once. When balancing energy in/out of a system, a negative sign indicates the energy is leaving, a positive sign indicates the energy is entering.
I tried to teach him, but you can’t teach physics to an idiot.
Where have I redefined heat flow??
DREMT is fine that heat flow is 0 thru the middle… why not you Clint??
Nate, did you get caught making another stupid comment?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-513855
It was stupid, childish, and desperate. You don’t have a clue about physics. You just troll to see if you can pervert reality.
As usual, Clint cant backup his inane claims with anything.
Dont you ever get tired of being such a dimwit/troll?
ClintR’s latest steepest ascent has allowed him to locate a new maximum of stupidity. This monkey behaves just like his organ grinder master, and distorts to generate maximum confusion in order waste everyone’s time. I guess they both get their rocks off on this kind of stuff. Maybe they should find a room.
Anyway, the latest seven point effort by ClintR is another exemplar but someone has to clean up the monkey excrement.
“1. All 3 plate graphics are in steady-state equilibrium. Get over it MikeR.”
No they are not in thermal equilibrium as there is an external source pumping in energy on one only side . The only way you could get both plates, in thermal equilibrium without violating thermodynamic principles, would be to change the problem to remove the source (or not have it in the first place).Upon removal of this source the plates would eventually reach thermal equilibrium.
The following might be a bit long winded but this maybe necessary when dealing with these clowns .However I am fully aware that ClintR /DREMT might go into their usual full confusion mode and attempt to twist this around, but I like to live dangerously.
Another way of looking at this, with the source in place, there is an asymmetry in the configuration as only one of the plates receives radiation directly from the source while the other does not receive radiation directly, so it is totally obvious (at least to those with the nessary minimum requisite of half a brain) that the temperatures of the plates will be different.
In the absence of the source, the configuration is geometrically symmetric and both plates behave the same way (despite having different colours!) and are at the same temperature .
“(MikeR omitted 2 for some reason. Likely something to do with his incompetence.) ”
No not my incompetence. I did say “I will just comment at this late hour on some of ClintR points” . As i said – Some of the points, not all!!
Don’t be too harsh on yourself for misreading this.
“3. Yes, Nate tried to redefine heat flow. Good catch.”
I don’t see it this way. Nate did not need to be corrected as he clearly did not redefine anything. I don’t know how ClintR came up with that idea but his mind moves in mysterious ways
“4. You often make wrong assumptions and misread. Those are some of the reasons youre an idiot.”
See my “some not all” comment above? ClintR, Isn’t it horrible when you try to make a point and you make the very same blunder by misreading. The expression “hoisted by your own petard” comes to mind.
“5. There might be a reason they color-coded the arrows, idiot.”
I designed the original graphic and modified it according to g* upon his request . if g* or one of his sock puppets is currently in close proximity, you can address your comment directly to him.
“6. Both you and bdgwx test positive for idiocy. It is highly contagious to sheep, and there is no known cure.”
Have you volunteered for the Stage 1 trials for the vaccine? It might be contagious in sheep but it is lethal for internet trolls.
Have you also thought about following the advice of Commander in Chief of the sheeple and inserting bleach in an appropriate orifice? It may not have cured his idiocy but the worst thing that might happen is that you might end up looking like an orange (or perhaps an orang-utan).
“7. Your original 3 graphics appear to have the correct color schemes. The only reason you would change is to create confusion. ”
Once again Clint, talk to the organ grinder who at the time, was responsible for the requested to change the colour of the relevant arrow. But again, do you think in reality that it makes any difference to the calculations?
Idiot MikeR can’t even understand his own simple graphics. Graphics labeled “Version 1.0” and “Version 2.0” are in “thermal equilibrium” AND also in “steady state” condition. “Thermal equilibrium” is described by the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics whereby a thermometer would read blue plate at 244 K, and read green plate at 244 K. Blue and green plates would then be said to be in “thermal equilibrium”.
Get over it MikeR!
(The 262 K/220 K bogus solution violates the laws of physics. And yes, it is 220 K instead of 222 K. Idiot MikeR cant even get the simple calculation correct.)
The conditions are considered ideal, with perfect objects, no losses, perfect vacuum, etc. Such conditions are allowed in order to illustrate physical principles. The two “244K versions” do not violate any laws of physics. By definition, there is no “heat” between the two plates because there is no temperature difference. There is energy flow, which maintains the temperatures. Both plates gain and lose energy. Blue plate gains 400, and loses 400. Green plate gains 200 and loses 200. It’s the same as if the perfect plates were still in perfect contact.
The idiots don’t realize that the 262 K/220 K bogus solution changes the green plate into a reflector, instead of a perfect absorber. A perfect absorber would absorber all of the 200 W/m^2, and at equilibrium, emit 200 W/m^2 to the right. It would be no different as when the two plates were in contact.
I won’t respond to the rest of MikeR’s blah-blah nonsense, because it’s just the ranting of an idiot.
“By definition, there is no ‘heat’ between the two plates because there is no temperature difference. There is energy flow, which maintains the temperatures.”
Ok. So Clint now admits he’s onboard with the Heatus Interruptus.
He’s perfectly ok with the TEAM redefining what heat flow is.
Here’s a textbook homework problem for the TEAM and any other readers. Use only laws of physics to solve.
37. 1 m^2 black-body plates are parallel and 1 cm apart in vacuum. We’ll call one BP and the other GP.
a. The plate temperatures are BP 290K and GP 244 K. What is the heat flow between the plates? What is the energy flow between the plates? What is the direction of the energy flow?
b. The plate temperatures are BP 244 K and GP 244K. What is the heat flow between the plates? What is the energy flow between the plates? What is the direction of the energy flow?
Back of the book answers to check your work:
37 a. Heat flow: 200 W/m^2, Energy flow 200 W/m^2, Direction from BP to GP.
b. Heat flow: 0 W/m^2, Energy flow: 0 W/m^2, direction none.
Did you get the correct answers? What laws of physics did you use?
I used heat flow Q/t = sigma(Tbp^4 -Tgp^4) and via First law of Thermodynamics Energy/t = Q/t.
Nate gets a bunch of things wrong, but there’s no need to correct him. He doesn’t care about reality, and can’t learn anyway.
As usual, Clint tells us the book has it wrong, but once again can’t tell us what’s wrong.
This ought to be a big red flag for anyone out there uncertain about who to believe.
Nate says: “This ought to be a big red flag for anyone out there uncertain about who to believe.”
Yes Nate, your unwillingness to face reality is a “big red flag”.
CliffR,
Versions 1.0 and 2.0 are in thermal equilibrium only as long as you make the assumption that they are at the same temperature, which in these cases is supposed to be 243.7K. We have gone through so many, many, many times the reasons why the two plates cannot bevat the same temperature while the sun is shining directly on one plate and not the other. The associated mathematical inconsistencies lead to 3 sided plates etc..
CliffR – “The idiots dont realize that the 262 K/220 K bogus solution changes the green plate into a reflector, instead of a perfect absorber.”
The green plate does absorb all the 267 W but re-emits 133W from each side.
Finally ClintR you have amazed me with being correct on one single occasion . Yes you are right it should be 220.2 K rather than 222.0K for the green plate . It looks like I have made a transcription error. Thank you for pointing that out.
I am blaming the onset of dementia for my transcription error. That’s my only excuse.
CliffR whats your excuse? .
Do you have only one? You must have an extensive range of excuses to justify the multitude of confusion and misunderstandings.
MilkR, Versions 1.0 and 2.0 are in thermal equilibrium. Get over it, MilkR.
The perfect plates are at the same temperature when together. And they are at the same temperature when slightly separated. Get over it, MilkR.
The blue plate is only emitting 200 W/m^2, from each face. It is only absorbing 400, so it cannot emit more than a total of 400, unless the green plate is a reflector. The 262 K/220 K solution is pure nonsense. Get over it, MilkR.
Hope you get over it, MilkR.
Correction: “It is only absorbing 400 W/m^2, so it cannot emit more than 200 W/m^2 to the left, unless the green plate is a reflector.”
The ‘I know you are but what am I’ defense?
Dont you ever get tired of having no answers, no physics, no evidence, just juvenile insults?
Nate, I think some of them are getting tired of attacking reality. Norman has even admitted that the wooden horse is not rotating about its axis. He hasn’t yet admitted that Moon is not rotating ab out its axis, but he’s realized that claiming the wooden horse is rotating proves him an idiot.
Some idiots may get it and learn to think, but most won’t.
CliffR
Are you functionally illiterate (that’s a rhetorical question ).
I agree totally, that as long as you believe the two plates are at the same temperature then they are at equilibrium.
Unfortunately they are not, for all the reasons given.
Sorry MilkR, the plates are both at 244 K, thermal equilibrium. The 262 K/220 K result is invalid because it is based on bogus nonsense. It violates the laws of physics.
Translation for idiots: The 262 K/220 K is physically impossible.
You have to be mentally insane to continually want to reject reality.
ClintR,
This exchange has become increasingly tedious. You continue to make the same assertion and it is explained by myself and many others, so many times and in so many ways, why your assertion is wrong.
Why does this process have to be repeated ad nauseum?
This is so eerily reminiscent of my many other exchanges with that other intellectually challenged individual, whose responses have been as equally endearing.
So similar that you could be sharing the same cranial cavity.
MikeR, the tediousness and similarities are due to the fact you are arguing against reality. You will always lose, arguing against reality. Possibly you experience the same frustration in your personal life. Arguing against reality will always make you a loser.
CIiffR, thankyou for your expressions of concern. I am indeed finding life is frustrating in these difficult times of Covid19 . I gather, in contrast, you are finding life blissful.
As the saying goes “ignorance is bliss” so possibly you could be the happiest person alive. Enjoy the feeling but please take great care, reality might end up biting you on the bum. Lacerations in that area are supposed to be painful and slow to heal.
However if you do end up incapacitated you could employ the time usefully by reading up on some basic physics. You might be less blissful, but your contributions may then engender respect from those who have had formal scientific training.
The reality is, MilkR, you didn’t know what “thermal equilibrium” meant. You had to be educated. Likely you still don’t understand it.
Just because you’ve learned to type doesn’t mean you can learn physics.
That’s reality.
ClintR,
Apologies for inadvertently getting you name wrong on several occasions. Maybe CliffR is stuck in my mind from my nostalgic memories of Cliff Richard (actually not that nostalgic as I always found his music too saccharine for my taste).
However I am not the only who gets it wrong, I see you have misspelt your own name, a few comments above.
So ClintR,
I am in desperate need of re-education in thermal phyics as it is several decades since I studied this topic at university.
Have the Laws of Thermodynamics changed in the meantime?
Explain your concept of thermal equilibrium and how it differs from the conventional definition as found here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium
In particular, do you agree that two bodies that are the same temperature are in thermal equilibrium with each other?
MikeR, I explained this above, but you can’t learn.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-514139
Besides, it’s your turn to answer a question:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-513480
ClintR, To your first link I just have to repeat,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-514268 .
At this rate we could end up in recursive loops forever! Sounds like a lot of fun (not).
With regards to your second link that belongs in the lunatic thread, I will follow the advice of my cat Schrodinger, who is capaable of understanding abstract concepts. He has given the solution as being both a and b .
a from the perspective of an external non-rotating reference point and b from the rotating reference frame of the rotating platform.
Answer “a” is the most appropriate if you are measuring the dynamics using accelerometers and gyroscopes see-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-514755 .
Or MikeR, if your keyboard did not have diarrhea, you could just say you “continue to ignore reality”, aka, “remain an idiot”.
ClintR idiot score + 1 = 90.
Well ahead of 2nd place idiot Swenson at 15.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-514816
Svante is working on his legacy. He’s either going for “cowardly troll”, or “idiot sheep”.
His legacy is very important to him.
ClintR trying to justify his abusive relationship with the term “idiot” –
“Nate and MikeR, you have not been paying attention.
My use of the word idiot is based on the fact that a person that willingly ignores reality is an idiot. I do not use the word as an insult. I use it to recognize those that prefer their false beliefs over reality. Several idiots, including bdgwx, have indicated they are proud of being an idiot.
Being an idiot is a life choice. Those that choose to be an idiot should not be ashamed of their choice. If they are ashamed, and feel stupid, they can always choose reality.”
ClintR, your simple definition of the above term depends on your frame of reference. To a simpleton, everything appears simple. To others who are capable of nuanced thought things are less straight forward.
For example, your inadvertent life choice, to only think concretely, leads you astray when considering problems that requires abstraction. You seem to lack the understanding that problems can be understood from more than one perspective
i.e. The infamous horse on a merry-go-around.
Maybe for clarity we should go through this yet again ( and hopefully for the last time).
As the horse is solidly connected to the rotating platform, the claim that is not rotating with respect to the platform, is something we can all agree with.
As has been explained ad nauseum, there is another alternative interpretation. This is from the perspective of external observer . Because the platform is rotating with respect to this observer, then any object firmly connected to it, by necessity is also rotating with respect to this observer. Again this is not rocket science.
Physics is full of such dualities but unfortunately understanding these dualities is not necessarily innate and it can require some form of learning. CliffR, you are never too old, so I encourage you to read up on physics. A good place to start would be inertial frames, which are relatively simple and you could later move on to the more difficult non inertial frames.
The wooden horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
Give it a break DREMT,
You just keep repeating yourself, with nothing new to say and you should know by now it is not an effective tactic.
It is also clear DREMT, that either your mindset is like Clint’s and unable to deal with abstractions (like multiple frames of reference) or it’s just plain old pride and stubbornness that dictates your responses.
I know I have said this before ( see I am repeating myself), but you are smarter than your comments suggest. So why not be really smart and consider making a strategic withdrawal?
I was just stating a fact, MikeR. An object that is incapable of rotating on its own axis, cannot be rotating on its own axis, despite how it may appear to be moving from a specific reference frame.
MikeR doesn’t understand that we have no need for something “new to say”. We simply rely on the same facts. Idiots hate facts. They like to “deal with abstractions (like multiple frames of reference)”. That makes it easier to distort and pervert reality.
“MikeR doesnt understand that we have no need for something new to say. We simply rely on the same facts. Idiots hate facts. They like to deal with abstractions (like multiple frames of reference). That makes it easier to distort and pervert reality”
My wise old grand daddy used to say “if you have anything new to say, just keep your trap shut”
I agree, it just leads to interminable repetition that makes the author appear to be at the wrong end of the “spectrum” . (apologies to those that have a child with this condition, the repetition would drive you nuts).
Sorry, I misquoted my grandfather.
He used to say “if you have nothing new to say, just keep your trap shut.
Anyway as further evidence for the diagnosis, those on the extreme end of the spectrum are usually unable to process abstract thoughts.
OK, MikeR. Way to repeat yourself.
For emphasis only.
You must be driving your poor parents nuts.
Last word.
Go for it. The floor is all yours.
Got your mop?
#2
Last word.
Pre-emptive strike.
#3
Last word.😄
#3
Last word.
Team Merde,
They says idiots repeat themselves.
Please confirm.
Is there some reason you are compelled to keep responding, MikeR? Personally I am just having fun seeing how long you will keep going, responding to somebody who is just repeating a numbered sequence of identical phrases. You are quite a strange one.
#4
Last word.
Thanks for the confirmation.
#5
Last word.
You don’t need to reconfirm, we get the idea.
By the way you say “Personally I am just having fun seeing how long you will keep going”.
Talking about strange. Surely you must have access to other forms of entertainment.
If not, maybe take the time wasted here to learn something useful such as physics or learn some social skills.
#6
Last word.
No matter how long MikeR types on his keyboard, he can’t change reality.
The “chalk circle”. wooden horse, ball on a string, and Moon are all NOT rotating about their axes.
DREM,
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Last%20Word%20Syndrome
ClintR,
Re your inabilty to understand concepts such as frames of reference
from http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
“Argument from Personal Incredulity: Asserting that opponents argument must be false because you personally dont understand it or cant follow its technicalities. For instance, one person might assert, I dont understand that engineers argument about how airplanes can fly. Therefore, I cannot believe that airplanes are able to fly.Au contraire, that speakers own mental limitations do not limit the physical worldso airplanes may very well be able to fly in spite of a person’s inability to understand how they work. One persons comprehension is not relevant to the truth of a matter.”
Also ClintR with respect to your continual repetition of your assertions as above, the following maybe be illuminating.
“Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to asproof by repeated assertion, is aninformal fallacyin which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1]Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2]In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of theappeal to authorityorappeal to belieffallacies.[3]”
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
Yes, MikeR, you clearly suffer from that syndrome. That is what I am making fun of with my numbered responses which you nevertheless cannot resist responding to.
#7
Last word.
Again as a homage to DREM,
https://www.marketingeye.com/blog/culture/why-egomaniacs-have-to-have-the-last-word.html
Which you felt compelled to post as you are desperate to have the last word.
#8
Last word.
From
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Last_Word#:~:text=Getting%20the%20last%20word%20means,also%20shows%20your%20moral%20superiority.&text=It%20is%20particularly%20important%20to,any%20deficiencies%20in%20your%20logic.
“Getting thelast wordmeans that you win the debate. … It is particularly important to get thelast wordwhere you are in some doubts as to the merits of your case. Thelast wordwill serve as a clinching argument that will make up for any deficiencies in your logic.”
So DREM, if you read the rest of wiki in the sense it is clearly intended, it is clear that “having the last word” actually confirms that you have effectively lost the debate.
On that basis, our correspondence with respect to this thread is now closed and no further correspondence will be entered into.
I again give you the floor. So please go for it. You can, utter the ‘last word’ and thereby administer the coup-de-grace via Seppuku (you can get your assistant ClintR to clean up afterwards).
See the lengths he will go to, to get the last word? Wow.
ClintR,
I think you might need to go and clean up a nasty mess. Your good friend, who seems to be a poor loser, couldn’t resist.
He just keeps proving me right. He is desperate for that last word.
#9
Last word.
No matter how much nonsense they conjure up, they can’t change reality.
The “chalk circle”, wooden horse, ball on a string, and Moon are NOT rotating about their axes.
But what happened to your toy train?
Choo Choo!
What happened to you giving a straight answer to this question:
Is the wooden horse rotating on its own axis? Yes or no?
I think Tim F. used the toy train to explain orbiting. It’s another good model of orbiting but not rotating about it axis.
So yeah, toy train, ball on a string, wooden horse, chalk circle, Moon, are all good examples of orbiting, yet not rotating about their axes.
Toot-toot.
If kept very still, very pure water can be cooled to well below 0 C without freezing. As low as – 40 F, apparently.
The problem is, if you try to warm this water by adding a much warmer ice cube, the water would instantly freeze. Thats my understanding, anyway.
Weird science, to be sure!
DW, adding an ice cube to super-cooled water is not an example of “cold” warming “hot”.
By attempting to pervert reality you are just proving you are an idiot.
As if we need any more evidence….
Gordon,
– And if you happened to be in an ice field in winter, with ambient T < 0C, why does radiation from the ice not warm you? –
If your body temperature is steady, and the temperature of the ice is steady, there is no reason for the ice to make you warmer. Who has claimed otherwise?
[headdesk] I came here for comedic relief from the Covidiots and TDS sufferers. It’s amazing that Dr. Spencer simply publishes a new number and it sparks 1,100+ comments, and not one–NOT ONE–addresses the newest data point. Well, I guess this one now does albeit indirectly.
If the pro-Spencer trolls could find it in their constitution to simply ignore the anti-Spencer trolls, the superfluous responses would likely remain under a dozen. Then again, it may be the case that the anti-Spencer troll would resort to out-negging themselves.
Comments on this blog are a disservice to Dr. Spencer. He is perhaps the most open, honest, candid, balanced and thoughtful climate scientist in the climate science community. (Not perfect of course, but certainly much better than the activists that the mainstream media fawns over.) Yet, we typically have over a 1000 comments on an blog post, featuring repetition, name-calling, closed-mindedness, lack of comprehension, etc.
Yeah , trolls did a number on this one again
Und Sie sind einer der Schlimmsten unter diesen Trolls, weil Sie ständig unter Niveau diskreditieren, statt fair zu argumentieren.
Pfui Deibel!
J.-P. D.
inquirer…”we typically have over a 1000 comments on an blog post, featuring repetition, name-calling, closed-mindedness, lack of comprehension, etc.”
Unlike the alarmists blogs where only certain replies are allowed, Roy has the open-mindedness to allow a variety of posts. There is a decent spectrum of science discussed here due to Roy’s open-mindedness, although the alarmists faction have proved themselves to be wrong.
No one here disrespects Roy, in fact, the skeptics among us have the deepest regard for Roy as a scientist and a human being. Same for John Christy.
Climate shystering hype overdrive
https://bit.ly/3aynCG2
ClintR,
– DW, adding an ice cube to super-cooled water is not an example of cold warming hot –
If all you wanted was an example of cold warming hot, should have so. The phase change of water complicates things. Much more of a challenge.
Worth noting that an attempt to complicate a point of contention is called obfuscation – a popular tactic among trolls and shysters (even though the word is probably not in their vocabulary).
The idea is otherwise very easy to demonstrate:
If you stand inside a walk-in freezer, wearing just a T-shirt, your body temperature will drop like a rock. After exiting the freezer, back into a 65 F room, you will start to warm up – even through room temperature is well below skin temperature.
As with all trolls, you have no knowledge of thermodynamics.
Doris,
Obfuscation? Phase change of water complicates things? Can’t you cope with reality?
OK then. This should be easy for you. Start with a teaspoon of ice, just below freezing point. Now use as much ice of the same composition as you like. Using the radiation from this ice, raise the temperature of any smaller amount to above freezing. You may start with your small amount of ice as hot or as cold as you like, provided it remains ice.
Likewise, you may make your large amount of ice as big as you want, and any temperature you like, as long as it remains ice.
Easy peasy. You don’t even need a thermometer. The temperature rise is easily observed. The smaller quantity of ice will melt. A probe will depress the water’s meniscus with little pressure.
Very accurate.
On the other all your other diversions use feelings and diversion. Terms like your temperature will drop like rock, for example. It won’t, and you are stupid for saying so.
doris…”Worth noting that an attempt to complicate a point of contention is called obfuscation – a popular tactic among trolls and shysters”
Exactly what you are doing Doris…obfuscating. You cannot bring yourself to support the 2nd law so you talk around it, just like the rest of the alarmists here. Then there is Norman, who is so deluded as to the meaning of science that he denies real science based on the scientific method and misinterprets it to suit himself.
You fit it just fine with the alarmist obfuscators.
Gordon Robertson
Again with the lies. YOUR LIE: “Then there is Norman, who is so deluded as to the meaning of science that he denies real science based on the scientific method and misinterprets it to suit himself.”
What you describe is only what YOU do. I do nothing at all as you describe. I give links to all my posts to support what I state. My links come from valid science sites and are based upon years of research and evidence. I have even gone to Clausius own book to prove you wrong about what he says about the 2nd Law. I have posted his own words several times to you proving you are a blatant liar. Now you just do what all liars do. Keep covering you many lies with more and more. You are a pathetic person. Born to lie and deceive. Sad.
Norman, you always demonstrate your immaturity, but you always leave out the fact that you have no background in physics.
ClintR
I have considerable more background in physics than you. What is your point? I actually took High School physics and One year of College level physics. I still read science material. Why don’t you. Your posts are probably the worst on this blog. At least Gordon Robertson tries to present his perverted physics. You don’t have any valuable or meaningful material in any posts of yours.
Most just tell people who have taken college physics they don’t know know physics. The others are making terrible physics claims with zero supporting evidence.
Here I will send you a link. Read up on Radiant heat transfer and come back at least with a fragment of knowledge. I think Gordon is a dishonest liar, I think you are just too stupid to learn.
Here is the download textbook. Please prove my thoughts about you are wrong and you can learn real science.
https://ahtt.mit.edu/
You actually took ONE year of college physics, Norman! Were you majoring in “comedy”?
No wonder you never get anything right. No wonder you are so jealous of Gordon. No wonder you believe Moon is rotating about its axis. No wonder you couldn’t find the problem with the ISS Flight Director’s definitions. No wonder you can’t understand thermodynamics.
No wonder Tim Folkerts had to telll you to shut up.
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
“With 2020 more than halfway over, it is clear that this year will rank among the hottest in recorded history and possibly break the all-time record set in 2016”
studentb,
Others may also notice that your real world includes treating the imaginary future as fact. Stupid.
student…”this year will rank among the hottest in recorded history and possibly break the all-time record set in 2016″
Rubbish!!! The trend since 2016 has been negative.
Swenson,
Stepping on an icy porch, my dog discovered a situation where ice did not make something warmer. You have managed to come up with another. Well done!
I had by doubts, but you have proven your wit equal to my canine buddy.
Doris,
Pointless diversion. You cannot do what you claim. No problem. The Greenhouse Effect depends on a process neither you nor anybody else can demonstrate – magic.
Have you managed to turn a small piece of ice into water by harnessing all that “back radiation” from a giant sized piece of ice? No? Time to talk about dogs, freezers and T shirts?
A smart dog ?
I believe that to be an oxymoron.
Like saying “intelligent Swenson” or “clever Gordon”.
Doris Weizendanger
You seem a science knowledgeable poster.
If you want to understand where ClintR, Swenson, Gordon Robertson, DREMT minds’ come from it is a reaction against the complexity of modern science. They cannot understand it so reject it for a more simplistic version of blog physics. I would think most come from the PSI blog or others where an abundance of alternate yet simple explanations exist for these minds.
It is NOT possible to change their view. Logic and Reason are not what they are about. It is an emotional reactionary state that evidence does not penetrate. Hopefully if does not continue to engulf the modern mind and we rapidly decline to less civilized existence. The fear is real, they are able to convert gullible people. The more numbers the more correct they believe themselves to be, a spiral delusion.
Here is a video that explains the foundation of this thought process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwJzsE8CvzQ
…but Norman, you agree the wooden horse bolted to the outside edge of the carousel is not rotating on its own axis.
As far as I’m concerned that makes you a “Non-Spinner”.
DREMT
Yes I do agree with that but I certainly also accept the Moon rotates once as it orbits. So I would be declared a “spinner” in your world.
You are certainly more “Non-Spinner” than a lot of folks here, who seem to think the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis.
The wooden horse is observed rotating on its own axis once per rev., no more no less, being fixed in place bolted down.
See? Ball4 is one of them.
norman…”Doris Weizendanger…You seem a science knowledgeable poster”.
Interpretation…you are as addle-minded as Norman and although he doesn’t understand a word you say, he thinks you’re cool.
Gordon Robertson
Closer to reality is you cover for your own incredible lack of knowledge of any real science. You reject textbooks and Einstein and think that makes you this genius. It doesn’t at all. You are a very simple minded person who can only understand super easy ideas, it is all you accept. Simple Bohr electron orbits is as far as you go. You cannot conceive of what a molecular vibration is. You can’t calculate energy from a spectral graph, You are enormously clueless about Inverse Square Law. No real physics. You pretend you took engineering but you can’t calculate anything at all. I took a course in Statics and it is all calculation all the time and difficult at that. You can’t figure out Inverse Square Law or Spectral graphs yet you pretend to have an imaginary degree in engineering?
Norman,
You took a course in Statics? The one where you sit still and dont move?
You should have taken a course in spelling and writing.
We have been treating these patients for some time. There appears to be no cure.
Dre,
Eli is right. Hughes did not understand his own experiments as I told you before at https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-510582
Yes, and I responded…and so did Swanson…and the conclusion was, at least one of you is definitely full of it.
Dre,
Swanson is correct and understands this stuff. It is unclear who you meant instead. Both you and ClintR apparently lack knowledge and/or understanding of heat-transfer phenomena. Perhaps you missed this: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511790 or are simply in denial.
Dan, the problem is with the thermodynamics. At first, the two plates are together. Then they are slightly separated. The temperature of the blue plate then jumps 18 K, with no addtional energy and no restriction to energy leaving.
That’s a violation of 2nd Law, and won’t happen in reality.
Except there is a restriction on energy leaving, which you would recognize if you understood thermodynamics.
If the green plate can’t restrict energy when it is touching the blue plate, then it can’t restrict energy when it is pulled slightly apart. (Both plates same composition, same size, same emissivity, etc.)
But, you will keep denying reality. So don’t expect a response.
The reality is green plate restricts energy when it is touching the blue plate by conduction, then it can restrict energy by radiation when it is pulled slightly apart. ClintR blunders again, always entertaining correcting charlatans.
…and yet more nonsense from Ball4.
Maybe you guys can post the relevant heat transfer equations for conduction and radiation and see where your ship is taking on water.
But wait, you guys don’t do equations, so do you feel lucky today?
bob, you’ve got the most ridiculous equation anyone can imagine.
You called it your “valid thermodynamic equation”:
Q/t= sigma(Th – Tc)
That’s a hoot!
I can help you with the conduction temp diff.
For plates pressed together, to drive 200 W/m^2 through a 1 mm aluminum plate you need a temperature difference of …
Conduction: dt=sQ/k
s=0.001 m (plate thickness).
k=237 W/K/m
Q=heat 200 W/m^2
dt=0.001*200/237=0.0008 K
I think you know how to calculate the temperature difference required for a 1 mm vacuum gap.
Clue: it’s more than 0.0008 K.
You don’t need to “drive energy” through the system when it comes to radiative transfer, Svante. Objects just radiate based on their temperature and emissivity.
You always make the same mistakes.
Don’t confuse heat and energy.
Heat transfer is always driven by temperature difference.
Now calculate the radiative heat transfer from a 0.0008 K (T^4) difference.
There is no heat flow involved between the plates, because they are at the same temperature, both pushed together and separated.
So the blue plate increases in temperature as it’s being heated by the heater, and not cooling as there is no transfer to the green plates.
The BP does not just stop radiating because heat flow has gone to zero.
Yes, it will increase in temperature while it gets 400W and loses no heat.
There is no lack of energy for the temperature increase.
There are 400 fresh Joules every second.
No, because it is still emitting.
Now you will say…it receives more than it emits…because you add back to the BP the energy from the GPs…
…and you will be ignoring that the BP gives the GPs their temperature in the first place…GPs have nothing without the BP, so they cannot warm the BP…
…and you will just go on, and on, and on…never learning about directionality of energy flow, or view factors, or ever really listening to anyone that disagrees with you…
…and I will eventually just get bored.
They (GP) cannot warm the BP because DREMT, ClintR have turned the BP side facing the GP into a perfect mirror which is different than the original problem statement where that same BP side is a perfect absorber. So it goes…on and on….and ON until DREMT boredom sets in.
Ball4 boredom kicks in the minute he speaks…
Yes Ball4, and it’s a perfect reflector and a perfect absorber at the same time.
Gustav Kirchhoff was wrong apparently.
Svante, yes, you get the major malfunction in DREMT & ClintR comments. AND a side is only a perfect reflector or perfect absorber (BB) when those two circus entertainers DREMT, ClintR so demand.
…all misrepresentations aside, in their world splitting an object into three pieces makes the middle piece increase in temperature!
☺️
Yes, DREMT fails to comprehend that conductive energy transfer is different physics than radiative energy transfer.
…they actually try to defend the idea…
… and that splitting an object requires a different calculation.
…sheesh.
I remember trying to explain Kirchhoff to snowflake Svante once before. Of course, he was not able to understand.
And, it’s funny to see Ball4 backing away from his “perfect mirror”, after realizing the concept helps to explain the plates. He regrets blurting that out!
You can’t teach physics to idiots.
No backing away ClintR, you’ve changed the blue plate from black body to perfect mirror on its right side.
…whereas to you guys, a blackbody is a heat shield and an insulator…
Heat shields and insulators exist so proper experiments prove right/wrong; blackbodies do not exist for experiments yet blackbody radiation does exist for experiment/calibration.
A perfectly-conducting blackbody plate from a thought experiment is as far away from an empirically-proven insulator as it possibly can be.
The plate in the thought experiment: “imagine the Earth is just a plate in space” so DREMT is wrong as usual.
DREMT incorrectly makes the original plate “perfectly conducting” and DREMT’s twin incorrectly makes one side of the original plate a “perfect mirror”. The twins can’t even agree with each other trying to cover their mistakes, what an entertaining fiasco for the twins.
Desperate drivel from Ball4.
Ball4 struggles to backtrack from his “perfect mirror”.
So funny.
Of course there is a third option….
dan…”Eli is right”.
Dan…I thought you had some sense but I obviously need to re-evaluate.
Here’s the logic of Eli. Gerlich and Tscheuschner put out a paper which destroyed the GHE theory. Eli, as Josh Halpern, rebutted with a group of fuzzy-minded physics wannabees, trying to disprove the assertions of G&T. One of them was a physics librarian who has never worked in real physics.
In a rebuttal of their own, G&T, two experts in thermodynamics, had the temerity to use the 2nd law as proof that heat can be transferred, by its own means, only from hot to cold. Eli et al replied, that with two bodies of different temperatures, a one-way heat flow would mean one of the bodies was not radiating.
Duh!!! These rocket scientists think heat is EM radiation and that the 2nd law can be bypassed by EM. They think summing EM satisfies the 2nd law. Back in the days when people like Clausius, Stefan, Botlzmann, Maxwell, and Planck thought heat flowed through the air in ‘rays’, in an aether, one can forgive such notions. However, since 1913, it has been proved that heat is lost at a surface as it is converted to EM.
It’s not possible for EM to transfer heat both ways between bodies of different temperatures. For one, there is the quantum conditions of electrons that emit/absorb the EM. For another, a hotter body is at a higher energy state than a cooler body, and we all know that energy cannot be transferred from a lower energy state to a higher energy state by its own means.
You can prove Eli dead wrong using elementary quantum theory but as a physicist, Eli should have already done that.
That’s what this stupid blue plate/green plate thought-experiment is about. Eli believes that EM as IR transferred from the GP to the BP can actually raise the temperature of the BP. Swannie, devoted to Eli’s pseudo-science did two experiments trying to destroy the 2nd law to satisfy Eli’s misunderstanding of basic thermodynamics.
Keep digging. Voodoo physics is fascinating.
BTW, that poor photon is still waiting for somebody to tell it what its source temperature was. Until it finds out, it is destined to forever wander the universe looking for a home.
studentb,
No doubt like the countless photons in the universe not interacting with matter. Did you have to study to become stupid, or does it come naturally?
How are you going using all those photons from ice to melt another piece of ice? Maybe the photons are obeying Nature, and not listening to your nonsense!
Smart dog! You have just pointed out the absurdity of “the photon knows its source temperature” theory.
Go away, troll.
Great response.
Gor,
It is becoming apparent that either EEs do not have to take a course in heat-transfer analysis or if you took one, you did not get much out of it. Heat-transfer analysis is a mandatory 4-unit course for MEs and I had 9 units more of it in the MS program.
I just read the paragraph (abstract?) of the 2009 G&T paper. I have never even heard of the GHE described as an “atmosphere acts as a heat pump”. The average temperature of the planet is measured by multiple independent agencies and they all agree within less than a degree so trying to calculate it is pointless. It is simple to calculate what the average temperature of the surface would be if there were no IR active molecules in the atmosphere. The measured average temperature is about 33 K warmer which is misleadingly named the GHE. G&T correctly stated that CO2 does not cause the so called GHE but they apparently did not realize that water vapor does. WV has been increasing at about 1.5% per decade which is faster than possible from planet warming.
Quantum Mechanics does not prove there is no GHE. In fact, Hitran uses QM to calculate radiation flux from ghg at various altitudes. The results for WV and CO2 are shown at ground level in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com .
You say “Eli believes”. Are you clairvoyant? Apparently you don’t even understand what Eli did, let alone what he believes. Regardless of how you look at it, the radiation from the blue plate effectively cancels radiation of the same wavelength from the green plate. That is the way it is handled in correct heat-transfer analysis.
IMO Eli knows better than that radiation from the gp warms the bp. I prefer to say radiation from the gp cancels the radiation of the same wavelength coming from the bp. The reduced loss from the bp causes it to warm. Eli’s science is correct, Swanson’s experiment is valid. You need to take a decent course in heat-transfer if you want to correctly understand this stuff.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511762
Dan,
“I just read the paragraph (abstract?) of the 2009 G&T paper.”
Sorry, I wish I could give you back the time you wasted on that.
G&T had nothing new or novel, they just repeat past authors. Sometimes incorrectly.
Ball4 has nothing new or novel, he just repeats other authors. Almost always incorrectly.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “For another, a hotter body is at a higher energy state than a cooler body, and we all know that energy cannot be transferred from a lower energy state to a higher energy state by its own means.”
Only you know this, know one else in the entire physics worlds knows this. You cannot keep your concepts at all separate but mush them up like a scrambled mess. Heat (Net energy transfer) will not transfer from a low to higher energy. That is what is well established. NOT energy! Energy does transfer all the time from low energy to higher energy states. All the time!!! Do you play pool?
It is inconceivable that you are as arrogant as you are. If you were just a humble person coming along asking questions you would be okay. You are a really dumb person but highly arrogant. The worst ingredients. You can’t learn, think you are a genius and say very stupid things.
Here is some proof of your false teachings for the sake of any you might be able to convert to your false religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
In the third mass graphic it has two different energy masses approaching each other. A higher and lower energy mass. When they collide in a perfectly elastic collision all the energy is transferred. The higher energy mass loses all its energy to the lower energy mass and the low energy mass transfers all its energy to the previously higher energy mass. The lower energy mass transferred energy to the higher energy mass. When you lose your arrogance and read real physics you might have some value. As of now you are just and arrogant mouth who spouts nonsense on every single post!
Norman, one can understand why you’re so jealous of Gordon. He writes coherently and he ends up with the correct answers. We struggle to interpret what you write, and you seldom get the right answer.
Your link is just another example of your getting things wrong. Gordon is clearly referring to heat transfer. Your link to the “third mass” is an example of conservation of momentum. Conservation of momentum is not “cold” warming “hot”.
Your lack of education fails you again.
Gordon: “It’s not possible for EM to transfer”
ClintR: “Gordon is clearly referring to heat transfer.”
ClintR makes yet another entertaining blunder referring to another blunder by Gordon. The laughs at the charlatans are especially strong today.
Everyone enjoys troll Ball4’s constant efforts to pervert reality, misrepresent, and misquote. So, I seldom correct his nonsense. But this time, it was too easy:
Gordon: “For another, a hotter body is at a higher energy state than a cooler body, and we all know that energy cannot be transferred from a lower energy state to a higher energy state by its own means.”
ClintR (Responding to Norman): “Gordon is clearly referring to heat transfer.”
(Watch Ball4 continue with more nonsense.)
Some don’t understand how to apply the second law of thermodynamics to single atoms or molecules.
But Norman gets it.
Norman would appreciate your support, bob. Especially if you showed him your made-up, bogus equation.
He likes nonsense.
Gordon states
“Its not possible for EM to transfer heat both ways between bodies of different temperatures.”
You think that because you think the following is true.
“For one, there is the quantum conditions of electrons that emit/absorb the EM. For another, a hotter body is at a higher energy state than a cooler body, and we all know that energy cannot be transferred from a lower energy state to a higher energy state by its own means.”
It’s not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases
Basically temperature has nothing to do with the energy states of the atoms or molecules, all to do with the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules.
Of course the deeper you go the wetter it gets.
inquirer…”we typically have over a 1000 comments on an blog post, featuring repetition, name-calling, closed-mindedness, lack of comprehension, etc.”
Unlike the alarmists blogs where only certain replies are allowed, Roy has the open-mindedness to allow a variety of posts. There is a decent spectrum of science discussed here due to Roy’s open-mindedness, although the alarmist faction have proved themselves to be wrong.
No one here disrespects Roy, in fact, the skep-tics among us have the deepest regard for Roy as a scientist and a human being. Same for John Christy.
Nah,
DREMPTY insulted Roy earlier on this very thread.
DREMPTY said:
“He seems confused, if he thinks the GHE has anything in common with putting on clothes”
Reminding everyone that Roy thinks the GHE is like putting on clothes.
Here is what Roy posted
“So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still as evidenced by putting your clothes on.”
And I agree with him.
bobdroege,
Can’t accept reality, so you appeal to authority. Stupid. Einstein appealed to the highest authority when he made his comment about God not playing at dice. Worth noting he changed his mind later.
Go away troll.
That’s because Bohr told Einstein not to tell God what to do.
Saying someone “seems confused” is hardly an ”insult”, stalker.
Hardly, when it’s a PHD opining on matters within his area of expertise, it is quite an insult.
OK, blob.
wizgeek…”If the pro-Spencer trolls could find it in their constitution to simply ignore the anti-Spencer trolls…”
You have to understand Wiz that other people read this blog without joining in. If we do not rebut the anti-Spencer trolls those people may get the wrong impression about global warming/climate change.
Besides, I take personal offense at posters going after Roy, either directly or in a quiet, sly manner. Although Roy describes himself as a luke-warmer, he has been attacked by scientists as a denier, or they have inferred that, and I appreciate the opportunity to take shots back at them.
All you do is this , nothing else
https://i.postimg.cc/mZtwNZst/think-tank.png
eben…”All you do is this , nothing else”
I always thought you were just a wanker but now I see you’re a useless, major troll.
Exaggerated Feelings of Self Importance
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD)
Look it up
Slightly off-topic but in relation to Covid19:
“In mid-March, the U.S. & South Korea each had approximately 90 deaths. The U.S. now has 169,754 deaths. South Korea, with a population of 52 million, has 305.
It would be interesting to know the difference in enticements for reporting deaths as Wuhan in each country.
The US pays hospitals about $39000 if they report a death as Wuhan.
Does S. Korea.
Anecdotally, a man I know went to the hospital for double pneumonia, an almost annual occurrence for him. He was tested 3 times for Covid-19, negative each time. His death was attributed to Covid-19.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
The best one I’ve seen was the poor guy that was working on a roof. He got hit by lightning, fell to the ground, breaking his back and neck. He tested positive, so his death was ruled another Covid death!
CliintR
And exactly what was the “source” of what you saw? What report does that come from?
Are you willing to pay my consulting fee, Norman?
ClintR
No I do not think so.
Clint…”The best one Ive seen was the poor guy that was working on a roof. He got hit by lightning, fell to the ground, breaking his back and neck. He tested positive, so his death was ruled another Covid death!”
An extension to that is the guy tested negative but one of his co-workers tested positive so his death was declared covid-***related***.
Michael Jackson
The comparison is not quite fair because South Korea get attacked by SARS-COV-2 much earlier than the US, and its leaders considerably differ from people like Trump.
From this source (Euro Centre for Disease Control)
https://tinyurl.com/rewn6ny
you can easily obtain data for countries and continents, by simply processing it with UNIX tools like awk, grep etc, and entering the result into a spreadsheet calculator.
Below you see two comparisons of
– Europe and Russia
– Asia
– Africa
– America
with…
– the US.
1. Cases
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_YaHFZ_PwqNRKTRVSUcdniDWHj67tJVV/view
2. Deaths
https://drive.google.com/file/d/127aHB0K9lTz5MxoB-JncLkFlg4qALgww/view
This blog’s ignorant-in-chief might feel the need to tell us that all COVID case and fatality relations are exaggerated.
Ignore him. He doesn’t know anything.
J.-P. D.
I must admit to a little curiosity. Some claim that separating a block into three pieces results in the middle block spontaneously increasing in temperature.
Now if you separate the middle heated block into three, presumably the middle one of three will become hotter than those on either side. And so on.
How many times can this be done before the last middle block explodes or melts?
Seems like complete nonsense to me. Somebody has an overactive imagination. No free lunches. I suspect somebody forgot to mention the involvement of a large body with a surface temperature of 5600 K or so.
Does the heating of the centre block occur in an air-conditioned room, and if so, how long does it remain hotter. Forever? I’ll have as many as you can make, in that case.
Keep digging. It is like watching a car crash in slow motion.
Go away troll.
No way, troll.
Swenson,
Earlier you mentioned a thermos.
Imagine if the liquid inside had its own continuous heat source.
What would happen if you pressed the inner and outer walls of vacuum chamber tightly together?
Would the liquid get warmer, cooler, or no change?
Doris – stop tormenting the poor person. That is what I do with mice.
p.s. regards from the dog
Doris,
If you couldnt tell the difference between a gotcha and a fairytale, would it really make any difference?
You tell me.
Swenson alias Amazed alias Flynn
What about spewing your stupid, dumb trash on other blogs?
J.-P. D.
Binny,
What about it?
Swenson,
That’s funny.
Sometimes I can.
No, it doesn’t.
I come back today to Scott R’s post
” Where is Bindidon today? I would love for him to explain to me how it is possible for 4 gigatons of snow to be added to Greenland in early August. ”
He was referring to this:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20200810.png
giving the situation on 2020, August 10.
But the same maps look, on August 16, like this:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20200816.png
As you all can see, so what?! Just a peak like there were so many.
And when you look back three years earlier on August 10, you see this:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20170810.png
and you see that despite the absence of any higher peak in August, the accumulated surface mass balance is by far higher than this year, it stays above the upside of the 95% CI for the 1981-2010 mean.
Unfortunately, there is few access to data like this:
http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk/data/prudence/temp/PLA/PP_GSMB/GSMB.txt
Only the last three years are available in text form for easy processing:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G2JsQ_FAK9jod5fqz6FZ303R6cbF1G1I/view
You have to process DMI’s NetCDF context to obtain more. Gracias no!
But these three years’ data tells us that while 2019/20 accumulated, till August 10, 6 % more than 2018/19, it is 30 % below 2017/18, and very probably 50 % below 2016/17!
No reason therefore to speak about the Globe cooling soon. That’s all alarmist blah blah.
I don’t like Warming alarmists, but Cooling alarmists aren’t better.
J.-P. D.
And while I do think a La Nina has better than even odds in the next 9 months the ENSO region is still struggling to fully descend into it.
I will say that I am rooting for a strong La Nina because I want to see just how low UAH can go this time around. Too bad Mother Nature doesn’t care what I’m rooting for.
And now it looks like this.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20200817.png
Lewis guignard wrote:
– The US pays hospitals about $39000 if they report a death as Wuhan. –
I was curious where this bullshit originated. Apparently, from an interview on FOX News, where Dr. Scott Jenson said:
– Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital youll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much. –
https://tinyurl.com/rwudk8s
It seems the reported $39,000 government reimbursement for ventilator care has been twisted, courtesy of conspiracy theorists, into a bogus claim about death payments.
Doris Weizendanger
Thx for the info!
J.-P. D.
doris…”I was curious where this bullshit originated.”
How about supplying us with evidence that it is false?
doris…here’s an article on it. A US senator, who is a physician has corroborated the claim by Lewis yet you call it bs.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/huge-mn-senator-doctor-hospitals-get-paid-list-patients-covid-19-three-times-much-patient-goes-ventilator-video/
Thanks
I admire your comments – original and evidence based!
Do medical doctors, researchers, politicians etc. lack common sense, have vested interests, ulterior motives or what? Nearly all of the test programs involving hydroxychloroquine appear to have been designed to fail. Common mistakes are: (1) Started too late. Any effort after the person has been hospitalized is probably too late. (2) Dosage too high. Too much of anything can kill you. Recommended adult dosage is 200 to 400 mg (155 to 310 mg base) daily; maybe double that on the first day only. (3) Didn’t include zinc. About 10 mg/day sustaining, 10X or even more for a few days along with HCQ.
A comparison of death rates by country depending on HCQ use along with much other information is at https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1283840177497088001?lang=en (For reasons unknown to me this does not work as a hot link. Copy/paste into your search engine.)
The hot link works for me here but won’t work from WORD. (???)
dan…”Do medical doctors, researchers, politicians etc. lack common sense, have vested interests, ulterior motives or what?”
All of the above. I have never seen such poor science as that which surrounds the covid propaganda.
1)The CD-C claim that 40% of those testing positive show no symptoms. Any scientist worth his salt would immediately suspect the tests. Not the CD-C, they claim the 40% are silent carriers.
2)In Canada, out of 3.5 million tests only 3% have tested positive. Yet this circus is called a pandemic. About 82% of the deaths claimed to be covid-related in Canada involve seniors in rest homes.
3)The CD-C once published a photo of HIV which they had to retract. Neither Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, nor his Yank counterpart Gallo, claim to have seen HIV because there are too many contaminants in the extracted viral material. Rather, both have inferred HIV based on evidence of reverse transcriptase activity and certain proteins believed to be from a virus. RT activity occurs in the body during processes that are not related to a virus.
Now the CD-C has posted a photo of covid, which, like HIV, cannot be isolated and purified using the standard method for identifying a virus.
4)Point #2 raises the question as to how a test can be developed for covid if the virus cannot be isolated. It was the same for HIV, Montagnier admitted there is so little of it that it cannot be seen. So, a ridiculous method was developed called viral loading, that converted RNA believed to be from HIV, to DNA, whereupon the DNA was amplified with the PCR method for DNA amplification.
Problem was, they still did not have a virus but more of the RNA equivalent in which HIV could not be seen. Kary Mullis who invented the PCR method was adamant that his method could not be used to find a virus that cannot be seen in a lesser amount.
Viral loading does not pretend to make a virus visible, it merely indicates a relative level of the RNA…believed to be from a virus…to an arbitrary level, after which a person is declared positive.
With HIV, samples have to be diluted 400 times, otherwise all humans would test positive.
Viral loading is still the technique used to ‘test’ for covid. Furthermore, when they do testing of masks, to check for viruses in water vapour exhaled by humans, they are looking for the same RNA and applying it to viral loading. They are not checking for a real virus.
This science needs desperately to be investigated before the medical community screws the entire planet. There is no good reason why a virus like covid should suddenly appear that is a danger to all people in a population. If danger is synonymous with death, then covid is dangerous only to a tiny number of people per population (measured in 1/100ths of 1% or less).
Gordon Robertson
On this one you are totally ignorant and I will not let your ignorant post stand unchallenged!
First a Pandemic. It is not based upon the severity of the disease just how widespread it is in the classical definition (no Hollywood version):
https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-088815/en/
I have Covid. I have not worked for two weeks. I am getting better now but the Doctor wants me to stay home yet. I did test Positive.
It can be a most terrible disease! Far worse than any flu or cold you have ever experienced! It does not get everyone like I had it but I think it is about 14% who test positive will develop worse symptoms out of those around 3% will need hospitalization.
I slept two straight days. Then have been super weak and felt terrible the whole time. I would have intense chills followed by fevers for several days. The worst was the last week. I had nausea for 5 straight days. I could not eat much food, nothing sounded good. My wife’s friend brought over gatorade and I could drink some but then I had to lie down with nausea for a few hours before getting up. I could only sit up a few hours before having to lie back down and I had to take sleepy medication at night to sleep Also had blistering headaches. It is far worse than most think. Gordon I would not want you ignorance to be corrected in the only way possible, that is for you to get it, I wish you could grasp that everyone in the medical field is not lying. They see these really really sick people. If you get it you might understand why they list they list people with conditions as Covid deaths. It makes you very ill. If you are already weakened you could easily slip off to death. You won’t grasp that until you feel it and that would NOT be a Good thing for you.
It can be a very very bad disease for some.
Gordon Robertson
I also want you to know I have a very good immune system. I take Vitamin C drops daily and have not been sick for 20 years before this one other than a sniffle. Never been knocked down by any illness like this. Even as a child I never was this sick (length of time). They may be under reporting how bad it is. I wonder how many others, not hospitalized, but suffering at home went through a similar experience? Death is not the only factor, sick for several days would bring any Nation down.
Nor,
IMO the difference between your experience and ClintR’s could be explained by differences in the luck of the DNA draw.
I would like to know more about your case. You said you “have a very good immune system…take vitamin C drops daily”. I am wondering what your vitamin D level is. Do you attend to it with supplement? According to Mayo Clinic, vitamin D is needed for a healthy immune system. Also, zinc is important in battling corona viruses (for example the common cold). Perhaps your immune system was less well tuned to battle covid than you think. What medications did you take? Did you monitor your temperature? Was your sense of taste or smell affected?
Norman, there’s just nothing like a personal anecdote to qualify a person as a medical authority.
ClintR
If you would have what I have you would not make such a totally ignorant statement. It does indicate you are as stupid as I thought. My hope is you stay stupid and happy. If you were to find out how bad the disease can be you would certainly change your thoughts about it but nothing else will.
Remain stupid and happy. You believe yourself a genius and all around you are fools. Stupid people are happy people. Stay happy!
Why all the animosity, Norman? Usually that indicates a person is insecure in their beliefs.
Many people had much less trouble with the virus than you reported. You probably failed to respond quickly and effectively. Mine only lasted about 3 days because I took to the bed early. Once the fever set in, I knew to shut down and let my body fight it off. I had one sleepless night, but slept most of the next day, and then all night. The next morning I was fully recovered.
Maybe, just like you can’t learn the issues here, you can’t learn how to manage your health either.
ClintR
Stay happy, on top of the world. Smartest man ever. Glad you have found peace on this planet.
Dan
I would not presume to know how effective HCQ is, but I think it is a mistake to draw a conclusion, one way or another, based on the graph in the link. Way too many confounding variables.
For example, several of the high-death countries were hit hard and early, before testing had become widespread. This skewed the testing to the oldest and sickest, to people with underlying health problems. So of course they would have a high CFR.
Same for NY and NJ.
To demonstrate my point, I think you will find that CFR has decreased significantly in the USA as testing has become more widespread, with younger and healthier people, many asymptotic, testing positive.
IOW, a dramatic drop in CFR has coincided with no change at all in HCQ use.
See the problem?
Another confounder, the nations on the left side of the chart tend to be countries with an aging population. To the right, very young populations. The chart may have looked quite similar even if HCQ use had been consistent throughout the whole data set.
Again, I am not making a call, just saying I would refrain from drawing a conclusion.
Dor,
If you or someone you care about had co-morbidity and showed symptoms or tested positive, what would you do?
student…”here is the frequency f, what is the source temperature?”
Here you go…pick a colour you like and check it’s frequency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature
GR,
Mght be a bad move on your part. The dimwits arent looking for knowledge. studentb is just trying to look smart, because he does not have anything to support his alarmism. Wait for a string of further demands.
What would you expect from somebody who possibly thinks that a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat is a world famous climate scientist!
Swenson…”Mght be a bad move on your part. The dimwits arent looking for knowledge. studentb is just trying to look smart…”
I don’t worry about stuff like that, I am posting for people who appreciate physics. I don’t pretend to be an expert on anything, I’ve been around science too long to get it that no one knows much in science outside his/her immediate field. Even then, as Feynman implied, no one really ‘knows’.
I have been waiting for a decent rebuttal but as you say, people like studentb can’t supply such a rebuttal.
Sadly, modern science has degraded to the point where we have a whole lot of people with degrees spouting bs.
I’ll give it a try, but I don’t expect comprehension.
The light coming from a blackbody exhibits a spectrum, or a band of color, or many different wavelengths.
So you can’t tell the temperature of a blackbody from one photon.
That should be clear enough.
But what I need is penetrating radiation.
bobd…”So you cant tell the temperature of a blackbody from one photon”.
Of course, it’s ridiculous to talk of one photons, mainly because a photon is a defined model to particalize EM. It’s ridiculous to talk of one electron for a similar reason, however, the mass of an electron has been estimated based on its charge. Electrons also burn neat holes through your skin if you’re dumb enough to pick up a relay powered by 240 volts with your thumb across the 240 volt contacts. Don’t ask.
However, if you have a whole slew of quanta radiating from a steel rod heated to a certain temperature, the EM it gives off is visible at a particular colour, then you know the frequency of the quanta (photons). Similarly, if you know the frequency of an IR source you know its temperature. That’s how IR detectors work.
Sorry, It’s not ridiculous to talk of one photon, there are some famous 2 slit experiments where they put measure one photon at a time.
In my line of work we count them by twos, it’s positron emission tomography or PET, hope you never run into it due to your medical condition.
The discussion was about transferring energy from a cold source to a hot source, and since the bodies emit a spectrum, it is real that a photon of energy higher than the peak energy of the spectrum from the hot body can come from the cold body.
So, yes the energy can go from cold to hot.
And they also did the two slit experiment with electrons, proving they also exhibit wave properties.
And you should think of electron forming standing waves around atoms rather than orbits.
bob works his scam: “So, yes the energy can go from cold to hot.”
Photons can go from cold to hot, but that does not mean they will be absorbed.
You’ve been exposed as a phony, bob. All your claims to the contrary just add to the entertainment. You’ve even been caught making up false equations.
ClintR,
The plates in the Blue and Green plate experiments were made of the same material, so they have the same emissivity, so they will indeed absorb photons that come from a lower temperature object.
And I think you are way ahead of me in both mistakes and making stuff up.
At least I admit my mistakes, you however are the smartest person on the planet and never make any mistakes.
Your little diagram of the green plate experiment is the phoniest thing ever posted on this site, except maybe all your phony changes of all the names you have posted under.
At least I refrain from sock-puppetry for the most part, the occasional joke post as an exception.
bob, you can’t admit you don’t have a clue about physics. But, you believe you can make up stuff. But, the more you make up, the more you trap yourself.
I’m still enjoying your ridiculous made-up equation:
Q/t = sigma(Th – Tc)
What a hoot!
ClintR,
So is Q = sigma*A (Th^4 – Tc^4) still a bogus equation? Using view factors equal to 1 as well as emissivities equal to 1.
After all, I am trying to find an equation you think is valid, so let me have a few guesses.
Gordon,
I appreciate the effort, but you are very mistaken if you think the link provided answered the question.
Consider this example:
– Heat two, same-size blocks to 40C
– block A is made of aluminum, bright and shiny.
– block B is made of coal
The two blocks will radiate at dramatically different frequencies, even though surface temperatures are the same.
If you tried to guess the temperature of the two blocks based on which one emitted at a higher frequency, you would guess wrong – because the temperatures are identical.
Get it?
doris…”The two blocks will radiate at dramatically different frequencies, even though surface temperatures are the same”.
You are confusing Stefan-Boltzmann with Einstein/Bohr’s E = hf. In the S-B equation there is no reference to frequency since it deals with a macro quantity. Given a mass at temperature T what is the intensity of its EM radiation?
When Bohr used E = hf, he meant it for an electron in an atom. E = hf represents 1 quantum of energy related to an electron and a quantum of EM energy. Obviously the quantum relationship between electrons and EM in a piece of aluminum is different than in a piece of coal.
Doris,
You are confused. Or ignorant. Or mentally deranged. Or something. One can guess temperatures, or one can measure them. By your own specification, both blocks are at the same temperature. What imaginary instrument are you using to measure with?
What frequencies do you claim are being emitted by each block? You havent a clue, have you? At absolute zero, are you still going to assert the blocks are emitting different frequencies of zero?
I assume you are confusing intensity with temperature, or frequency, or something. The usual alarmist fantasy physics. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Get it?
bobd…”Basically temperature has nothing to do with the energy states of the atoms or molecules, all to do with the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules”.
Bob…do you have any idea what kinetic energy means? Kinetic energy describes the state of energy, whether it’s still or moving. Still energy is called potential energy whereas energy in motion, any energy, is kinetic energy.
An electron moving in an orbit has kinetic energy. Why would it not, it has mass and it’s moving? It not only moves in the orbit, it moves between orbits. An electron can also move as a free electron away from the constraints of an atom.
Linear kinetic energy = KE = 1/2mv^2. Rotational KE = 1/2Iw^2.
Heat, as defined by Clausius, is the kinetic energy of atoms. If you have atoms of iron in a mass, the nucleii are all joined by, guess what, electrons? As you heat the mass the bonds vary in length and at a certain frequency. The more heat you add, the more the atoms vibrate.
Although bonds are created by outer shell, or valence, electrons, heat affects all the electrons in the atom. All electrons move to higher energy levels.
Temperature is a human invention that measures relative levels of heat. Both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales use the freezing and boiling points of water as set points and the range between set points is divided into degrees. The Kelvin scale is derived from the Celsius scale.
What did you think the energy states of atoms was about? That’s the problem when you use the word energy generically rather than supplying the form of energy. What other form of energy can account for a rise in the energy states of an atom but heat?
When an electron absorbs EM, it converts the EM to heat. When the same electron emits EM, it converts heat to EM.
It’s bizarre, but here goes
P-orbitals
https://www.google.com/search?q=p-orbital&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS900US900&sxsrf=ALeKk00TUJu17s9ktD2JPokC5w0RkZqrbA:1597803191385&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=lRbS4GkNkxS87M%252CfbarAOoSSWd0wM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQPiaQxB__GSdy0yDmzy9ClxdBZyQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiTvpLdmKbrAhUFCM0KHU4pAWAQ_h0wAHoECAkQBA&biw=1280&bih=578#imgrc=lRbS4GkNkxS87M
Look at those pictures and similar ones you can find on the internet.
They are not orbits.
They also have nodes, where the probability of finding the electron at the node is zero, so how does the electron get from one side to the other?
I don’t know, but it is equally probable to find the electron in either lobe.
Dan
My mother has a bad heart, so she should not take the risk. I would give it a go, though.
The US essentially banned the use of HCQ in June, and CFR has fallen since then. Peru, a high user, has seen their CFR rise. Now higher than US. Even Brazil, with their president pushing it, has a higher rate than us.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
These numbers still dont mean anything to me. To many confounders.
Dor,
AFAIK Your mother has high risk of dying without HCQ and lower risk of dying with HCQ. The heart issue is nonsense with proper dosage. Millions of people have been taking it for several decades with no heart issues.
The banning of HCQ was due to politics and pressure from big pharma. Do you know of any public entity that has promoted 400 mg/day HCQ + 100 mg or so zinc immediately on testing positive or displaying symptoms indicating covid?
There is huge pressure from big pharma, patent holders, potential vaccine sales and U.S. politics to make HCQ look bad.
Gordon,
None of my comments end up where intended, sorry for the confusion. You asked,
– Given a mass at temperature T what is the intensity of its EM radiation? –
You should know that the intensity varies greatly depending on the surface properties of the material – even if the mass and temperature are exactly the same.
Bright, shiny, and smooth: less intense. Dark, dull and rough: more intense.
Doris,
So, were you confused, ignorant, or deranged, before? You could always blame the computer for misquoting you, as well as putting your comments in the wrong place.
What happened to the different frequencies at the same temperature?
You miss the point.
Blackbody A at temperature T1 emits radiation across a range of frequencies (Planck function)
Blackbody B at a different temperature T2 emits also emits across a range of frequencies (different Planck function)
Pick a frequency. I can detect radiation at this frequency from both bodies.
Pick any arbitrary photon, nobody can tell from which body it originated.
Even the dog understands this.
Studentb,
*The two blocks will radiate at dramatically different frequencies, even though surface temperatures are the same.*
Your comprehension is defective. How stupid are you trying to appear? Go away troll.
– What happened to the different frequencies at the same temperature? –
That too. I thought it might confuse you if I discussed two variables at the same time.
Doris,
Nary an answer in sight. So, different frequencies from coal and aluminium at the same temperature? At absolute zero? What about gold and silver? No need for analysis, just measure some imaginary frequencies?
And what are the frequencies at 40 C for coal and shiny aluminium? Is that anthracite coal (shiny) or lignite? How shiny is the aluminium?
Anwers, please!
Calm down. Try and state your questions clearly and succinctly.
We can’t read your mind (if you have one).
studentb,
You dont know either? Yet another alarmist dimwitted troll!
You are becoming erratic again.
studentb,
Go away troll.
https://youtu.be/CA-5WWrNINY?t=635
Eben
You are, as usual, a perfect ignorant.
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/presseinformationen/2020/Stromerzeugung_2020_Halbjahr_1a.pdf
Ich glaube kaum, dass Sie beim Lesen Schwierigkeiten haben werden.
J.-P. D.
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1295827745813827584
La Nina is coming!!! I hope we get a giant La Nina and a 25 year PDO flip to negative. I would like to see the justification for natural climate cooling or minimal warming. Minimal warming would remove the evidence for increased rate of warming, which is required to justify any high sensitivity model.
Aaron S
” La Nina is coming??? ”
Well, if I were you, I would be patient a little longer.
1. BoM
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml#tabs=SOI
As you can see at the page’s bottom, both Nina treshold checks SOI and IDO move to neutral back again by next January.
2. ONI
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Hmmmh.
3. MEI
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
The strongest Nina values since 1979:
2010 7 -2.43
2010 8 -2.40
2010 9 -2.28
2010 10 -2.18
2010 11 -2.04
2010 12 -1.91
2011 1 -1.83
1988 8 -1.79
2011 3 -1.79
1988 7 -1.77
The ENSO index shows in this year
2020 0.29 0.30 0.15 -0.11 -0.24 -0.73 -1.00
In the ranking, the value ‘-1.00’ appears at position 74.
3. TCC El Nino outlook
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
This the only one somewhat stronger hint (the 10 % red El Nino bar disappeared two months ago).
*
Patience et longueur de temps font plus que force ni que rage.
Jean de la Fontaine, Le Lion et le Rat
J.-P. D.
Swenson
– So, just measure some imaginary frequencies? –
Light travels in waves, and waves have a frequency. Do you think this is imaginary?
Doris,
Just tell us what the frequencies are. Please answer.
What imaginary instrument are you using? What about the rest of the questions you are refusing to answer? What are you scared of? Maybe you could try actually providing answers, rather than continually posing stupid gotchas.
What a dummy you are!
Swenson
There is a difference between evading a question, and being bored by a question.
A whole bunch of boring questions is more than I can handle. Night night.
Doris,
Evasion it is. I understand why. You dont know what you are talking about, and that fact is obvious who cares to check for themselves.
Once more, some debunking of strange Coolista claims.
1. ” On the link between decreased solar activity, and large volcanic eruptions, the last VEI7 eruption, Mount Tambora, occurred during the Dalton minimum. ”
Yeah.
But… looking with a somewhat wider angle mostly is more helpful.
1. Here are the most known solar minima (Dalton is in, 1790-1820), but was kept unnamed):
https://tinyurl.com/y5fwqsfn
And now look at these nice eruptions:
– 1257 Samalas, Indonesia, VEI 7
– 1280 Quilotoa, Andes VEI 6
– 1452/3 Kuwae, Vanuatu, VEI 6+
– 1477 Bárðarbunga, Iceland, VEI 6
– 1563 Agua de Pau, Açores, VEI 5
– 1580 Billy Mitchell, Solomon Island, VEI 6
– 1586 Kelut, Iceland, VEI 5
– 1600, Huaynaputina, Peru, VEI 6
– 1641, Mount Melibengoy, Phillipines VEI 6
– 1650, Kolumbo, Greece, VEI 6
– 1660, Long Island, Papua New Guinea, VEI 6
At a first glance, it seems to me that of these 11 major eruptions (35 with VEI 3-4 occurred in between),
– the by far most destructive one, Samalas, occurred within the MWP:
– only two of them (Bárðarbunga and Agua de Pau) clearly occurred during a solar mimimum (Spörer).
J.-P. D.
Some debunking of strange Coolista claims (cntnd)
2. ” Its possible with this GSM coming up. ”
Ha ha haaa! Only gullible believers of Valentina Zharkova will tell you such stuff. Her double dynamo based GSM idea has been debunked a while ago.
And when I look at this info I found within the Belgian SILSO’s web site
https://tinyurl.com/y5hxm27r
I think we’ll need a lot more consistent material before believing in this rather improbably incoming GSM.
Anyway, I remember that somebody calculated the effect of all solar minima occurring before 2100: a decrease of 0.5 C over the whole century.
J.-P. D.
Addendum
The very best around Zharkova’s stuff is that like did Mann & alii, she made heavy use of P C A (primary component analysis) to statistically assess her thoughts.
But … while Mann & alii faced the greatest disagreement from McKittrick and MacIntyre for a while for an allegedly improper use of the P C A method to assess their multi-century temperature reconstruction, no one (NO ONE) inside of the ‘skeptic’ blogs formulated such a critique against a similar use of the P C A method by Zharkova.
Hmmmh.
J.-P. D.
binny…”while Mann & alii faced the greatest disagreement from McKittrick and MacIntyre for a while for an allegedly improper use of the P C A method…”
Binny is in denial about Mann’s bs being shot down. It was not just M&M who shot him down it was the National Academy of Science and a statistics expert, Wegmann, appointed by the US government, who shot him down. Wegmann agreed with M&M and NAS partly. They ordered that Mann’s claim of 1000 years was faulty and reduced it substantially but the IPCC went even further and cut the range from 1850 – present.
The most damning critique came from NAS, however, they ordered that Mann et al could not use pine bristlecone as a proxy for the 20th century, and without it the blade of the hickey stick he counted on was gone.
It was gone anyway. The bristlecone proxy data was showing cooling while real temperatures were rising. That prompted Mann to use his trick, aka hide the decline. He simply snipped off the offending proxy data and spliced in real data.
Yeah right, Mann made a wild guess.
Turned out he was right, his results have been replicated again and again.
https://tinyurl.com/y25t5le4
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/
“These studies have suggested that while a grand minimum might cool the planet as much as 0.3 degrees C, this would, at best, slow down (but not reverse) human-caused global warming.”
Svante
Global warming should not be mentioned all the time everywhere, and that, people like you do not seem to fully understand.
It was here not my point anyway.
J.-P. D.
svante…”this would, at best, slow down (but not reverse) human-caused global warming.”
No scientific proof that human-caused warming exists.
Norman
Sorry to hear about your difficult experience.
– I wonder how many others, not hospitalized but suffering at home went through a similar experience? Death is not the only factor, sick for several days would bring any Nation down. –
I have a friend, mid-aged and healthy, who came down with symptoms just as you described back in late March. Loss of taste and appetite, fever and chills, headache, extreme fatigue, etc.
She called her doctor, but because she was deemed low risk for death, was told to stay home and self isolate. Testing was still limited at that time, and they were trying to save tests for those who needed to be hospitalized.
Her misery continued for over a month. She called her doctor multiple times, but was given the same runaround.
End result, she very likely had COVID, but was not included in the COVID case count.
doris…”End result, she very likely had COVID, but was not included in the COVID case count”.
‘Likely’ is not a scientific words and does not meet the requirements of the scientific method. Mind you, if you tell the authorities, they will likely add two to the count, one for her and one for you, even if you just talked to her by phone.
Doris Weizendanger
I am glad she got better. The symptoms were very similar. With hard symptoms it is far worse than any cold or flu. I have not been sick from work for 20 years. I have had slight colds and maybe mild flu. Nothing even close to what I had or your friend. I did test positive as did my wife. She felt much fatigue and slept alot but did not get high fever or chills. Just a couple days of low fever.
It is not a joke, a hoax, over overblown. It is a serious contagious diseases that needs to be respected.
I am afraid many will not believe the reality until it hits them. Then it is too late. But they can be voices of reason in a world gone mad.
The truth comes out.
Norman admits his wife had mild symptoms, as do most people. My wife didn’t have ANY symptoms. I’ve had worse hangovers….
Norman, you either didn’t respond quickly enough, letting the virus get too much of a head start, or you may have underlying health conditions. Are you overweight? High blood pressure? Diabetic or “pre-diabetic”? Do you have an exercise regimen?
I should mention that myself and several family members have had over the course of our lives some hellish bouts of influenza.
But most only lasted two or three days, and none more than a week.
Doris Weizendanger
The same holds for us here too.
But we all can’t recall any hospital suddenly lacking ICU beds, let alone any doctors or nurses having died because they got infected by the flu.
J.-P. D.
binny…”But we all cant recall any hospital suddenly lacking ICU beds, let alone any doctors or nurses having died because they got infected by the flu”.
How many countries ran out of ICU beds? Here in Canada, in the province of BC, we panicked and cleared out 1400 hospital beds for an ICU emergency. We used 50.
I have yet to hear the circumstances of the doctors and nurses claimed to have died from covid exposure. How do we know what they actually died from until the details of their deaths and other factors like underlying conditions and general health level?
Robertson
I told you that years ago: you are the dumbest and most ignorant person I ever read about.
Look at Italy, Spain, France, Brazil, New York, Florida, and lots of other places, you dumb ass.
Lots of doctors and nurses there had daily to chose whom to keep alive and whom to let go to death.
And lots doctors and nurses there lacked protection clothes, so they got themselves infected and… died. In Italy about 50.
I hope one day you will be required to stop writing your disgusting bullshit.
J.-P. D.
COVID-19 is a bit off topic, but I suddenly recall the brazen Trump boy having said during a press briefing:
” Our case fatality rate has continued to decline and is lower than the European Union and almost everywhere else in the world. If you watch American television, you’d think that the United States was the only country involved with and suffering from the China virus. Well, the world is suffering very badly. But the fact is that many countries are suffering very, very, very badly, and they’ve been suffering from this virus for a long time.
We’ve done much better than most. ”
*
I don’t know if it is clear to everybody why this smart guy suddenly switched from cases and fatalities to case fatalities…
Here is the reason.
1. If you sort the countries by total cases per million, you obtain this top ten below:
BE 868
PE 815
UK 621
ES 610
IT 586
SE 566
CL 555
8. US 518
BR 514
FR 454
2. If you sort them by total fatalities per million:
QA 40736
BH 28751
CL 20446
PA 19438
KW 18261
OM 16729
PE 16656
8. US 16527
BR 15918
AM 14099
3. But… if you now sort them by case fatality, the US suddenly drops down to position… 35 !!!
IT 13.9
FR 13.9
UK 13.0
BE 12.7
MX 10.8
NL 9.7
ES 8.0
CA 7.4
SE 6.8
…
CO 3.2
BR 3.2
35. US 3.1
*
Is that not pretty pretty good?
Buona notte at GMT+2
J.-P. D.
Apos: list 1 is the sort of deaths per million, and list 2 is that of cases per million.
More testing, more cases, lower fatality rate.
Change criteria for cause of death to include any death with a positive test within 30 days of the test or a presumed case (no test) regardless of actual cause of death and you inflate fatalities
Covid fraud is on par with climate fraud. Its worse because climate fraud never killed anyone.
In 1981 a study showed 37,000 excess deaths for each point of unemployment rate increase. Add to that excess deaths from lockdowns, and thats where your excess deaths come from .
Pft…”In 1981 a study showed 37,000 excess deaths for each point of unemployment rate increase”.
In Italy, in the 2016/17 flu season, nearly 25,000 Italians died. Just about as many deaths as claimed for covid19.
How many people died globally of the flu that year?
The infection fatality ratio (IFR) is the true measure of how lethal a virus is, but nobody knows for sure what that is.
Other metrics are misleading, and those are all we have.
How is that fraud?
doris…”The infection fatality ratio (IFR) is the true measure of how lethal a virus is, but nobody knows for sure what that is”.
They do if the test results are good, but they are not. Based on the current test results, it is known that only a tiny fraction of 1% of covid-proclaimed deaths has occurred in any population.
Also, out of 100% testing positive, 40% show no symptoms. In Canada, a few hundredths of 1% of Canadians have died. Here in the province of BC, it’s a few thousandths of 1%. Out of 3.5 million tests, only 3% of Canadians have tested positive.
I’d say covid19 is not very lethal at all. Just another run-of-the-mill virus pumped up by bean-counters and theorists to be far more than it is.
norman…”Gordon Robertson
YOU: “For another, a hotter body is at a higher energy state than a cooler body, and we all know that energy cannot be transferred from a lower energy state to a higher energy state by its own means.”
Only you know this, know one else in the entire physics worlds knows this.”
***
This is kind of dream world you inhabit, Norman. Let me put what I said in terms even you ‘should’ be able to understand.
Water cannot run uphill, by its own means. A bolder at the base of a cliff cannot raise itself onto the top of a cliff by its own means. Electrons in a circuit cannot flow from a positive potential to the negative potential, by their own means.
Heat cannot flow, by its own means, in a conductor, from the cold side of a steel rod to the heated side of the rod. It’s no different with heat transfer by radiation, heat cannot be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body.
There’s a good reason for this. In the steel rod, electrons at the hot end are far more excited in their bonds than at the cool end. Energy can only be transferred from a state of higher energy to a state of lower energy.
With radiation, the electrons in the hotter body are far more excited, hence at a higher energy level than the electrons in a cooler body. Heat can only be transferred from the higher energy state to the lower energy state. Transfer in the opposite direction, by its own means, is not possible.
Gordon Robertson
The situations you describe are correct for their positions. Water will not flow up hill nor will a boulder rise up without some force. The situations do not apply to emissions from heated plates at all. They are different. A heated plate is not under a force. The molecules on the surface are raised to higher vibrational states from kinetic energy of the body. Once in higher states they will emit an IR photon and return to a lower state. As long as the body has kinetic energy this will be a continuous process. It is not the product of an external force as you other examples use (gravity and electric).
If you have a cold and hot plate they both keep emitting as long as the body has kinetic energy to deliver to surface molecules. They are NOT dependent upon each other for emission. The rate of emission is a statistical value based upon the available kinetic energy. The more energy available the more emissions.
The Hot body will emit more energy to the cold body, however the cold body will emit to the hot body. This is well established science even in Clausius time. It has not changed nor will it. It can be empirically measured.
If you correct your thought to the actual process everything will make sense to you. If you resist you will keep coming up with wrong posts.
Norman, you’re not making any sense.
Do you still have a high fever? That would make you delirious.
ClintR
It makes fine sense, read it again trying to understand it. I am not sure you have enough knowledge of the process of IR emission to understand it. That may be why in your own confusion and lack of ability to comprehend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
Read this it might help you understand.
I see. You’re trying to learn physics from wikipedia, again.
That explains why you’re not making any sense.
ClintR
The article is good based upon valid physics. I have linked you to an actual textbook as well on some recent post.
I do not think you comprehend how IR is emitted. As long as you do not understand that significant point further communication along these lines is useless. If you don’t like wiki read the textbook. You will find the same information. In fact you will find the same information in any valid physics material dealing with IR emission.
I can’t do any more to help you on this. The rest is up to you if you are willing and able to learn for yourself.
You’re still not making any sense, Norman. You don’t have a point, just false innuendos. A bunch of links means nothing. You can’t articulate any relevant point.
ClintR
Since yuu do not understand my posts then just leave them be. I really am not interested in anything you have to say on any subject.
I do not value your opinions. So make it easy on yourself. Ignore me. I would really like that. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
Maybe if you had something to offer, besides insults and opinions, you wouldnt be so insecure.
ClintR
Actually I offered you a link to a textbook on heat transfer.
I do not offer opinions. I offer valid supported science which is the purpose of the links.
You give horrible physics with zero support and call everyone an idiot who does not agree with this terrible garbage you spew like vomit from your mouth!
Why do you need to post to my comments?
“Nomran”, that comment was an example of your constant insults and opinions. A random link to something you don’t understand is just subterfuge.
And I do not unfairly call people names. You and others have earned the distinction of “idiot” because you refuse to accept reality. If you object to your title, I’m happy to offer another test.
Maybe if you had something to offer, besides insults and opinions, you wouldn’t be so insecure.
clint…”Do you still have a high fever? That would make you delirious”.
Good one, Clint.
Lewis guignard:
-The US pays hospitals about $39000 if they report a death as Wuhan. –
US senator and physician, Dr. Scott Jenson, in an interview with Laura Ingraham:
– Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital youll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much. –
https://tinyurl.com/rwudk8s
—
Then Gordon, linking to the very same interview and quote I had already provided (as though he had never seen it before), declared:
– A US senator, who is a physician has corroborated the claim by Lewis yet you call it bs. –
😏😝🥴
doris…I an always suspicious when a new poster appears especially with a nym like yours. Your use of the smileys suggests you have been here before since not many posters know how to use them. I was one of the first to figure out the code that needs to be entered to produce a smiley.
I am guessing you are Nurse Crotchrot, aka Crachit, who is an infamous alarmist around here who likes to hide behind revolving nyms.
Hi Doris
I see you are conversing with Gordon. That will do him the world of good.
The poor man thinks he invented smileys !
Regards,
Nurse Ratchet
If Mr. Robertson doesn’t want to take his medication, I’m sure the nurse can arrange that he can have it some other way. But I don’t think that he would like it.
ball4…”If Mr. Robertson doesnt want to take his medication, Im sure the nurse can arrange that he can have it some other way. But I dont think that he would like it”.
The plot thickens. Doris = Nurse Cratchet = Ball4.
Will Gordon spot the error in his reasoning?
Place your bets!
Will Doris realise that he has lost all credibility? Place your bets, but not with me. I know the answer.
norman…”I slept two straight days. Then have been super weak and felt terrible the whole time. I would have intense chills followed by fevers for several days. The worst was the last week. I had nausea for 5 straight days. I could not eat much food…”
Sorry to hear you are not up to snuff.
Don’t waste your time with ‘drops’ of vitamin C, you need to be taking several grams of it daily. If you had hit the flu-like symptoms you describe immediately with a bowel-tolerance dose of C, which is about 6 to 8 grams in a healthy person, within 4 hours, you would have noticed the symptoms break significantly, after rushing to the toilet at breakneck speed.
That’s the secret, hit your system with enough C to cause a rush to the toilet, then repeat every 4 hours. Never fails for me. I no longer get the flu as you describe and a bonus is that I don’t get the secondary effects either, like runny noses and coughing.
Since March, I’ve had two episodes of a swollen throat with flu-like symptoms and I have hammered both with about 60 grams of C each. I did feel under the weather on both occasions but nothing like the near-death experiences I’ve had with the flu in the distant past (pre-C).
norman…directions on using megadoses of C for various complaints.
http://www.doctoryourself.com/titration.html
Gordon, how about hydroxychloroquine?
https://tinyurl.com/y34p4fch
Gordon,
– I am guessing you are Nurse Crotchrot, aka Crachit, who is an infamous alarmist around here who likes to hide behind revolving nyms.-
Thanks a lot, Gordon – mistaking me for a sadistic nurse! Why would you say such a mean thing?
Here is a puzzle requiring an answer.
Gordon and Swenson went out one cold evening to visit the cinema.
A person at the door requested they submit to a body temperature check.
“NO WAY”, they shouted. “That infrared thermometer you hold in your hand is way warmer than our body temperatures. A warmer object cannot detect a cooler object – WE REFUSE!”
Consequently, they were barred entry.
The question here is….
………
……..
……..
………
wait for it
……..
……
…….
…..
What was the title of the film they wished to see?
Maybe a triple feature.
Saturday Night Fever? Body Heat? Dumb and Dumber?
studentb,
Another puzzle is how and why the thermometer was hotter than the person holding it. An alarmist eternal heater, CO2 powered, perhaps.
The movie was obviously an Alarmist Production – Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest.
Doris, studentb, Svante and Ball4 all want to star, but are unable to agree who is the dumbest!
All joking aside, (only joking), your stupidity is exceeded only by your ignorance. Anybody else would have looked up “thermopile” by now.
My guess is:
Creature with an Atom Brain
“An ex-Nazi mad scientist uses radio-controlled atomic-powered zombies in his quest to help an exiled American gangster return to power.”
Swenson,
– Anybody else would have looked up “thermopile” by now. –
Gomer Pyle?
That was a TV show, not a movie.
And related to thermopiles…I’m still interested in having a GHE contrarian explain how an NDIR sensor works.
bdgwx, you can claim you are interested in learning science, but “science” involves “reality”.
And you know your aversion to reality….
ClintR can’t explain how an NDIR sensor works.
Ball4
Not quite surprisingly, ClintR behaves very similar to the pretentious Pseudoskeptic nicknamed ‘JD*Huffman’.
With the one and only exception that the latter never named anybody an idiot…
He was a specialist in the stupid statement “learn some physics” (although he didn’t know anything about it himself).
J.-P. D.
Speaking of an aversion to reality, and look who shows up.
Correct, Bindidon. I see ClintR still can’t explain how an NDIR sensor works.
Troll Ball4, if me explaining something so simple, is so important to you, will you donate $100 to Dr. Spencer toward the costs of this blog?
When Dr. Spencer notifies us that he has received your $100, I will explain the simple NDIR.
Bindidon says:
“With the one and only exception that the latter never named anybody an idiot…”
You are wrong there Bindidon, banned versions of ClintR were also champions in the “idiot” category:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/can-space-com-teach-us-anything-useful-about-climate/#comment-333814
My mistake, ClintR has indeed progressed from “stupid” to “idiot”.
When I first started hearing about “JD”, I thought they were referring to Bindidon!
When the dimwits are prepared to pay for my knowledge, I will gladly explain how NDIR sensors work.
How much are the individual dimwits offering?
I see ClintR still cant explain how an NDIR sensor works.
I see troll Ball4 really doesn’t want to learn. He just wants to troll.
So, ClintR go ahead, teach, and explain how an NDIR sensor works.
Ball4,
How much have you offered ClintR? Precisely nothing? Too stupid for find out for yourself?
Go away troll.
I see ClintR AND Swenson still can’t explain how an NDIR sensor works.
And I see Ball4 still trying to force others to do what he can’t be bothered doing for himself.
Go away troll.
Obviously bdgwx was correct, neither ClintR nor Swenson can explain how an NDIR sensor works.
Go away troll.
bdg…”And related to thermopilesIm still interested in having a GHE contrarian explain how an NDIR sensor works”.
Seems to be a dial-up spectrometer. It uses a nitrogen sample source and a variable filter that can zero-in on the wavelength of the gas under test. I am guessing it compares the absorp-tion frequency of nitrogen as a set point and compares the difference to the nitrogen absorp-tion spectra/spectrum.
If this a science discussion or pantomime?
It works by comparing the absorp.tion frequency of nitrogen as a set point with the nitrogen absorp.tion spectra/spectrum?
b . . . ,
Does it really?
bdg…”It works by comparing the absorp.tion frequency of nitrogen as a set point with the nitrogen absorp.tion spectra/spectrum?”
What’s the point in changing my words? That was intentional since a simple copy/paste would have gotten the quote. Are you that dumb, jealous, envious that you have to edit the meaning of a post to be contrary to what was said?
What I wrote…
“I am guessing it compares the absorp-tion frequency of nitrogen as a set point and compares the difference to the nitrogen absorp-tion spectra/spectrum”.
In other words, the unknown frequency is selected using a filter then compared to the absorp-tion frequency of nitrogen.
I was unsure about the phrasing “compares the difference” since “compares” was already used and was wondering if that was just a typo. I typo a lot. In fact, I typed a 4 when I meant to type a 2 in a comment earlier today. It’s worse than it sounds because it was in an energy budget calculation.
Anyway…thanks for the clarification. Can you expand your explanation further? Why would the concentration of a gas species in the cuvette cause the instrument to behave differently? Can you ammend your description to include NDIR’s that do not use nitrogen cuvettes?
I have more questions if you don’t mind, but I think the ones above are a good start.
When I read such incredible Robertsonian nonsense like
” I’d say covid19 is not very lethal at all. Just another run-of-the-mill virus pumped up by bean-counters and theorists to be far more than it is. ”
my answer is:
Such disgusting people should really become attacked by SARS-COV-2, have to immediately move to the nearest hospital, where they would become intubated for two or three weeks, and leave the hospital EXACTLY as did here many COVID-infected Germans.
We saw lots of interviews of such COVID-‘recovered’ people.
They are named ‘recovered’ but aren’t anyway. Only a few of them are able to recover their job: one unexpected disease hunts the next.
*
But unfortunately, people a la Robertson never come to experience what they deny to exist!
Schade! What a pity! We would get rid of his dumb arrogance.
*
Btw, a simple hint on COVID19’s mortality is to look at the case fatality ratio in the US for
– the seasonal flu: 0.1 %
– COVID: 3.1 %.
Thirty times higher.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
I’m not at all sure what your point is. So you want to inflict pain and suffering on another person because they disagree with you. I can understand that.
In 2018, in the US, more than 2,800,000 people died. I assume that most of them were not looking forward to their deaths. Any disease that results in your death might be considered serious. Weeping and moaning doesn’t achieve much. Have you any suggestions to avert or cure virus borne disease (that aren’t already common knowledge)/
If not, you are simply trolling. Go back in your box, troll.
If there is one troll here, then that is YOU, Swenson.
binny…”Such disgusting people should really become attacked by SARS-COV-2…”
Can’t you read? The data is clear: covid19 seriously affects only a tiny fraction of 1% of populations. Furthermore, 40% of those testing positive show no symptoms. What kind of dangerous virus causes a person to show no symptoms?
Furthermore, In Canada, only 3% of those tested are positive.
I’ve told you why it doesn’t affect me:
1)I take at least 8 grams of vitamin C a day in divided dosages.
2)If I feel a flu coming on, I raise the C input to about 8 grams in one dose and make sure I don’t have to go anywhere. I know that in an hour or so I’ll be rushing for the bathroom.
Then I repeat the heavy dosage every 4 hours till the virus screams out, “OK, enough…I’ve had it”.
or (3) you haven’t been exposed yet
midas…like my buddy claims, he’s too mean to be infected by a virus.
I don’t think covid is any different than HIV. If you are healthy with a good immune system the effect will be minimal. According to the CD-C, 40% of those testing positive don’t even know they have been infected. Then again, the tests used do not test for a virus, but RNA, a molecule that is abundant in every one of the trillions of cells in a human body.
They test specifically for the RNA of Covid. Apparently you believe that there in only one type of RNA. Have you EVER researched the full story, or is the problem one of comprehension?
It is just amazing how every climate expert in here is also a doctor and expert virologist
https://youtu.be/ShZKzBHquEo
What does that make you?
(answer = non expert)
studentb,
As Richard Feynman said “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts.” I think being accepted by you as a non-expert is a mark of high esteem. Thank you on Eben’s behalf.
swenson…”As Richard Feynman said Science is belief in the ignorance of experts.”
He was an amusing guy, old Feynman. I remember another quote from him, “Quantum theory works, but no one knows why”.
What is even more amusing is the way that deniers claim him on their side, despite the fact he is dead and never uttered a word on the subject.
Feynman was a true scientist. He had a keen focus on reality. He would never have fallen for nonsense.
And, he cared not about “authority”. When he correctly determined that NASA management had caused the Challenger disaster, he didn’t hesitate to make that clear. Reality was much more important to him than politics.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” Richard Feynman
Case in point.
Oh , I just noticed Gordon Robertson already posted the same cure as his own, well now you have it with the video
eben…the only thing you have going for you is your global warming/climate change skepticism. Other than that you’re just a dumbass troll.
Nothing personal but if you are going to attack people who are on your side in the GW/CC debate you are a troll looking to create dissension.
So conservative solidarity ahead of facts – is that how it works?
How about some climate shystering refresher course
https://youtu.be/FqjQxv6HtUA
For anybody besotted with “cold makes warm warmer”, place a couple of blocks of ice facing each other, in a colder environment. Now try to predict how all the energy you figure must exist (using Wiens Displacement Law or anything else) will be absorbed by another block (or water, say).
Now have a rethink. Maybe you have misinterpreted quantum electrodynamic theory (the most rigorously tested theory of all time).
You idiot. WDL does not provide any information about total energy flows.
studentb,
Indeed. And neither does anything else. Now try using a large quantity of ice to melt a small quantity of ice, starting with both at the same temperature.. The larger contains more energy. Or try heating water with ice, if you want to try your hand.
Like Doris Dimwit, you just dont understand. Neither does the delusional non-Nobel Laureate Michael Mann, or the non-scientist Gavin Schmidt.
1. You suggested using WDL – not me. I accept your apology for being wrong.
2. Putting me in the same company as Michael and Gavin is indeed an honour. I think Doris will be similarly chuffed.
3. Your obsession with ice is cute – but ultimately pointless.
studentb,
1. Read what I wrote. Dont make stuff up.
2. A consensus of idiots, all agreeing they are as stupid as each other. Chuff away.
3. Says a guy who believes that a colder object must be able to heat a warmer by forcing it to absorb colder radiation! Be like Doris – reject reality on the grounds its boring. Fantasy is so much more interesting for you, isnt it?
1. I read this: “Now try to predict how all the energy you figure must exist (using Wiens Displacement Law..”
That was you – was it not?
2. We are still way more intelligent than your good self.
3. “colder radiation” !!!
What sort of idiot refers to “colder radiation”.
studentb,
1. You forgot to read *or whatever you like.* You seem to have a short attention span?
2. Another unsupported assertion? Of course, intelligence doesnt prevent delusional thinking. Or in Manns case, being characterised as a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat.
3. OK. Would you prefer *radiation from a colder body*?
Keep going.
1. I accept your apology.
2. I will pass on your regards to Michael.
3. Tell me again. Given frequency f what is the source temperature?
studentb,
1. You have managed to accept something not offered. Clever?
2. Nonsense. You have no intention of contacting Michael Mann, have you?
3. Slow learning self proclaimed idiot, are you? How many times do you need to be told?
Swenson, (aka: Mike F), repeated his usual red herring rant:
Been there, done that with my Ice Plate demo where I showed that ice can cause a heated plate’s temperature to increase, just as various other materials will do.
swannie…poor quality control in your experiment. You don’t explain the T ambient conditions and why it keeps dropping throughout the experiment. It’s not clear whether you turned off the freezer and left if off while you opened the lid to change coverings or whether you re-established T ambient each time.
Swannie, why are you fighting so hard to upend the 2nd law after Clausius did such meticulous work to establish it and explain it? Makes no sense to question it based on a couple of hack authors writing thought-experiment like theory in a textbook.
You should have cooled the aluminum and styrofoam to initial conditions before proceeding. Same with all the coverings including the ice. Had you done that, the ice would not have melted at -25C.
You claimed to have turned off the freezer to prevent the fan running and producing convection. That should not have mattered since your experiment was closed to convection from the freezer unit. You inadvertently biased the experiment by allowing the freezer to keep cooling. That rendered the plate temperature irrelevant.
Look at your Tambient temps, they are all over the place. You needed to establish them at -13.3 for each covering just as you did with no cover. Your T ambient thermocouple is revealing the IR radiation from the plate as being all over the place
With the ice cover, you presumed it was transparent to IR. Ice is not transparent to normal light, it filters it and refracts it. According to your data, I did not see any difference in plate temperature between the polycarbonate, acrylic and ice. The ambient temperature fell even with you opening the freezer lid and messing with the experiment without re-establishing initial conditions.
Had you taken more care to establish Tambient at the same T as the other coverings, I am sure you would have seen the plate cool with the ice cover. Your T amb is telling us the enclosure is cooling while the plate is warming.
With the aluminum foil you have blocked all radiation from the plate and you would expect its temp to rise. You seem to have switched thermocouples for the ice from the T ambient thermocouple to the Tice thermocouple.
No peer reviewer would accept an experiment conducted under such conditions. Unless, of course, you used the peer reviewers used by the likes of Mann and Schmidt.
E Swanson,
No you havent. You are delusional. Your environment was warmer than any of your ice. You used a heater as well, which would not be necessary, unless you were performing a magical illusion by convincing gullible fools that a reduction in the rate of cooling is really an increase in temperature!
As you point out (after I explained the results of your earlier *experiment*) – *Thermal radiation shielding is a common technique for reducing heat loss from a body, . . . *
No heating at all. No back radiation. No need to wonder why the world is not beating a path to your door.
Gordo, Your telling of my experiment is totally off base, as usual.
For each cover, the freezer door was opened to change the setup and then closed, after which, the freezer was switched on and run until the ambient temperature reached it’s lowest. During this time, the heater was turned on and the freezer was run until the plate temperature had increased to a stable value. Only then was the freezer turned off, while the heating of the plate was continued. The ice would not have melted at an ambient temperature of -25C and was only close to melting at -19.8C.
In each run, the difference in temperature between the plate and the ambient temperature once things settled down was taken to be the key metric. The plate temperatures were used as a rough reference point, except for the case of the foil cover and the Styrofoam cover, where the energy flow rate was reduced and therefore plate temperature as greater. The ambient temperature would be expected to be different for each cover at those reference points.
Your assertion that “With the ice cover, you presumed it was transparent to IR” is completely wrong. Ice is a good emitter of thermal IR radiation, as is water, so why would I assume otherwise? There was a thermocouple in the ice plate only to monitor the ice temperature, but none for the others. There was no switching of thermocouples, as you suggest.
You also write: “Your T amb is telling us the enclosure is cooling while the plate is warming.”, which is absurd as all measurements are taken as the freezer is switched off and the ambient temperature is slowly increasing as the freezer warms toward room temperature.
You claim that “No peer reviewer would accept an experiment conducted under such conditions”. Of course, you appear to have never published thru peer review, so you have no way to know what might be acceptable. So, what would a serious experimental comparison of the IR back radiation from ice look like which you would find acceptable?
Swenson, wrote
Your reading is even worse than Gordo’s delusions. The ambient temperature for the ice plate is -19.8C which is less than the the temperature of the ice plate (which I did not provide). The heater is necessary, as it’s presence as an energy source is a fundamental requirement for the GPE model, as well as any attempt to describe the energy flowing from the Sun into the atmosphere and back out to deep space.
It’s no magic, no illusion, the back radiation from the ice plate warmed the heated metal plate, as did the acrylic cover, etc.
Swanson, you continue to fool yourself with that incompetent demonstration.
If you were not an idiot you would know you have to present a clear diagram of energy flows and temperatures. Otherwise, it just all hand-waving.
E Swanson,
I see. The ambient temperature for the ice plate is -19.8C which is less than the the temperature of the ice plate
Maybe a typo.
Now, you say * The heater is necessary, as its presence as an energy source is a fundamental requirement for the GPE model, . . . *.
So you have a heat source, and you have discovered that ice can insulate. Duh! So can a roof, which is why people use them when the sunlight is a bit hot.
Using Bob’s law of I want my Beer cold, I put one of the blocks of ice in a cooler and it melts slower, keeps my beer colder longer.
I’ll have none of that warm english ale, thank you very much.
bobd…”Ill have none of that warm english ale, thank you very much”.
After 3 pints of Draft Double Diamond you don’t notice the difference. After 9 pints, you have trouble finding your way home.
Worked with a guy here in Vancouver area who got so drunk after work on Vancouver Island that he ended up in Kelowna, in the interior of the mainland and had no idea how he got there. He took up the fiddle later in life to annoy his wife. The only way he could get back at her for nagging him.
Nice story thanks.
My cat’s breath smells like cat food.
midas…”My cats breath smells like cat food”.
Would not surprise me if your breath smells like cat food. Nurse Ratchit would likely find that attractive.
Someone has never watched the Simpson’s.
Midas,
Who are the Simpsons, and why do you watch them? A peeping Midas, are you?
Go away, voyeur troll.
I read above one more dumb comment posted by the Pft genius:
” More testing, more cases, lower fatality rate. ”
This is exactly what you can expect from gullible believers of what the Trumping boy tells about case fatality.
Let us compare the case fatality for a few countries, especially US and the UK, two countries having shown a perfectly similar testing behavior (data from Worldometers on Aug 19):
Denmark 344197 2736 107 3.917
Singapore 298121 9552 5 0.048
Israel 226140 10482 77 0.734
Russia 225902 6389 109 1.702
USA 218461 17074 529 3.095
UK 218228 4715 609 12.92
You see that there is no relation between testing and fatality rate.
J.-P. D.
Ooops!? A line describing the columns is mssing:
Tests/mill Cases/mill Fatalities/mill Case fatality %age
The brick wall that everyone keeps hitting their heads against.
I hope it’s ok.
Nor,
Perhaps you missed this post up thread.
I would like to know more about your Covid case. You said you “have a very good immune system…take vitamin C drops daily”. I am wondering what your vitamin D level is. Do you attend to it with supplement? According to Mayo Clinic, vitamin D is needed for a healthy immune system. Also, zinc is important in battling corona viruses (for example the common cold). Perhaps your immune system was less well tuned to battle covid than you think. What medications did you take? Did you monitor your temperature? Was your sense of taste or smell affected?
Dan Pangburn
I had Vitamin D tested. The result was 42 and the range is 30-100. I do take Vitamin D supplements.
The only meds I took were Tylenol for fever and an anti-nausea pill. I did monitor my temperature. My sense of taste or smell did not seem to be effected. The worst of it was the terrible fatigue and then 5 days of nausea where I could not eat (just drank gatorade and water). I am doing better now but have to wait until the Doctor releases me to go back to work. Still weak. I cough if I exert myself but I get tired of sitting around. I have always been doing vigorous exercises 3 times a week. I have not worked out about a month.
Dan it can be far worse than any flu or cold you may have encountered. I think some of that was being relayed by the Medical people on the front lines and politicians took some actions. I am not sure what the correct course should have been. In the USA you have far too many Conspiracy Nuts that believe whatever anyone tells them on Facebook and reject any information from experts in the field.
Fever enhances the immune response, so it can be counter productive to force it down.
https://youtu.be/EFRwnhfWXxo?t=439
Nor,
Thanks for the info. AFAIK 42 ng/ml is near the low end of good for vit D. Somebody went to a lot of trouble to make the chart about vit D at https://www.grassrootshealth.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/disease-incidence-prev-chart-051317.pdf I take 5000 IU/day but I am an old geezer who doesn’t get outside much. I also take about 10 mg/day of zinc. Obviously Vit D won’t prevent covid but there is a correlation of more bad outcomes with darker skin tone/low vit D.
I appreciate how bad it can get, especially for an old guy with high BP like me. I take all recommended precautions to avoid getting it; stay home except for groceries, wear mask and eye protection, wash hands/ hand sanitizer.
What with all the mixed claims, politics and conflict of interest of some experts it’s hard to sort through the fog. Common sense says that millions of users of HCQ over decades without serious side effects demonstrates that it is safe to use early at proper dosage. There is a lot of hoopla that treating early with HCQ reduces the risk of bad outcome. If, in spite of all the precautions I still get it I am demanding HCQ immediately and with extra zinc. Zinc has demonstrated to reduce symptoms and duration of another corona virus, the common cold. AFAIK from sorting through the conflicting stories, this cuts the risk of a bad outcome by at least half and perhaps as much as 80%. It’s disturbing that many of the tests of HCQ appear to have been designed to fail: Too much, too late, no zinc. HCQ doesn’t help if not started immediately.
The only way to be reasonably safe is by herd immunity whether by getting it and surviving or by vaccination. I have been working the data published daily by NYT to try to determine where we are wrt herd immunity. Most states are after or on the down side of the hill but Hawaii is just starting the up side. IMO and I am starting to hear it from others, the pandemic is about over. Expect some bumps as the public backs off from preventative habits. I am staying cautious till I hear an official, credible all clear.
Thanks again for your story.
Dan Pangburn says:
As always, mainstream science is your best bet.
Sva,
Unfortunately, at least for covid, there is no ‘mainstream science’. All we have instead is a plethora of “mixed claims, politics and conflict of interest of some experts” and a lot of corrupt.tion. Another credible person’s observations on this and other things we talk about here is in an Aug 6 broad.cast of a 43 minute informative video at https://youtu.be/f5kqlzjByQI?t=8
In a few days, two tropical storms will be in the Gulf of Mexico.
binny…from svante…”Bindidon says:
With the one and only exception that the latter never named anybody an idiot”
Binny, is it too late for you to develop a sense of humour and let go of the strong images you have of yourself? If someone calls me an idiot, and my g/f does all the time, I admit I’m an idiot and ask what the point is they are trying to make.
When my g/f calls me an idiot, I am quick to point out that I’m a good-looking, intelligent idiot, which extracts a scoffing remark that I am even more of an idiot than she thought.
Lighten up, life’s too short.
Ohh Gordon!
I didn’t know we were that close! My heart is all aflutter!
You are my favourite idiot!
bdg…”I was unsure about the phrasing “compares the difference” since “compares” was already used and was wondering if that was just a typo”.
I could have stated it better. I have been reading on the NDIS sensors from an electronic POV since most of them these days seems to use electronic chips and packaged thermopyles. Don’t have time to get into it tonight but to answer your question briefly re the nitrogen reference, it is likely used only with full gas spectrometers.
If you consider a straight CO2 detector, you have an IR source that is driven by a high frequency switch and radiates through a CO2 gas. On the other end of the gas is a thermopyle that converts any IR received to a voltage. The thermopyle is in a package and has two inputs, one for the active signal and one for a reference signal. It has a filter over each input, one to pass just the CO2 emission frequency and the other set to a reference frequency. This part of the theory is not clear to me yet since the intensity of CO2 is derived from a ratio between the active and the reference inputs.
The thermopyle for CO2 is selected for that frequency range. If you have multiple gases, you need different thermopyles that can be plugged into a socket.
I imagine with a cross-spectrum gas analyzer that nitrogen serves as a reference level, maybe because it is the most abundant gas in the atmosphere.
Skoolstriking for climate does not work so well when all schools are shut down
https://youtu.be/_U8y7mVsxvA
swannie…”It’s no magic, no illusion, the back radiation from the ice plate warmed the heated metal plate, as did the acrylic cover, etc.”
Then the 2nd law is kaput. You have discovered a scientific miracle and you should nominate yourself for a Nobel. Go ahead, the Nobel committee could likely use a good laugh.
Clausius, who wrote the 2nd law, made it clear that the 2nd law applies equally to radiation. Unfortunately, in his day, the electron had yet to be discovered and it’s relationship to radiation was unknown. In his day, heat was believed to be transmissible through the air as heat rays. Ironically, many scientists and students of science still believe that today.
Heat cannot be transmitted through air other than as a very low conduction between molecules. It can be carried through air as a heated mass as in convection but that is a different heat transfer than transfer by radiation. Therefore, your transfer of heat from cold to hot, by its own means, not only makes no sense, it’s physically impossible.
Even Planck was not aware that the electron was discovered when he started his work that lead to the discovery of quantum levels. He claimed later, that had he known about the electron/radiation relationship it would have made his work much easier.
Planck worked out quantum theory using Boltzmann’s statistical methods. He had no idea there was a physical particle causing the radiation, the electron. Einstein got it partly, although restricted to photo-emission, it was Bohr who finally put it together, equating EM emission/absorp-tion to the electron with Einstein’s E = hf.
Bohr added a stipulation that made all the difference: the electron was restricted to certain quantum orbital level between which there was no time relationship. That means the electron changes orbital energy levels without a time component. As it does it either emits a quantum of EM (photon) or absorbs one. Or it can be forced to a higher orbital energy level by raising the temperature of the mass.
The point to note, and the one you are missing, is the stringent rules relating EM to the electron. In order to raise electrons to higher energy levels, hence causing the average kinetic energy and temperature of a body to rise, you need a specific intensity of EM which is proportional to its frequency. A colder mass cannot generate the required EM.
You are disregarding this proved theory with your claim that heat can be transferred via radiation, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body.
You are disrespecting a great scientist in Rudolf Clausius by claiming that heat can be transferred from cold to hot. He meticulously worked out the 2nd law using solid science related to heat and work. If you read his treatise on heat/work he takes you carefully through a heat cycle in which he proves that heat cannot be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot.
While he was at it, he developed the theory of entropy, a mathematical proof of the 2nd law. The man was brilliant and he could explain exactly what was going on physically.
Although he had no way of knowing the mechanism of heat transfer via radiation he was right in claiming that it must obey the 2nd law. Quantum theory proves it. It is simply not possible for the EM radiated from electrons at a lower temperature, hence lower energy level, to raise the electron in a hotter body to a higher quantum energy level.
There is no way around it swannie, and you should look for an alternate reason as to why your plate gets warmer when you cover it with ice. You cannot simply throw any old thermopyle into an experiment, the thermopyle must be suited to the IR frequency and the ambient temperature. I am guessing your thermopyles are reading incorrectly and/or you have lost quality control.
You are still making the same basic mistake. Any body emits radiation across a range of frequencies as described by the Planck function.
There is no restriction. There is no such thing as a single frequency of emission which you imply.
Therefore at any frequency f, you can detect photons from both cool and warm bodies. They are indistinguishable. Only their numbers (i.e. intensity) differs.
Please try to understand this simple concept.
studentb,
So how do intend to measure these higher energy photons? From a block of ice, for example? If they exist, why cant you warm the tiniest amount of water with them?
Accept reality. Look at shape of the curve, and the energy in those parts of the spectrum. I use the water and ice example because your semantic diversions cannot obscure the reality of a minute temperature change.
Ice at 0C. Water at 0.0002 C. And ice at 0 C will not heat itself up, will it? If it did, it would be emitting even more of your hot photons, which would heat it even more, emitting even more hot photons, until it became incandescent! Duh!
You are spouting illogical nonsense. Mindless appeals to authority, combined with deep ignorance.
Sigh.
“So how do intend to measure these higher energy photons? From a block of ice, for example? If they exist,..”
What do you mean “higher energy photons”?
Listen carefully: At any frequency, there are photons from both bodies. The number/intensity from the warm body is higher than that from the cool body.
Listen even more carefully: Both bodies accept/absorb whatever comes their way (since they are black bodies). i.e. they are apolitical, non-discriminatory, equal opportunity objects. The colour of the photons (i.e. their frequency) is immaterial.
Even more carefully: The net result is that the cool body “sees” and absorbs more photons OF ALL FREQUENCIES than it emits. The warm body “sees” and absorbs fewer photons than it emits. Therefore the cool body warms and the warm body cools. No violation of any laws.
The same with water and ice.
Except that if you replace the ice with an object near absolute(zero Kelvin) there will be very few photons being directed towards the water. The water will end up much colder than if the ice was there. Hence, the ice affects the temperature of the water.
Sorry, have to go. Time to feed the cat and dog.
Studentb,
You are talking nonsense – *At any frequency, there are photons from both bodies.* Really?
Who said anything about black bodies? Are you really trying to convince anyone that transparent bodies dont allow many colours to pass through them?
While you are feeding your masters, you might read up on reflectors – which reflect certain frequencies of photons. Or transparent glasswhich can reflect between zero and roughly eight per cent of visible light frequencies normal to the surface, depending on thickness. Puzzled the hell out of Sir Issac Newton!
Once you have figured all that out, explain why glass becomes more reflective as the angle of incidence increase, finally becoming 100 percent reflective! Explain refraction if you have a moment.
By the way, you still havent managed to raise the temperature of water using ice. Just like nobody can raise the temperature of anything using colder CO2.
“By the way, you still havent managed to raise the temperature of water using ice. ”
Easy peasy.
Take a cup of water and place it in outer space. It will cool to -273degC.
Now surround that frozen cup with ice at 0 degC.
The cup of water will warm back up to 0 degC.
studentb,
No. Water is by my definition liquid. If you insist I, will identify water as liquid, and ice as solid. Even most idiots know the difference.
So you allow water to cool -273 C. It freezes, becoming ice. Then you warm an object using a warmer one. Duh! Most idiots are aware of this.
You are a fool. How do I know? Easy peasy. I read what you write.
Have you figured how glass is not absorbing all the photons you claim it should? Avoiding all my questions? Tut tut.
Go away fool!
student…”What do you mean “higher energy photons”?
Listen carefully: At any frequency, there are photons from both bodies. The number/intensity from the warm body is higher than that from the cool body”.
A higher energy photon would be one where its value E = hf is higher than lower energy photons. Obviously the frequency depends on the temperature, which measures the KE of the electrons emitting the photons. Therefore the higher the frequency, f, the higher the temperature must be.
If you are going to use the entire spectrum at temperature T, then you must compare Thot to Tcold. Are they close enough that certain frequencies overlap, and how close is close? I am thinking what your claim may be true if Thot is within a few tenths of a degree of Tcold, or where both bodies are very close to thermal equilibrium.
Planck’s curve is for a blackbody condition like the Sun, which has a broad spectrum of frequencies. Planck’s curve for terrestrial IR is a mere blip at the right-hand end of the solar spectrum. At terrestrial IR frequencies it would not take much of a difference in temperature to separate the temperature curves of Thot and Tcold to the point where there is no interaction.
student…”You are still making the same basic mistake. Any body emits radiation across a range of frequencies as described by the Planck function”.
I have conceded several times that it is pointless talking about a single electron or a single photon. I understand Planck’s distribution and how a body at temp T emits over a spectrum of frequencies with amplitudes roughly in a Bell curve.
That’s not what I am talking about, I am talking about how a single electron theoretically produces and absorbs a quantum of EM energy.
You are talking about blackbodies, theoretical constructs, at thermal equilibrium. Of course, at thermal equilibrium, two bodies radiating their energy so they each absorb energy from the other will be affected by each other’s energy. However, no heat will be transferred.
Check out this article which is well explained. Norman hates the guy for reasons unknown but on page 80 – 81 he explains mathematically why radiation cannot transfer heat from a colder to a warmer body. What you see in some modern texts is based on a misunderstanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.361.5881&rep=rep1&type=pdf
That’s what you guys are missing. Once heat is transferred, it means one body is hotter than the other and the electrons in that body have, in general, more thermal energy than the electrons in the atoms of the cooler body. That means the electrons in the hotter body reside in energy orbitals that are higher than the electron orbitals in the emitting body.
I am willing to concede further, that in a temperature range very close to equilibrium, the equilibrium state will persist but over what kind of temperature range? A few tenths of a degree maybe?
Planck’s curve does not address heat transfer nor does blackbody theory. IN BB theory, there are speculative theories that BBs can absorb and emit EM at the same time but I have no interest in that theory since it does not address heat transfer.
Heat transfer is covered by the 2nd law and it is totally clear that heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body. I have provided a couple of reasons for that but none of you have responded in detail with your claims.
One fact I offered recently to Norman is that energy of any kind cannot be transferred by its own means from a lower energy state to a higher energy state. As an example I offered water running uphill by it’s own means or a boulder raising itself onto a cliff by it’s own means. Norman argued that does not apply to EM emission/absorp-tion because there are no forces like gravity involved.
Energy transfer does not have to be about force as we normally understand it. Some people tend to think that when two bodies near to each other emit EM that they are exchanging EM. They are not, they are simply emitting EM to space and an adjacent body is contacted by a small portion of the EM field from either body, depending on the sizes of the bodies.
The EM emitted from either body is E = hf. E represents the intensity of the EM and is equal to the difference in energy levels through which the emitting electron fell. The frequency f is equal to the angular frequency of the emitting electron. That frequency gets higher as the electron is excited to higher energy orbitals and so does the KE of the electron.
In order for that EM to be absorbed by a body, E = hf must equal or exceed the difference in orbital energy levels of the absorbing electron. That works when E is emitted by an electron in a hotter body and the absorbing electron is on a cooler body. When E is emitted by an electron on a cooler body it lacks the frequency required to give it the intensity to be absorbed by an electron is a hotter body.
You are arguing that their is a spectrum of energies being emitted by any body at temperature T and I agree. Doesn’t make any difference. Unless the Taverages of either body overlap, like near thermal equilibrium, the electron in the hotter body will have a higher frequency, making absorp-tion impossible.
“The EM emitted from either body is E = hf.”
????????????????????????????????????????????????
Where did you get that strange idea?
E=sigma*T**4 (SB) (for a black body)
studentb,
Not very knowledgable, are you?
A quick copy and paste * An EM wave of frequency f is composed of photons, or individual quanta of EM radiation. The energy of each photon is E = hf, where h is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency of the EM radiation. Higher intensity means more photons per unit area.*
E = hf.
Maybe he got it from a physics text?
studentb makes the same mistake as others trying to fake a knowledge of physics.
The S/B Law provides a “flux”. A “flux” is not “energy”.
So Gordon is correct, an photon emitted has energy E = hf.
The energy emitted by a black body, with surface area “A” in one second, is E = σAT^4.
ClintR wrote:
ClintR appears to confuse energy and power. The “flux” is power, i.e., energy transferred per unit time. The concepts of energy and power are inseparable, connected by the third variable, time. A “flux” of watts added to a body means that a certain amount of joules are added to the body over the time that said power is applied.
The only confusion is yours, Swanson. “Flux” is not “energy”, as I stated.
But trying to misrepresent my words is what idiots do.
clint…”So Gordon is correct, an photon emitted has energy E = hf”.
I can’t take the credit, it came from Einstein via Niels Bohr.
☺ ☺ ☺
As you say, S-B gives the macro radiation, or flux, per unit area.
Gordo, The first page of Johnson’s paper shows a typical black body emission spectrum for several different temperatures. The spectra do overlap for a wide range of temperatures from T=1000K to T=5500K. Don’t the curves overlap look similar for temperatures of T=300K, T=200K and T=100K?
Your claim that the emissions occur at only discrete wavelengths corresponding to electron orbits is curious. Why does a “black body” exhibit a continuous spectrum from this scenario? Why does a metal, which is a good conductor, emit almost nothing when it’s surface is highly polished? Why does that same piece of metal emit thermal IR radiation, looking much like a black body, when it’s surface is coated with a thin layer of a non-conductor, such as lamp black or a metal oxide?
Of course, for gases, the wavelengths for absorp_tion and emission must precisely match. As a result, the spectra are not continuous as is that from a blackbody. If the incoming photon doesn’t have the proper wavelength, the photon isn’t going to be absorbed. That’s the reason there’s an “atmospheric window” which lets surface thermal IR radiation pass thru to deep space. That’s also the reason that CO2 and water vapor molecules, which do absorb, slow the outward flow of thermal IR energy from the Earth.
midas…”They test specifically for the RNA of Covid. Apparently you believe that there in only one type of RNA. Have you EVER researched the full story, or is the problem one of comprehension?”
I am not coming from that angle. I am claiming that the RNA in the virus has not been isolated since they cannot isolate retroviruses from the cell culture in which they are believed to exist. Ergo, how do they know the RNA they are converting to DNA and amplifying with the PCR method is RNA from a virus?
Even when they apply the viral loading method, they still don’t find a virus that can be seen with an electron microscope. Nor are they interested in one, they are looking only for the amount of RNA converted to DNA, with the presumption that RNA came from a virus.
When they used the same method, invented for HIV, they had to dilute samples 400 times, otherwise the HIV test would have reported every human positive.
They were told about this issue at the time, and the inventor of the PCR method for DNA amplification was adamant that PCR could not reveal a virus that could not be found at a lower level of RNA. Yet they persisted, creating one hack after another in denial. Now they are using the same hacks with covid.
The science sucks and needs to be investigated. I am not holding my breath that it will be investigated since it’s such a political hot potato no politician has the courage to take it on. At least, not on this side of the Pond.
The German government has acknowledged that no scientific proof exists to claim HIV exists but they have reverted to form with covid by going back to the pseudo-science.
Here is a joke to break up these many discussions.
Dorothy was very upset because her husband Albert had just passed away. She goes to the mortuary to look at her nearly departed and begins to wail and cry.
She explains to the attendant that her husband was wearing a black suit when his dying wish was to be buried in a blue suit. The attendant apologises and says he will correct the error.
The next day she comes back and is pleased to see Albert laid out in a blue suit.
“How did you manage to obtain such a beautiful blue suit ?”, she inquires. The attendant explains that, fortunately, another man about the same size as Albert had arrived that morning. He was wearing a blue suit but his wife had wanted him buried in a black suit.
The woman smiled.
He continued: “After that, it was simply a matter of swapping the heads around”.
Apologies for my cat’s weird sense of humour.
Retroviruses are RNA viruses, but all RNA viruses are not retroviruses.
Coronaviruses are NOT retroviruses.
And if you die as a result of a viral infection, the distinction is totally pointless to you.
Go away troll.
Did you ever consider reading the comment I was replying to for context, Mikey?
Midas,
Yes. Did you?
Thanks for responding to your name.
Midas,
Youre welcome.
Go away troll.
How are you coping with the virus in Australia at the moment Mikey?
Go away troll.
I think you meant:
“Go away.
… Troll”
Midas,
Go away troll.
How many times have you been banned, Mikey? It has to be at least half a dozen times, probably many more. Ever wondered why someone on your side of the debate keeps banning you?
midas…”Coronaviruses are NOT retroviruses”.
Then why do they use exactly the same viral loading method for testing that was developed for the retrovirus HIV? The viral loading method was developed because, as Montagnier revealed, no one can see HIV using an electron microscope. The same is true for covid even though the CD-C and NIAID have posted humourously inadequate images claiming to be covid.
If, on the other hand, covid can be isolated it’s RNA structure should be available making the viral loading method unnecessary. Why would you need to amplify RNA if you had the RNA directly from the virus?
Viral loading is not testing for a virus it is measuring for an arbitrary level of RNA in a sample. If you test above that DNA level after the RNA is converted you are claimed to be positive for the virus. Sounds a lot to me like the global average temperature.
There is no such thing as “viral loading”. It is “viral load testing”. You test for the load of the virus – you don’t “load the virus”. Quit making it up on the fly.
Gordon Robertson
Instead of displaying your complete and total ignorance of DNA, RNA and virus detection you should read up on the process. Now you look like a clueless donkey pretending it is clever when it looks really lame!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XPAp6dgl14
The virus has SPECIFIC arrangement of RNA unique only to it! Read that a few times since you do not understand genetics even a little bit!
You amplify the specific chain of RNA (converting it to DNA) unique to the virus until you have enough to detect!
Please learn something. You sound very stupid when you post!
Norman, the “process” is the reason the tests are so inaccurate. Try putting your favorite pizza through that level of processing and you wouldn’t want to eat it.
ClintR
Based upon this article. The test process itself if very good. The problem is more in the collection of sample.
https://www.aruplab.com/news/4-21-2020/How-Accurate-Are-COVID-19-Tests
norman…from your link…
“There are two main types of tests for COVID-19. The first detects viral RNA using molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR). You can read more about this test in ARUP Consult’s COVID-19 topic. These tests are highly specific because they are based on the unique genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2. If a test comes back positive, you can be confident that there was SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in the specimen collected from the patient. However, the sensitivity of these tests varies based on both the timing and the way the sample is collected”.
1)The PCR method amplifies DNA, it does not convert RNA to DNA for amplification. So, they have to find the RNA to be amplified. Where does it come from? They don’t have the viral material, as they claim, because they have not isolated and purified the virus.
Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR method was adamant that you cannot find a virus after converting/amplifying RNA as DNA if you could not find it in the original specimen.
2)They refer to the unique genetic sequence of SARS-COV2. They don’t have it, they have inferred it, then they created it on a computer by splicing various components they think came from a virus.
3)No…you cannot be confident there was covid viral RNA in the specimen because they have no idea what it looks like.
Always good to see the Green Plate Effect debunked, yet again.
In your dreams.
Do Swanson’s experiment instead of handwaving.
Do Hughes experiments instead of hand-waving.
DRsEMT, Hughes’ “experiment” has been completely debunked, so why bother to repeat it?
Swanson, got those energy flows yet?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-513927
Pangburn already debunked your experiment, Swanson:
“In simple terms, the blue plate, before the green plate is installed, ‘sees’ radiation from the room, etc. at ambient temperature. After the green plate is installed the blue plate ‘sees’ radiation from the green plate, etc. also at ambient temperature. Oblivious to the experimenter, the environment for the blue plate has not changed thermally. There is no reason for the temperature of the blue plate to change. The experiment demonstrated exactly what a skilled engineer/scientist with an understanding of heat transfer phenomena would expect. This experiment has nothing to do with the GHE which partially shields the earth’s surface from the 3 K or so background temperature of space.”
Dre,
People can be ignorant, or stupid, or blinded by ideology but, worst of all, they can be intentionally deceitful.
Which are you?
As I have already stated, Swanson’s experiment was valid. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511076 . What you quoted is my explanation that Hughes did not understand what he was doing.
Yes, but you were unable to explain why your critique of Hughes’ experiments does not also apply to Swanson’s experiment. So, as far as I’m concerned, you are critiquing them both.
Dre,
To have any effect on the blue plate, the green plate has to heat up. If Hughes had put a thermocouple on the green plate he might have realized his mistake. Ten minutes was just not enough time for the green plate to heat up significantly. All he got was the first part of the thermal transient of the blue plate and the thermal mass added by the spacers slowed that down and reduced even further the poor view factor between the plates. Look at the timing and small but definite temperature increase of the blue plate in Swanson’s experiment. Hughes’ ignorance of heat transfer phenomena resulted in design of an experiment doomed to fail to show the effect that is so obvious in Swanson’s experiment.
Green plates, blue plates, rainbow coloured gay pride plates, it makes no difference. You cannot use the radiated energy from something colder to raise the temperature of something hotter!
Including a heat source to simulate the Sun, as Swanson says, gives the illusion away!
The ignorant seem to be unaware of minor details like reflection and transparency. They also seem to be unaware that a visually black surface may be completely transparent to infrared, as Tyndall demonstrated over 100 years ago!
Amateurs aping professionals, without understanding.
“Ten minutes was just not enough time for the green plate to heat up significantly”.
In Hughes first experiment there was 60 minutes of heating.
“All he got was the first part of the thermal transient of the blue plate and the thermal mass added by the spacers slowed that down”
No spacers in the second experiment.
“and reduced even further the poor view factor between the plates.”
The view factor between the plates was much the same as in Swanson’s experiment.
DREMT
In Hughes experiments he allowed the surrounding glass to get very hot. Glass emits IR very well. It does not matter if you have the other plate inside the glass chamber when the glass itself is acting like a second plate sending IR to the heated plate. I suggested to him to eliminate the second plate all together and see if he could control the temperature of the heated plate by changing the temperature of the glass surrounding the plate.
“…when the glass itself is acting like a second plate sending IR to the heated plate.”
So then it should be even more damning to the GPE that the blue plate did not warm as you believe it should.
By the way, we seem to have two schools of thought regarding Hughes experiments:
1) According to Pangburn, no skilled engineer with an understanding of heat transfer phenomena would have expected to see warming.
2) The rest of you, who clearly expected to see warming since you keep looking for excuses as to why it did not happen.
Dre,
As I said earlier, the Swanson experiment clearly demonstrates that the ‘green plate effect’ exists. The reason for the effect is obvious to anyone who understands heat transfer phenomena. I expect that Swanson did the demonstration for the benefit of people who don’t understand or were misled by the Hughes faulty experiment.
“Hughes’ ignorance of heat transfer phenomena resulted in design of an experiment doomed to fail to show the effect that is so obvious in Swanson’s experiment.”
You should also have recognized the significance of increasing the heat flux by a factor of about 5 resulted in the ten minutes of the later tests being roughly equivalent to the 60 minutes of the earlier tests.
Also, in looking at Swanson’s test, it should be apparent that the small increase in temperature of the blue plate, when the green plate was raised indicates any effect on the blue plate in Hughes’ experiment would be tiny and easily lost in the variability of the poorly designed Hughes’ experiments.
Pangburn, you have no clue what you’re talking about. Swanson’s experiment came first. Hughes experiments were for the benefit of people who were misled by Swanson’s bogus experiment. You have it completely backwards.
“You should also have recognized the significance of increasing the heat flux by a factor of about 5 resulted in the ten minutes of the later tests being roughly equivalent to the 60 minutes of the earlier tests.”
So what are you complaining about?
“Also, in looking at Swanson’s test, it should be apparent that the small increase in temperature of the blue plate, when the green plate was raised indicates any effect on the blue plate in Hughes’ experiment would be tiny and easily lost in the variability of the poorly designed Hughes’ experiments.”
On the contrary, Hughes’ plates were thinner than Swanson’s, less mass to heat up. If anything, there should have been a more noticeable effect on the blue plate in Hughes’ experiments.
Dre,
It doesn’t really matter which experiment was done first. Swanson’s is valid and Hughes’ is not. Hughes apparently did not understand why his experiment lacked sensitivity. His method involves comparing transients. The problem is that the blue plate transients of 1 plate vs 2 plates are so similar that the difference is lost in the variability of his experiment. You obviously don’t understand heat transfer phenomena either or you would know that. Previously I assumed that you had some understanding of heat transfer phenomena. Apparently that was a mistake. You are just not hooking up so I give up trying to get you to understand.
Whatever it’s called, the planet is about 33 C warmer than it would be with the same albedo but no IR active molecules in the atmosphere. Where the warmistas got it wrong is that the IR active molecules that matter are water vapor molecules. CO2 molecules warm a tiny bit at ground level and cool about the same amount in the stratosphere with the result being no significant net effect. The human contribution to global warming is the 1.5 % per decade increase in WV molecules from increasing irrigation.
More hand-waving nonsense from Dan.
“The human contribution to global warming is the 1.5 % per decade increase in WV molecules from increasing irrigation.”
There is also liquid water and water ice in the atm. due to the water cycle.
Taking those phases into account, the long-term observations show nil change of water in the atm., precipitation closely balances evapotranspiration as shown in Earth system energy budgets for nil change in surface temperature due the water cycle.
Hughes and E. Swanson’s experiments show the same results as they must; Hughes interpretation of the data is not as accurate as E. Swanson’s.
Anyway…always good to see the Green Plate Effect debunked, yet again.
There is no debunking of the original problem by invoking a metal plate that is black body and perfect mirror on different faces.
That’s only great entertainment provided by the twins. Keep entertaining readers guys, since we all can use a good laugh these pandemic days.
Keep attacking those straw men.
Yes, all of ClintR’s (and predecessors) cartoons showing a perfect mirror on BP are indeed strawmen. Entertaining & easy to attack them explaining the cartoons do not debunk the original problem.
This is the debunk:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-515409
When the plates are separated, conductive energy transfer changes to radiative energy transfer in accord with 2LOT, universe entropy increases in these processes. No debunk.
Yes debunk.
The DRsEMT sock puppet again repeats it’s claim that simple assertion “debunks” the GPE model. That is not a “fact” and it’s based on DRsEMT’s claim that the plates would exhibit the same temperature when separated, based only on a cartoon without analytical support. That claim violates the Second Law, which requires a difference in temperature between the plates. That’s because the Green plate must be continually replenished with energy from the Blue plate in excess that from the surroundings, else it’s temperature would drop.
The “cartoon” is not the debunk, as explained.
DREMT 11:17am confirms ClintR’s various cartoons are not debunks. Neither are DREMT’s assertions. The twin team has indeed lost.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-515626
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Your “debunking” is of course a fallacy.
400 J of additional energy arrives every second.
All you need is a temporary cut in energy output.
That happens on initial separation, when the green plates have zero input and 400 W output. TGreen must drop, so total system output goes below 400 W. The difference is accumulated as thermal energy in the system.
If you would care to calculate it, the system thermal energy gain corresponds exactly to this temporary cut in total system output.
Think what you want, Svante. I already explained it all up-thread.
So you can stop pretending the temperature rise is spontaneous. The system is powered.
There is no cut in energy output, because the green plate/s do not drop in temperature upon separation (because the view factors are 1 between the plates) so any rise in temperature of the blue plate would indeed be spontaneous.
Green plates have zero input and 400 W output,
but keep their temperature.
Brilliant, where can I buy them?
They have input from the blue plates, Svante. Because of the view factors between green and blue, they can only lose energy on the side facing space. They cannot lose energy towards the blue plate, because that is the direction from which they are gaining all their energy. Hence that 400 W input from the BP has to manifest itself as 400 W output from the GPs “losing sides” (the sides facing space). That means temperatures must remain at 244 K.
To clarify, I have assumed we are discussing the “3-plate scenario”, with two green plates either side of a heated blue plate. Each green plate has only one “losing side”.
“They cannot lose energy towards the blue plate, because that is the direction from which they are gaining all their energy…Each green plate has only one “losing side”.”
No that’s wrong DREMT. The original problem BB plates radiate and conduct from their entire surface & if not, you & ClintR have changed the original problem statement to a different idealization that makes no physical sense.
I apologize on your behalf for your failure to understand.
E Swanson,
Try adding the flux of 300W/m2 to water at 1 C. The flux is emitted by ice. How many joules of energy are added to the water? Zero, thats how many!
Now add the flux of 240 W/m2 to the surface of the Earth. The flux is emitted by the colder atmosphere. How many joules of energy are added to the surface? Zero, thats how many!
You people are so deluded.
Swenson
It is a hopeless and unrewarding task of attempting to educate someone like you that rejects actual physics for his own home grown version.
The 1 C water will absorb nearly all the 300 watts of energy that the ice is sending it (based upon it emissivity). This energy will be added to the water. The net result (if no more energy is added) is the water will cool considerably slower with the ice around it radiating energy toward it than if it radiated without any IR returning to it. You could graph the result if you were so motivated.
With the ice surrounding it the water will only lose around 20 Net Watts/m^2 until the ice cools. Without the ice the water would lose 320 watts/m^2. The cooling would be noticeable. You are clearly wrong. You post this nonsense and throw in a quote from Feynman to try to bolster your total lack of physics knowledge.
Sorry better to learn the material than throw out posts such as yours.
Norman, where do you come up with such nonsense?
Get two glasses of water, each with a thermometer. Put one glass at the end of a table by itself. Put the other glass at the far end of the table. Place a block of ice next to one of the glasses of water.
Now, lower the room temperature 10 degrees. You are claiming the glass of water closest to the block of ice will be warmer than the other glass.
Pure idiocy.
ClintR
You logic is very poor and your point has nothing at all to do with my point. Do you possess rational thought process or do you just call good physics idiocy?
If you lower the room 10 degrees it would still be far warmer than the ice and hence would send much more thermal IR to the glass not surrounded by ice.
The way to do it would be have the temperature of the room -100 F. Now see which glass will be warmer after some time period. Sheesh you are such a poor example of a skeptic. You are a clueless poster that thinks your nonsense opinions on things are valuable. Not sure to who. Most know you as a low level intellect. Bolstering your lack of knowledge by acting intelligent fools no one here.
Norman, even with your usual desperate insults, I’ll accept that as your admission that the bloc of ice cannot keep the glass of water warmer than the other one.
Norman,
You are not only stupid and ignorant, you seem to be deranged as well.
You cannot raise the temperature of water using ice as a source of heat. Your obfuscation and evasion indicates the depth of your delusion. Slowing the rate of cooling does not increase the temperature of the cooling body, you dimwit!
Draw all the pretty graphs you wish. Add arrows showing forcings and fluxes if you like. All completely worthless!
You still cannot raise the temperature of water using ice as a source of heat!
You can raise the temperature of water using ice as a source of heat when the water ice replaces dry ice. You know, like the cooler atm. warms the global surface when it replaces space.
Ball4,
Dimwit. When you surround the water with dry ice, the water turns into ice.
For those mentally slow, I suppose I have to state specifically that water means the liquid. Ice means the solid. Off you go now, warm some water using the radiation from ice.
What a donkey!
You can also raise the temperature of ice using dry ice as a source of heat when the dry ice replaces liquid oxygen. You know, like the cooler atm. warms the global surface when it replaces space.
Ball4,
Dont you think that people might realise you have now avoided mentioning water altogether? Of course you can raise the temperature of something by using the radiation from something hotter!
Yes, you can heat liquid oxygen with dry ice – the dry ice is hotter! You can even heat something cooled to the temperature of liquid oxygen, with dry ice, you donkey!
Try heating liquid water with ice. Use as much ice as you like. Gigajoules of energy. Lots and lots of ice!
Duh!
Sure, you can raise the temperature of liquid water using ice as a source of heat when the ice replaces dry ice. You know, like the cooler atm. warms the global surface when it replaces space.
Ball4,
No you cant, you idiot. Expose water to frozen CO2. The water has to stay liquid of course. Now replace the frozen CO2 with ice. The water has not warmed, has it?
You are just trying to play with words. Just like E Swanson – all he needs to warm an object is a substitute for the Sun. All the rest is diversionary flimflam. Just like your liquid oxygen, dry ice, and all the rest. Just admit you cant make water hotter using only ice, and at least you can quit while you are behind.
The liquid water will indeed warm Swenson. Perhaps you can learn from my example & E. Swanson’s test. Or not.
Swenson
Before you go on a unwarranted rant it would do you good to learn to read. Why do skeptics have to be totally ignorant of physics and have zero reading ability?
I did not claim ice would raise the temperature of the water you total moron! I said the IR energy of the ice would be a-b-s-o-r-b-e-d by the water. Nothing more nothing less. I did waste time trying to reason with you. Best to ignore you as Swenson (Amazed or Mike Flynn) regardless of what name you go by you are not worth time explaining anything to. You are far too stupid to comprehend concepts and ideas.
Norman,
You have some magic water which can absorb energy from ice without becoming hotter as a consequence! I suppose this water can also emit energy which cannot melt ice.
So I suppose you can throw a heap of ice into your magic water, the water doesnt get hotter because it has absorbed all the radiation from the ice, then the ice doesnt melt or something? Fine. As long as you acknowledge that the radiation from ice does not raise the temperature of water, we are making progress.
Now you can change your mind again, if you want.
For the false skeptics who haunt this blog with terrible physics made up from other blogs. Gordon Robertson, Swenson, ClintR, DREMT
Here is the real physics you all ignore and make up your own or go with the false and misleading “Slayer” version or the Postma incorrect version.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
From article: “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
Read again if you don’t understand it the first time.
Norman,
So you agree that a hotter object cannot be made even hotter solely by absorbing radiation from a colder object? Excelllent.
Norman, you obviously don’t understand the last sentence of that quote: “Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
That’s because you don’t understand the 2nd Law. All of your insults, attacks, and misrepresentations of others won’t make up for your lack of understanding of physics and thermodynamics.
ClintR
I understand it quite well. I understand the 2nd Law far better than you can attempt to grasp it.
Nothing in the quote goes against anything I have posted. You are delusional in attempting to find flaws where none are present. Seems a pointless effort on your part. Not sure what your motivation would be.
Norman, you obviously don’t understand the last sentence of that quote: “Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
“Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
Work is not required to transfer gross energy to the hot object.
Ball4,
And the *gross energy* does precisely nothing. No increase in temperature. You made a pointless And irrelevant comment – again.
No difference in steady state equilibrium systems; makes a difference in transient thermo. conditions. Like when there is an imbalance in Earth system energy budget such as in current times, someone substitutes dry ice for water ice, cloud cover replaces clear sky, and someone raises a green plate into place.
More from a textbook on heat transfer:
The skeptics can accept they are wrong and the physics books are correct, or they can continue with their own versions of what they think is science. No support, no evidence, but a conviction that their thoughts can never be wrong and the rest of the world is flawed.
“In heat transfer by radiation, energy is not only transported from hot to cold
bodies; the colder body also emits radiation that strikes the warmer body and
can be absorbed there. An exchange of energy takes place, in contrast to the
transfer that occurs in heat conduction and convection. This radiative exchange
depends on the mutual position and orientation of the radiating surfaces, their
temperatures and there radiative properties. In the following sections it is assumed
that the radiating surfaces are separated by a medium that has no effect on
the radiative exchange, that neither absorbs, emits nor scatters radiation. This
condition is exactly satisfied by a vacuum, although most gases also have little
effect on radiative exchange.”
That very general statement confuses you Norman. You believe the statement proves the green plate can warm the blue plate. Your beliefs demonstrate your ignorance of the issues.
ClintR
The statement does not confuse me a bit. You are the one who is confused and unable to understand valid physics. The green plate will indeed warm a HEATED blue plate to a higher temperature than if no green plate was present. It is basic heat transfer physics and no only you demonstrate ignorance of the issue. I think you do not understand the difference between a HEATED plate and a non-HEATED plate. You go around in circles in confusion of trying to prove points that are not valid and call intelligent posters who are considerably more knowledgeable than you are, “idiots” for not accepting your horrible version of radiant heat transfer.
Norman, you’ve admitted you don’t understand the issues. In addition, I assume English is not your native language.
ClintR
No I did not admit anything of the sort. You just make stuff up. Why do you feel the need to attempt winning debates by making up false and untrue points? How does that favor your argument?
“Nomran” confesses: “I have not studied general physics for many years.”
ClintR
But I have read extensively on heat transfer and worked on equations. So your point is again pointless. I have read much more than you on valid physics of heat transfer. I linked you to a valid textbook on the subject. Not sure what makes your thinker tick, it is not logic or rational thought. It certainly has nothing at all to do with any knowledge of any physics.
Basically it seems you are here to troll and amuse yourself with your nonsense opinions.
I guess you like to call people “idiots”. Not sure how that benefits any of your points.
Every sentence is either inaccurate or irrelevant. That’s why you’re an idiot, Norman. You run from reality.
ClintR
Criticism from a person who is not rational, logical or can comprehend concepts is much of an insult. You can call people idiot all you want, it won’t improve your knowledge or your thought process.
First sentence does not mean what you probably intended it to mean, suggesting that English is not your native language.
Second sentence is irrelevant.
Comments like this are typical from idiots.
ClintR
How long is it since you did a formal university course on thermodynamics?
Many Moons since college days. But as you may know, that education only sets you up to really learn in the next 30 years of problem solving. That’s likely why I have a much better understanding of physics and thermodynamics than most college professors. And certainly much greater understanding than people who have just read wikipedia.
Guffaw! It is clear from the standard of his comments, the closest ClintR has been to a physics book is the text book that was hurled at him by his exasperated high school phyics teacher.
Unfortunately the resultant inelastic collision with his cranium did not result in him absorbing any of the contents.
It is not often you get to see the florid delusions of a Dunning Kruger in action. This fellow also believes NASA has conspired for some unstated reason, to convince the world that the moon does not rotate on its rotational axis!
Isn’t the world of the internet a wonderful thing? You get to interact with all those people who you would normally cross the street to avoid! I blame it on the closures, over the past decade or so, of those facilities where they could be held securely.
Just as with Norman, every one of MikeR’s sentences is either inaccurate or irrelevant. And, like Norman, MikeR likes to type.
Idiots have similar traits.
Yes ClintR, I do have a tendency for logorrhea. The laxative content of your contributions seems to encourage this tendency.
However there is a saying in the rag trade “never mind the quality, feel the width”.
As to the width,you have almost 300 comments already (neck and neck with your alter ego). Pity about the quality.
ClintR, the irrelevancy originates from your proclamation endorsing yourself
“Thats likely why I have a much better understanding of physics and thermodynamics than most college professors”.
However there could be an element of truth. I suspect some uninformed college professors in a liberal Arts department somewhere could be convinced by your arguments.
I look forward to a collaborative interpretive dance based on your theory. Could be a bit boring with out any twirls or rotations, but seeing you in a tutu would make up for it.
norman…” I have read much more than you on valid physics of heat transfer. I linked you to a valid textbook…”
I linked you to the book written by Clausius on the 2nd law in particular. You cherry picked what he said to make it look as if he was condoning a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
In the statement of Clausius regarding the 2nd law, he claimed: heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body.
Following the definition he wanted to clarify ‘by its own means’ which he also referred to as ‘without compensation’. During that explanation he discussed how heat can be transferred cold to hot and you and other alarmists jumped on that as an admission by Clausius that heat could be transferred cold to hot.
Clausius discussed how heat can be transferred cold to hot using compensation. He claimed that the cold source must be immediately compensated for its loss of heat, which cannot occur naturally. That method is used in a fridge and an air conditioner but it requires external power and special gases that can be compressed and evapourated.
There is no such mechanism in the atmosphere or anywhere else unless it is specifically supplied. That means your textbooks authors have not read Clausius and are out to lunch.
Norman,
So you agree that a hotter object cannot be made even hotter solely by absorbing radiation from a colder object? Excellent.
Swenson
If you have actually read posts from others they have all said this.
I do not know anyone who believes a hotter object will be made hotter from IR from a colder object.
If you read the posts all come with the point that the hot object is heated by some energy source. With the Earth’s surface the Sun is the energy source.
There exists Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation which says that warm body cannot be warmed solely from cold body by thermal radiation. Nevertheless, if there is a third body (such as Sun) and warms one of the bodies, the second body can act as a blanket. The blanket warms the sleeper not because it is warmer than his body but because it isolates it from loosing heat acquired from another source (in case of a man from chemical reactions in the body). This way greenhouse gases work.
bohous, in the plates issue, you’re making the green plate into a reflector. But, it’s supposed to be a perfectly conducting black body. It can’t be both.
It’s the same with the atmosphere. You can’t have it both ways. CO2 either emits energy to space or it doesn’t. If CO2 emits to space, then more CO2 emits more energy to space.
ClintR
Not necessarily. More CO2 does not have to emit more to space. It depends upon the temperature of the CO2. This is a big fail for you in even trying to understand the theory of how CO2 can increase warming of the surface. As more CO2 is added the point where it is thin enough to emit freely to space is colder so the offset of more CO2 does not lead to more emission just a higher emitting boundary leaving slightly warmer CO2 near the surface to emit a little more energy to the surface.
Here:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm
Norman, as I stated, it’s the same with the atmosphere. You can’t have it both ways. CO2 either emits energy to space or it doesn’t. If CO2 emits to space, then more CO2 emits more energy to space.
If you now claim CO2 can only emit in one direction, then you’ve made the atmosphere a reflector, just like you want to make the green plate a reflector.
At least you’re consistent with your nonsense.
ClintR
Wow! Your processing skills are very low! Where did you come up with the idea that I claimed CO2 can only emit in one direction? How can you make up such bad claims from my post? I cannot follow how your brain processes information. It is like a random wheel you spin. You just stay whatever the wheel ends its spin on.
It’s so entertaining when the idiots have to untangle their own words:
“As more CO2 is added the point where it is thin enough to emit freely to space is colder so the offset of more CO2 does not lead to more emission just a higher emitting boundary leaving slightly warmer CO2 near the surface to emit a little more energy to the surface.”
CliinR
Since your motivation IS NOT to debate or understand issues it is apparent that engaging with you is a pointless waste of effort.
Maybe if you learned to comprehend points you would not need to suggest that someone is an “idiot” when obviously you are the only one who can’t process what they read or comprehend points.
There is nothing tangled in what I wrote. It is clear and easy to follow. The only idiot is yourself who is unable to process information in a rational fashion.
Sooooo entertaining….
bohous…”Nevertheless, if there is a third body (such as Sun) and warms one of the bodies, the second body can act as a blanket. The blanket warms the sleeper not because it is warmer than his body but because it isolates it from loosing heat acquired from another source (in case of a man from chemical reactions in the body). This way greenhouse gases work”.
Kircheoff never said that, he worked only with theoretical blackbodies at thermal equilibrium. He also had no idea how electrons in atoms emit and absorb EM radiation since electrons were not discovered till well after he offered his BB theory.
GHGs cannot act as a blanket or affect the rate of heat dissipation of the surface. For one, heat is the kinetic energy of atoms therefore GHGs would have to trap those atoms, which is not possible. What you mean is that GHGs trap IR from the surface once the heat is converted to IR and lost.
There are not enough GHGs to trap more than 5% of surface radiation. Even at that, the absorp-tion of 5% of surface IR has nothing to do with slowing of surface heat dissipation. The only thing that can affect the rate of heat dissipation is the temperature of the atmosphere touching the surface. That atmosphere is made up 99% of nitrogen and oxygen and they are the only air molecules that can affect heat dissipation.
Since the surface temperature and the air temperature immediately in contact with the surface are in thermal equilibrium, normally no heat would be dissipated. Dissipation relies on convection. As the surface air absorbs heat via conduction, the air warms and rises like in a greenhouse. As it rises, cooler air fro above rushes in to replace it and it is cooler than the surface. The cycle repeats.
Lindzen has confirmed that. He has claimed that without convection, the Earth’s surface temperature would rise to about 70C. R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2 has opined that the GHE is actually due to nitrogen and oxygen absorbing heat from the surface and transporting it to higher altitudes. Since N2/O2 are poor emitters, they retain the heat.
https://tinyurl.com/y4jyoo3u
Lost my place, too tired to find it again.
norman…”The virus has SPECIFIC arrangement of RNA unique only to it! Read that a few times since you do not understand genetics even a little bit!”
That would be nice if you could identify the virus so you could check its RNA. Neither covid nor HIV have ever been seen using the standard method for identifying a virus so they have to be inferred by means of RNA taken from dead cell tissue. In other words, the unique RNA to which you refer is nothing more than computer-generated sequences of an alleged virus. Covid was not found using scientific research it was computer-generated.
According to Stefan Lanka, a microbiologist who has expertise with viruses, an egregious error/assump-tion was made circa 1953 regarding viruses. They presumed that cells from a culture subjected to various processes in a test tube were dying due to infection by a virus. Not one study used a control to rule out that the cells were not dying naturally due to being removed from their life giving source.
Lanka has a standing offer of 100,000 Euros to anyone who can prove there is such a thing as the measles virus. Some dufo claimed it and a lower court in Germany awarded him the prize. However, an appeal court over-ruled the lower court, insisting adequate proof was not supplied that the measles virus exists. The lower court had awarded the money without citing the dufo’s evidence.
Another German Court has upheld Lanka’s claim that no scientific proof exists to support the existence of HIV. The court agreed. So now we have two court rulings claiming there is no scientific proof that two viruses exist. In another case, Lanka successfully defended a doctor accused of spreading HIV to patients.
Montagnier, who discovered HIV admits freely that he has never seen HIV. That means he has not isolated HIV, so the German court ruling is once again supported.
https://davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Paper-Virus-Lanka-002.pdf
So you’re going to avoid addressing your invention of a method called”viral loading”.
Midas,
Go away troll.
check this out…
serious fraud is exposed at the US CD-C.
Can’t get URL to post
Remove all asterisks (*) in URL
https://vaccine*impact.com/2016/the-u-s-centers-for-disease-control-a-history-of-corrup***tion/
https://tinyurl.com/y4ttzcxk
Midas
” https://tinyurl.com/y4ttzcxk ”
*
I tried to explain this simple thing to him years ago.
He denigrated it because he thought any fraudulent person could divert his link to something else! Oh Noes.
*
But what else could you expect from an ignorant boaster writing, about UAH anomalies:
” Many people analyzing the data do not take into account that it is based on the 1980 – 2010 average and that the first 17 years of the record were under the baseline (cooling) due to volcanic aerosols and such. That is, the fist 17 years show a slight cooling, therefore that warming was not true warming and included a recovery from cooling.
It was not till the large El Nino in late 1997 that the record showed true warming and rose above the baseline.
And that was written in May 2015! Despite having many times been shown how wrong it is, he endlessly repeats the same stuff.
*
Robertson still does not understand that
– though generated out of exactly the same absolute data, anomalies are relative to the baseline of a reference period,
and that
– they therefore can considerably change when you change that reference period:
1. 1981-2010
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZC3f6rSC-9zA7cWNMa1NTc1a_ndK7LjH/view
2. 1979-1998 (UAH’s former reference period, used till 2010)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18_g0W7CnY4TTqSEzAiwZokj0PKjMn9JW/view
3. 1990-2019 (anticipating 1991-2020, coming soon)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H0s9JrnMqy4JjRUgkx0lLN2RTSm8Ivoq/view
Everybody using her/his brain would immediately have seen that in (1), the trend line crosses the baseline in 1989, and in (2) it does that in 2004.
But when he saw such graphs, the Robertson dumbie wrote
” Bindidon makes faked graphs out of the good UAH data ”
instead of trying to understand the hint.
What a poor, ignorant guy.
He will never change.
J.-P. D.
I wasn’t actually trying to explain the concept of tinyurl to him. The content of the link was important in relation to his link.
Gordon has the habit of reading something very tersely, and believing he understands it in all its complexity after reading just a few lines. That’s how he takes “viral load” and turns it into a fictitious testing method apparently called “viral loading”.
binny…”It was not till the large El Nino in late 1997 that the record showed true warming and rose above the baseline”.
I got that from the UAH 33 year report, written by Roy and John Christy.
It’s plain that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Robertson
” I got that from the UAH 33 year report, written by Roy and John Christy. ”
Show us the link to that paper, Robertson.
Because I know how good you are in ‘getting’.
*
But what you ‘got’ was not the point, Robertson.
The point you so carefully eluded was:
” That is, the fist 17 years show a slight cooling, therefore that warming was not true warming and included a recovery from cooling. ”
I can’t imagine professionals like Christy and Spencer writing that.
J.-P. D.
midas…if you care to read on the subject, you will find a lot of information that contradicts the appeal to authority at your link.
I am not a skeptic by nature nor do I have an interest in conspiracy theories. I think there is sufficient evidence to require an investigation of vaccines and the theory behind them. There is an obvious conflict of interest between the US CD-C and pharmaceutical companies re vaccines.
I actually got the flu shot the past few years but I will never do it again. It’s too chancy given the utter lack of understanding of viruses or how they work. Also, there’s no way of telling what is in the vaccine. I know a guy who became extremely ill with small pox after get inoculated for small pox. He nearly died.
Stefan Lanka, a German microbiologist, who has worked with viruses (he discovered the first virus in the ocean) has convinced the German government that insufficient scientific evidence exists to claim HIV is a virus. He recently won a court case against him in which he convinced the courts that the measles virus has never been isolated nor have most of the common viruses.
There are some interesting facts to consider:
1)there was a polio epidemic in the 1930s and another in the 1950s. The first cleared itself with no vaccine and the 2nd was half way to disappearing before the vaccine was introduced by Salk.
2)Dr. Fred Klenner has an extensive resume of cures for polio and other so-called viruses using vitamin C injections circa 1940s – 1950s.
3)HIV, initially claimed to be a dangerous sexually transmitted virus is now claimed by its founder, Luc Montagnier, to be harmless to a healthy immune system. The data backs him.
The fact that such a strong backlash exists toward people who question vaccines makes me very skeptical.
Climate wannabees get hung up on few years of warming to project it 100 years ahead as if they were making a forecast .
The planets heat is distributed mainly by water cycles, The flow of water currents is highly variable it speed up it slows down it turns left it turns right
But here is the fun bit, no matter what it does at the moment , It takes 500 years for the conveyor belt to complete just one cycle
https://youtu.be/kpvUivhCw2Y
So where is this month temperature gonna be ? You have one week to think about it
So, suppose I have a portable food warmer like the one linked below.
http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/262783013234-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
I plug it in and set it outside on a winter day — say -20C ambient temperature. The outside surface of the box (call it Box A) will reach some temperature if it sits long enough. Let’s imagine that temperature is +25C.
I plug in an identical unit inside where it is +20C. I think we can all agree the outside surface of the box (Box B) will be warmer than +25C in this case. The actual value is not of concern here. Just that the the surface of this box will be warmer than +25 C.
_____________________________________________________
Now bring Box A inside as well. The surface will warm up to the same temperature as Box B.
Box A warms up.
Even thought the outside of Box A is always warmer then the surroundings.
Even though the surroundings are always cooler then the box.
Surroundings that are cooler then the box (20 C vs 25C) help the surface get even warmer than it had been.
No violation of the 2nd Law.
No “heat flowing from cooler to hotter”.
Tim,
Now turn off your heater.
Dummy. Try heating water using ice. 300 W/m2, all completely useless. As useless as back radiation.
Give up. Face reality.
“Now turn off your heater.”
Now turn off the sun ….
You have the sun and the box’s internal heater, Tim. You people always switch scenarios to ones with multiple heat sources. Why is that?
Tim,
* I plug in an identical unit inside . . .*
You carried the Sun inside, and plugged it into what?
What a sloppy person you are. And you are trying to correct me for reading what you wrote?
Tim states: “No violation of the 2nd Law. No ‘heat flowing from cooler to hotter’.”
Agreed Tim. That’s the same with the 244 K solution for both blue and green plates.
Now on the other hand, the 262K/220K solution….
“Thats the same with the 244 K solution for both blue and green plates.”
No. The “blue and green plates” at 244 K has heat flowing from one object at 244K to another object at 244 K. That doesn’t happen.
That’s not correct, Tim. The 244K/244 K solution has NO heat between the two plates. There is a flux of 200 W/m^2, which amounts to 200A Joules/sec, but that is “energy” not ‘heat”.
You’re not one of those that believes in the 262K/220K solution, are you? That doesn’t happen.
Since there is clearly some ambiguity about the “green plate experiment”, let me spell out a couple scenarios (that may or may not correspond to anyone’s definition of “the green plate experiment”). Each scenario starts with a flat plate 1m x 1m, with blackbody surfaces and a 400 W internal heater.
Feel free to disagree whenever you think the conclusion is wrong. Give your alternative explanation, along with your predicted temperature.
Scenario 0: The plate is placed in deep space far from any stars, planets, etc.
The plate will be 244K, emitting 200 W from each side, and receiving 400 W from the heater plus 0 W on each side. Everything is balanced.
Scenario 1: The plate is placed in a vacuum chamber where the walls of the vacuum chamber are all held at 2.7 K.
The plate will be 244K. For the same reasons as above.
Scenario 2) The plate is placed in a vacuum chamber where the walls of the vacuum chamber are all held at 244 K.
The plate will, of course, be warmer than 244 K (since it would be 244 K without any heater at all).
The plate will specifically be 290 K. It emits 400 W from each side = 800W; it gains 400 W from the heater + 200 W on each side from the warm walls = 800W. Everything is balanced.
Scenario 3) The plate is placed in a vacuum chamber where the walls of the vacuum chamber facing one side of the plate are all held at 244 K, while the walls facing the other side are all held at 2.7 K.
The plate will, of course, be warmer than 244 K, but less than 290 K.
The plate will specifically be 270 K, Emitting 300 + 300 W; receiving 400 + 200 + 0 W. Everything is balanced.
Scenario 4) The plate is placed in a vacuum chamber where the walls of the vacuum chamber facing one side of the plate are all held at 220 K, while the walls facing the other side are all held at 2.7 K.
The plate will, of course, be warmer than 244 K, but less than 270 K.
The plate will specifically be 262 K, 267 + 267 W, and receiving 400 + 133 + 0 W.
(Again, this is not “the green plate experiment”. It is a different but related set of scenarios.)
Tim once again switches scenarios to include multiple heat sources…
All wrong, Tim.
Commenter “MikeR” has supplied the bogus “solution” as well as two versions of the correct solution. (Only difference is the two offsetting green arrows are removed, for clarity.)
https://postimg.cc/SnjcKVB4
ClintR says “All wrong”
Really? The plate in deep space will not be 244 K? That is a bold conclusion! Since you think I am wrong, what do you think is the correct temperature?
“Tim once again switches scenarios to include multiple heat sources”
The earth has one heat source … the sun.
The “green plate” had one heat sources … some incoming radiation
My scenario has one heat source … a 400 W internal heater.
All of these scenarios also have various hindrances for heat that is leaving, but always only one source of heat.
Tim, you have “walls” which can be “held” at various temperatures. Hence you have an additional heat source in your “walls”.
Tim, your new scenarios just complicate the issue. Why complicate the issue unless you know the 262/220 nonsense cannot be supported?
Tim,
More hidden heat sources. How many Watts is each wall emitting? Complicated, no thought at all diversions masquerading as thought experiments.
Quit while youre behind.
1) There is a single , 400 W heat source for the plate. The wall are always cooler than the plate, so there is never any heat from the cool walls to the warm plate.
2) This is not more complicated. This is 1 object in a completely controlled environment, rather than 2 objects that interact with each other.
3) If people can’t handle this new scenario, then they clearly con’t know how to do the basic calculations, let alone the more complicated ones.
You have an additional heat source in your walls.
Tim,
ClintR is reframing the original GPE thought experiment to include a one way mirror between the BP and GP such that the 200 W/m^2 from the BP passes though and falls upon the GP. But the 200 W/m^2 from the GP is reflected back to the GP.
No bdgwx, I’m not “reframing”. Thanks for misrepresenting me, again. Can’t you ever get anything right?
Ball4 came up with the concept of a “perfect mirror”, which helps explain the physics to those unable to understand the physics.
Some idiots still can’t understand….
My bad…the right side of the BP itself is a special mirror that allows the BP to still emit like a black body but not absorb like one.
Once again, bdgwx, here is the problem with the 262K/220 K solution:
With the plates together, equilibrium is established:
Ein = Eout = 400A Joules
TBlue = TGreen = 244K
With the plates slightly apart, the (bogus) claim is:
Ein = Eout = 400A Joules
TBlue = 262 K (bogus value)
TGreen = 220 K (bogus value)
Notice that internal energy has moved from cold (TGreen) to hot (TBlue), without any additional energy going into the system. The thermal energy has been transferred, “by its own means”. A violation of 2nd Law.
DREMT
That is why your logic is flawed. It is based upon an incorrect assumption.
You claim there is no “additional” energy going into the system. This is wrong. There is a constant new source of additional energy going into the system. If not the whole thing would cool.
I do not think you have a real good grasp of the actual 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You are fooled by the “Slayer” version and the total fanatic Joseph Postma. Neither group understands how to use the 2nd Law at all and keeps many in the dark with their false and misleading interpretations of the Law. If you ignore these false teachers and look in actual textbooks you will find the correct solutions. As long as you persist with incorrect physics your solutions will be wrong.
“This is wrong. There is a constant new source of additional energy going into the system.”
No Norman, additional means supplemental to the energy from the sun source.
Norman can’t understand there is no “additional energy” in the steady state condition, indicating his ignorance of thermo.
Then, he finishes off with “As long as you persist with incorrect physics your solutions will be wrong”!
What an idiot!
DREMT said: Notice that internal energy has moved from cold (TGreen) to hot (TBlue), without any additional energy going into the system.
Of course there is energy being added to the BP/GP system. It is coming from the red source to the left at a rate of 400 W/m^2. The BP/GP system is therefore not evolving by its own means. There is nothing inconsistent with the 2LOT in this 2 body system.
Furthermore…energy is moving from the source to the BP and accumulating in the BP while it is moving from the GP to space and depleting in the GP. When we expand our system to include the source and space at no point in this 4 body system is heat flowing from cold to hot. It flows from source to BP and from GP to space. The BP warms and the GP cools while entropy in this 4 body system increases as a whole and in perfect accordance with the 2LOT.
bdgwx can’t understand there is no “additional energy” in the steady state condition, indicating his ignorance of thermo.
Then, he finishes off with “The BP warms and the GP cools while entropy in this 4 body system increases as a whole and in perfect accordance with the 2LOT.”
What an idiot!
#2
No Norman, additional means supplemental to the energy from the sun source.
Clint says: “bdgwx cant understand there is no additional energy in the steady state condition, indicating his ignorance of thermo.”
The name “steady state” means just that — nothing is changing. If you hold the plates together and wait, you will reach a steady state.
The moment you change anything, then by definition, you are not longer in a steady state. When you pull the plates apart, that is clearly a change. So while it is true that “there is no additional energy”, there is indeed a change in configuration, meaning there could be changes in temperature. We have to re-evaluate the whole situation!
“So while it is true that “there is no additional energy”…”
Norman and bdgwx are immediately thrown under the bus.
Tim, you’re having a hard time with this simple problem. Obviously you’ve never worked with real problems.
DREMT clearly describes two states–“plates together”, and “plates slightly apart”. Both states are in steady state, at equilibrium. At no time is there a change in system energy in/out.
DREMT
Why do you make things difficult.
Say you have a heated object in a room. With the amount of heat you are adding the object reaches a temperature of 100 C. Now you put thick insulation around the object with the exact same amount of heat being added. Are you serious? Do you think the object will now not reach a higher temperature than 100 C? The insulation is NOT adding any new energy to the object and you can measure that it is indeed colder than the hot object, and yet the hot object increases in temperature. How much? Depends upon the insulation and how your heat source works.
I am really astounded that you cannot understand simple physics. If you change the amount of energy being lost by a heated object it can then change its temperature based upon what type of change took place.
You should listen to Tim Folkerts. He knows physics quite well. The blog physics you believe is not correct.
Norman must realize his plates nonsense is non-supportable. Now he wants to change the problem.
He can’t violate the laws of physics, but he keeps trying. That’s why he’s an idiot.
ClintR
The plate is quite supportable. You babble about things you are clueless about. You might be one of the most arrogant simpletons around. You believe (without support of any kind) that you are smarter in heat transfer than College Professors who teach the topic.
With such a smug and arrogant state of stupidity you have (not knowing any actual physics even when I present it to you in quotes) no one can reason with you, You are like a dirt clod. Not at all intelligent. You don’t seem to possess any logical thinking ability yet you are the smartest person on the planet.
I think your arrogance is probably the only amazing attribute you possess. You are arrogant without any knowledge. You call everyone “idiot” yet you can’t understand anything they post.
That’s just more opinions and attacks, Norman.
That’s all you’ve got.
The “by its own means” clause in the 2LOT is in reference to the penetration of matter and/or energy in and out of the system boundaries. If the system boundaries only include the BP and GP then energy is definitely entering and leaving that system. The fact that there is no energy imbalance on that system is completely irrelevant in terms of the 2LOT. So if by “no additional energy” you actually mean “no accumulation energy” or “no increase in the incoming/outgoing energy” then understand that the argument is also irrelevant. The 2 body system consisting of the BP and GP is NOT isolated and NOT evolving by its own means. Therefore a local decrease in entropy is still consistent with the 2LOT. It seems that no only are the contrarians trying to reframe the original thought experiment they are also not understanding how to apply the 2LOT or what that crucial “by its own means” clause even means.
Tim already threw you under the bus, bdgwx.
bdgwx, there is no “additional energy”. So, there can not be an entropy decrease.
But your desperate attempts to pervert reality are always entertaining. Don’t let the laws of thermodynamics stop your performance.
“Both states are in steady state, at equilibrium. At no time is there a change in system energy in/out.”
Yes, both of these TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS reach their own steady state. These two different systems can — even with the same, constant energy input — be very different systems at very different temperatures.
It would be surprising if the temperatures did remain the same!
ClintR said: bdgwx, there is no “additional energy”. So, there can not be an entropy decrease.
Run a heat pump in an open room and wait for a steady state. Keep the heat pump running but this time partition the room such that the condenser is one side and the evaporator is on the other. You will observe one side getting warmer while the other gets cooler. Warm gets warmer and cool gets cooler. By your definition “no additional energy” was available to the room as a whole yet the entropy decreased. Clearly “no additional energy” by your definition is irrelevant because countless everyday observations confirm that with an appropriately placed thermal barrier between the evaporator and condenser a lower entropy state can be achieved with “no additional energy”.
Tim wonders: “It would be surprising if the temperatures did remain the same!”
Reality often surprises some.
bdgwx, how many things are wrong with your example?
If the room is closed, there is no steady state. Energy into room is always increasing.
Hope you have time to provide more examples of your ignorance of thermodynamics.
Yes, ClintR, the reality of a rotating on its own axis bolted down horse on mgr pointing its nose N, W, S, E back to N once each mgr rev. surprises some.
bdgwx, a heat pump example is beyond ability to understand for those surprised the moon is actually rotating on its own axis once per Earth orbit. You need something simpler like a metal plate that is black body and perfect mirror on different faces.
Also bdgwx, your inability to understand “additional energy” in the two different scenarios is part of the entertainment.
Does you “heat pump” also create energy like the 262/220 scenario? Can you come up with a better example that creates even more energy? Have you considered getting a patent?
The heat pump provides a steady and constant source of energy just like the red source in Eli’s GPE thought experiment.
If you think I’ve interpreted your definition of “no additional energy” then now is your chance to set me straight. Based on the discussion above I’m interpreting it to mean Ein-Eout=0 for the two body system consisting of the BP and BP.
And for the record…when the rest of use the phrase “additional energy” we mean Ein > 0 because the “by its own means clause” of the 2LOT is in reference to Ein=0 and Eout=0. Ein-Eout=0 is irrelevant in this context.
Thanks for clarifying your beliefs, bdgwx. That explains a lot.
In a steady state scenario, such as the correct solution (244K/244K) to the two plates, Ein – Eout = 0. But both Ein and Eout are nonzero. So, no “additional energy” means Ein is NOT increasing and Eout is NOT decreasing. There is NO net increase in energy to the system. That means temperatures can NOT be re-arranged, as in the bogus 262K/220K nonsense.
Yeah…so your “no additional energy” means Ein-Eout=0 as I suspected. The 2LOT makes no reference to that. It only makes reference to Ein=0 and Eout=0 via the “by its own means clause”. So the contrarian claim that a local entropy decrease is not possible because there is “no additional energy” is invalid.
244K/244K is not a steady state because despite the 2 body system as a whole being in energy balance the BP and GP individually have +100 W/m^2 and -100 W/m^2 imbalances on them respectively. The BP must warm and the GP must cool.
262K/220K is a steady state because both the 2 body system as a whole and the BP and GP individually are in energy balance.
And as I’ve explained repeatedly in the complete 4 body system at the moment of separation the heat flow is sun to BP and GP to space. The flow gets shunted between the BP and GP because they are initially at 244K.
And by invoking a mirror or by turning the plates into something other than a black bodies in an effort to get around the plate energy imbalances the contrarian argument is a reframe of the original GPE thought experiment.
Good comprehensive explanation bdgwx. The twins team has lost.
“…the “by its own means clause””
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-515667
You can always tell when bdgwx knows he’s been caught. His comments just get longer and longer!
Let’s document his incompetence, to this point:
1) bdgwx believes that “no additional energy” means it’s okay to violate 2nd LoT.
2) bdgwx believes the correct solution (244K/244K) has an energy imbalance.
3) bdgwx believes the green plate is a reflector.
4) bdgwx believes that the correct physics is “reframing” the experiment.
Presumably all idiots agree with bdgwx, namely Ball4, Tim, Norman, Svante, Nate, MikeR, Swanson, Bindidon, and student bs. Did I leave anyone out?
1. The 2LOT does not prohibit warm things getting warmer and cool things getting cooler.
2. Yep.
3. Nope. Both the BP and GP are black bodies.
4. Nope. I accept that 262K/220K is the only configuration that results in a steady-state and complies with the 1LOT, 2LOT, and the parameters of the original GPE thought experiment as presented by Eli.
Hmm…just noticed ClintR sneaked in the word “correct” on #2. Yes on the imbalance. No on it being correct.
bdgwx, I’m on to your deceptive tricks.
You have implied that “no additional energy” allows you to rearrange temperatures in the bogus solution. You got caught trying such trickery. So you responded with “The 2LOT does not prohibit warm things getting warmer and cool things getting cooler.”
No one said the 2LOT prohibited that! You’re just trying to distract by wanting another endless typing contest.
You failed to appreciate reality, again.
It’s always funniest when the idiots get tangled up in their own nonsense.
bdgwx can’t understand why the energy from the green plate is reflected by the blue plate. Yet he insists the energy from the blue plate is reflected by the green plate: “The flow gets shunted between the BP and GP because they are initially at 244K.”
He even has to avoid the word “reflected”, replacing with “shunted”.
The flow of heat from the BP to the GP gets shunted. Heat does not flow between bodies of the same temperature, but energy does. And I never said that energy or heat are reflected off the GP. Nothing in the original GPE thought experiment is reflected. Both the BP and GP are black bodies. I’ve actually been trying to drive that point home since one of the contrarian arguments invokes reflection off the BP which isn’t possible since the BP is a black body.
And I’ll repeat…262K/220K is the only configuration in which a steady-state is achieved in which the energy budgets of each plate individually and the BP/GP system as a whole are both balanced. This configuration is consistent with the 1LOT, 2LOT, and parameters of the original GPE thought experiment.
bdgwx continues to struggle in his own web. “Shunted” is not “reflected”, and “heat” is shunted, but energy is not, but energy is not shunted, but, but, but….
I’ll repeat…244K/244K is the only configuration in which a steady-state is achieved in which the energy budgets of each plate individually, and the BP/GP system as a whole are both balanced, and is consistent with the 1LOT, and 2LOT.
bdgwx has indicated he’s content being an idiot.
I’m content that he’s content.
Tim …”I plug it in and set it outside on a winter day say -20C ambient temperature. The outside surface of the box (call it Box A) will reach some temperature if it sits long enough. Lets imagine that temperature is +25C”.
So a container exterior sitting in ambient -20C air has a surface temperature of +25C? Ever heard of thermal equilibrium? Obviously there has to be a thermal gradient between the surface and the air at -20C. That means the air around the food warmer will have a thermal gradient over a distance between the surface and where the average air temperature is -20C.
You seem to think the +25C of the warmer shell is the normal temperature for it. It’s not, if you ran the warmer in the warmer room, it would warm to the temperature at which its heat dissipation was such that heat in = heat out.
This is not a 2nd law problem, it’s a problem of heat dissipation. When you put the warmer in an environment where T amb = -20C, the heat dissipation of the warmer increases and the device cools. When you put it in the warmer room with Tamb = +20C the rate of heat dissipation drops and the warmer gets warmer.
Q = e.sigma.A(Thot^4 – Tcold^4)
This is NOT the S-B equation, it’s an indication of the rate of heat loss (Q) where a warmer body is located in a colder ambient air environment.
As you can see, as Thot^4 – Tcold^4 gets closer, heat dissipation decreases. If Thot = Tcold, heat dissipation stops. As Tcold decreases, the heat dissipation increases and the body gets cooler. Reverse it as you did and the body gets warmer.
No 2nd law required. Please note, however, that the heat transfer is always from hot to cold.
BTW…you just described swannie’s experiment with the BP/GP in a vacuum.
“You seem to think the +25C of the warmer shell is the normal temperature for it. ”
No, I don’t think that at all. 25 C is the “normal temperature” for one set of conditions, but every set of conditions would have its own ‘normal”.
“Ever heard of thermal equilibrium?”
Sure. But nothing here is ever in thermal equilibrium, so that is not particularity relevant at the moment.
“When you put it in the warmer room with Tamb = +20C the rate of heat dissipation drops and the warmer gets warmer. …
BTWyou just described swannies experiment with the BP/GP in a vacuum.”
Yes! And the exact same conclusion applies! Whether the dissipation is by conduction or radiation, the warmer object gets warmer still if the surroundings get warmer.
Tim,
You find it surprising that adding extra heat in the form of the ambient environment might be observable as increased temperature?
Are you slow, or just ignorant?
tim…”Yes! And the exact same conclusion applies! Whether the dissipation is by conduction or radiation, the warmer object gets warmer still if the surroundings get warmer”.
Tim…so if we agree why do we reach different conclusions?
You think the heat for warming comes from the cooler body whereas I think the difference in temperature between the hot body and its environment cause the warming.
It’s about heat dissipation, Tim, not an illegal heat transfer that contradicts the 2nd law. If you have a power transistor and you install it without any means of heat dissipation, it will burn out with less than optimal current running through it. Simply exposing it to ambient air conditions at room T = 20C, it will cool enough via conduction, convection and radiation to allow it to operate normally at its rated current.
Power transistors are normally mounted on aluminum heat sinks with a special compound between the transistor and the metal of the heat sink (ironically, it’s called heat sink compound) to enhance heat conduction. With the heat sink, they run cooler. Why? It’s because the heat sink and compound allow heat to be conducted away from the transistor faster allowing for more heat dissipation. Ergo, the transistor runs cooler.
If you run a fan with enough air flow so it is blowing onto the heat sink, it increases the convective dissipation and the transistor runs even cooler. On my computer, the junction temperatures of the main processor sum to about 80C on a summer’s day. If I take a 12″ fan and direct it onto the motherboard from a foot away, the temperature of the processor drops quickly to less than 50C.
That is the source of the heating and cooling to which we are referring, rate of heat dissipation. If you set up the same transistor in a room at 20C, the junction temperature will be a certain temperature, say 60C. If it’s a really hot day and the temperature in my room rises to 30C, the junction temperature will rise because the transistor can no longer dissipate heat at the same rate.
Conversely, if you cool the room to 0C, the transistor can dissipate even more heat and run cooler. So, if I take that transistor outside at -20C and run it, the temperature of the junction will drop to say 30C. If I now take it back inside at 20C, the junction temperature will rapidly rise back to 60C.
It’s the current through the transistor causing the warming and the degree of warming depends on the rate of heat dissipation. Nothing to do with the 2nd law except that the heat always transfers from the hotter transistor to the cooler room air.
Hello to Norman and Tim!
From the textbook quoted above –
* In heat transfer by radiation, energy is not only transported from hot to cold
bodies; the colder body also emits radiation that strikes the warmer body and
can be absorbed there. An exchange of energy takes place, in contrast to the
transfer that occurs in heat conduction and convection *
The last sentence confuses me, for a reason I brought up a few years ago:
If air, at an ambient temperature of 40C, is in contact with a solid surface at 39C, the rate of conductive heat transfer will be slow.
If air, at an ambient temperature of 40C, is in contact with a solid surface at 10C, the rate of conductive heat transfer will be much greater.
What is the physical mechanism that governs those different rates, if an exchange of energy does not take place?
(If I remember correctly, Tim, you said there IS an exchange of energy).
Snape quoting a text: “An exchange of energy takes place, in contrast to the transfer that occurs in heat conduction and convection.”
You should be confused by the author Snape. The text author is confusing many by incorrectly using the “heat” term like so many other authors. Of course, there is energy exchange in conduction between solids. The kinetic energy of the constituent molecules is exchanged both ways (1LOT) at the contact with the net of all that kinetic energy exchange governed by 2LOT. Eventually the net energy exchange hits zero at a steady state temperature.
ball4…”The text author is confusing many by incorrectly using the heat term like so many other authors. Of course, there is energy exchange in conduction between solids. The kinetic energy of the constituent molecules is exchanged both ways (1LOT) at the contact with the net of all that kinetic energy exchange governed by 2LOT. Eventually the net energy exchange hits zero at a steady state temperature”.
Yes…that kinetic energy to which you refer is heat. The kinetic energy of atoms is heat.
You still don’t get it. KE is a DESCRIPTOR for energy, not the energy itself. KE tells you the particular energy is in motion. If the energy in motion is the energy equated with the vibrational state of atoms in a solid, it is known as heat, or thermal energy. What other energy could it be?
Why do you think temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of atoms? Which kinetic energy is being measured by temperatures…it is the relative thermal energy. Temperature does not measure mechanical energy, electrical energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, or any other kind of energy. Temperature measures thermal energy, aka heat.
Temperature is a human invention. We needed to know the relative levels of heat so we invented a scale based on the freezing point and boiling point of water. We found that 0C was too high for some levels of heat so we invented the absolute scale where 0K = -273C (approx.).
Heat is real, it is energy.
Gordon, there is no heat in an object, there is energy in an object in many forms and two categories.
Temperature is defined in a text on thermodynamics so obviously you have not consulted one of those.
Ball4,
Do tell. Can you do better than defining temperature as a measure of hotness!
If you cant, you are just a pretentious idiot!
ball4…”there is no heat in an object, there is energy in an object in many forms and two categories.
Temperature is defined in a text on thermodynamics so obviously you have not consulted one of those”.
***
Yes…there is thermal energy (heat) and mechanical energy (work) as the internal energies of the atoms in a solid forming a lattice. Any school kid can tell you that adding heat to such a body causes the atoms to vibrate harder (more work) and removing heat (cooling it) causes the atoms to vibrate less (less work).
Temperature was defined with its zero point at the freezing point of water and its other set point at the boiling point of water (Celsius scale). What do you think is required to raise the temperature of water from 0C to 100C? Heat!!! You can use the word energy all you want but someone will inevitably want to know what kind of energy you are talking about.
Later, Boltzmann and Maxwell went into it using statistical means and defined temperature statistically as the average kinetic energy of atoms. Clausius had already defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms, ergo, temperature is measuring the relative level of thermal energy (heat).
snape…”What is the physical mechanism that governs those different rates, if an exchange of energy does not take place?”
An exchange of energy (heat) does take place but only between the heated body and the cooler environment. The temperature difference between the heated body and its environment controls the rate of heat dissipation.
In the example you mentioned, where Tamb is 40C and the object is at T = 39C, I’d say heat dissipation from the object would be not only stifled, the heat transfer would be from the ambient environment to the object till both were in thermal equilibrium. At that point, there would be no heat transfer.
Ball4
* The kinetic energy of the constituent molecules is exchanged both ways (1LOT) at the contact with the net of all that kinetic energy exchange governed by 2LOT. Eventually the net energy exchange hits zero at a steady state temperature.*
Thanks, I expect you are correct.
norman…”From article: It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy”.
There is nothing in the 2nd law written by Clausius that refers to net energy. That phrase was concocted by people who have never read Clausius or the logic he applied when he WROTE the 2nd law.
He stated: Heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. Then he followed it up by inventing entropy which he defined as the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat [into or out of a body] at temperature T over a process. He divided the processes into two…the reversible processes in which entropy is zero and the irreversible process in which entropy MUST BE POSITIVE.
If thermal energy…not the generic energy referred to at your link…could be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures then there would be a negative as well as a positive entropy relative to one body.
There is no negative entropy and the equation is S = entropy = integral dq/T.
Gordon, thermal energy is NOT transferred as it is internal energy NOT external, EMR is energy in transit. And so is KE, both energy transfer processes are irreversible and thus increase entropy so are allowed by 2LOT.
ball4…”Gordon, thermal energy is NOT transferred as it is internal energy NOT external, EMR is energy in transit. And so is KE, both energy transfer processes are irreversible and thus increase entropy so are allowed by 2LOT”.
Entropy is another word Clausius used for energy…thermal energy. He defined it as the integral of infinitesimal changes of heat at a temperature T.
S = integral dQ/T. If you hold T constant by drawing the heat from a constant heat bath, you can pull it outside the integral sign
S = T.integral dQ
Just as he defined it, the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat into or out of a body at temperature T.
Entropy has nothing to do with reversible/irreversible per se nor has the 2nd law. it’s the other way around. If the process is reversible, the infinitesimal heat changes cancel out during the cycle and S = 0. If it is irreversible, they sum, and S = +ve.
Clausius claimed that thermal energy is both internal and external. He claimed heat can be added to or removed from a body. If it is added the temperature rises and if removed the temperature falls.
On the inside, this is related to the vibration of atoms in a solid. If you add heat, the atoms vibrate harder and more work is done. The 1st law is about heat and work and how both sum to equal the internal energy. However, the 1st law can be written as delta U = Q – W. As Clausius indicated in his Mechanical Theory of Heat, U can be written as Qint + Wint, so you have Qint + Wint = Qext – Wext.
None of this applies to EMR since by the time EM is generated by an electron in an atom, the heat involved in producing it has been used up in the conversion. As far as I am concerned, EM is a potential form of energy, not kinetic.
BTW…I agree with you that heat is not transferred via EM physically. Heat transfer via EM is a net transfer of heat in one direction where heat is lost at a hotter source and gained at a cooler target. The 2nd law stipulates that the transfer can occur only from hot to cold, by its own means.
Typical of the usual confusion Gordon displays: “heat is not transferred…heat is lost”.
It is clear Gordon does not understand thermodynamics.
ball4…”Typical of the usual confusion Gordon displays: heat is not transferredheat is lost”.
The confusion is yours, I explained what I meant. When a hotter body radiates EM, the body loses heat. If that EM encounters a cooler body it is absorbed and that body warms. Therefore, there has been a net transfer of heat from a hotter body to a cooler body without heat actually moving physically between them.
It’s about energy conversion: heat -> EM -> heat. Heat does not exists in the EM phase because heat is not EM.
midas…”So youre going to avoid addressing your invention of a method calledviral loading”.
Not avoiding, just been busy and quite tired. I am aware of what is meant by a viral load but it is a theoretical concept that has never been proved. In order to TRY proving it, researchers like HO, used the PCR method for DNA amplification after converting RNA they PRESUMED came from HIV to DNA, but had never proved it and surprise, surprise, found huge amounts of the DNA believed to be from viral RNA.
BTW…this is the same method used for covid even though the method has never been proved. In fact, Kary Mullis, who invented PCR, was always adamant that PCR could not reveal a virus that could not be found in an unamplified sample.
Mullis also searched for 10 years to find a paper that showed how HIV caused AIDS. Could not find one even though he asked Montagnier directly. He knew the difference between a real virus…RNA or DNA genetic material wrapped in a protein coating…from an inferred virus that has never been seen in that form.
http://www.virusmyth.org/aids/hiv/chjppcrap.htm
I have always heard the method used to detect a viral load as viral loading. I presume that came from ‘amplification’, as in viral amplification.
Kary Mullis …. hahahaha.
This is not the only thing Mullis was adamant about.
He was also adamant that he had had a conversation with “an alien disguised as a glowing green raccoon”. He insisted he was not on drugs at the time, taking away his only excuse for this lunacy.
Of course you will choose to believe the one insane person over the majority of sane scientists. Thank effing christ those aliens came and took him away last year.
And “I have always heard” is BS …. heard from whom?
midas…”He was also adamant that he had had a conversation with an alien disguised as a glowing green raccoon.
He was awarded a Nobel for inventing the PCR method. Just before he died, he had successfully trained the immune system in a mouse to recognize anthrax and eliminate it.
Does that sound like a crazy person? Besides, is that your best ad hom? You might have used the one where he called Fauci, the head of NIAID who is the current US advisor on covid, an ***hole.
He had a good reason for referring to Fauci in that manner. Fauci was one of the HIV clowns who lead the world astray on this harmless virus. He was an instigator of the viral load method and he was too stupid to understand why it could not work. Now he’s repeating with misinformation and ambiguity on covid.
You sure have a lousy judgement factor between a real good scientist like Mullis and a load of wannabees.
Hi Snape, did you know you’re in this scientific paper:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1075547020942228
DREMT states:
“With the plates together, equilibrium is established”
Ein = Eout = 400A Joules
TBlue = TGreen = 244K”
Lets be a bit more specific. Look at each plate in equilibrium (or more technically, in steady-state, but I’ll use this colloquialism.)
B = blue plate
G = green plate
S = space
Ein(B) = 400 W (from the external radiation source)
Eout(B) = 200 W (radiation to S) + 200 W (conduction to G) + 0 W (radiation to G)
The blue plate is balanced. It is at 244K to radiate 200 W/m from its left side.
Ein(G) = 200 W (conduction from B) + 0 W (radiation from B)
Eout(G) = 200 W (radiation to S)
The green plate is balanced. It is at 244K to radiate 200 W/m from its right side.
DREMT now imagines:“With the plates slightly apart” …
Yes — what would happen when you pull the plates apart and conduction no longer happens?
Ein(B) = 400 W (from the external radiation source)
Eout(B) = 200 W (radiation to S) + 0 W (no conduction to G) + 0 W (radiation to G)
The blue plate is NOT balanced. It is gaining 200 W and will start to warm up above 244 K.
Ein(G) = 0 W (conduction from B) + 0 W (radiation from B) +
Eout(G) = 200 W (radiation to S)
The green plate is NOT balanced. It is losing 200 W and will start to cool down below 244 K.
Tim, I went through this upthread. I’m happy that the comments up there settle the issue in the 244 K/244 K solution’s favor. No need to repeat myself.
Wrong Tim.
Here’s where you blew it:
“Eout(B) = 200 W (radiation to S) + 0 W (no conduction to G) + 0 W (radiation to G)”
The blue plate would be emitting 200 W to green.
“Heres where you blew it:
Eout(B) = 200 W (radiation to S) + 0 W (no conduction to G) + 0 W (radiation to G)
The blue plate would be emitting 200 W to green.”
Why? What equation are you using to calculate 200 W?
The plates, when separated, are both 244 K. What possible mechanism makes the blue plate emit energy to the green plate when both are the same temperature?
Tim, a surface emits based on its temperature. It’s called the “Stefan-Boltzmann Law”.
Clint, I was talking net flows between green and blue. If you like we can talk about individual flows.
Here’s the SB Law:
j = P/A = (sigma) (epsilon) T^4
It depends only on emissivity (which we agree is 1 for both plates) and on temperature. When you claim identical temperatures for blue & green, you necessarily claim identical SB emissions.
j(blue) = (epsilon) (244K)^4 = j(green)
Further, since we agreed they are black bodies, then all of these emissions get absorbed by the other.
* Blue emits 200 W which green absorbs.
* Green emits 200 W which blue absorbs.
There is NOTHING in the SB equation to distinguish the two plate when they are the same temperature. There can be no transfer from blue to green based on SB. They would now be
So yes, you can change my equations if you are talking about each 1-way transfer. You only changed one. You would have to change the others to include each transfer.
Ein(B) = 400 W (from the external radiation source) +200 W (radiation in from green
Eout(B) = 200 W (radiation to S) + 0 W (no conduction to G) + 200 W (radiation to G)
The blue plate is still NOT balanced. It is gaining 200 W and will start to warm up above 244 K.
Ein(G) = 0 W (conduction from B) + 200 W (radiation from B)
Eout(G) = 200 W (radiation to S) +200 W (radiation to blue)
The green plate is still NOT balanced. It is losing 200 W and will start to cool down below 244 K.
Tim, you’re still having trouble with basic accounting. Here are the correct values:
(Units emitted for clarity.)
Blue plate:
Ein = 400
Eout = 200 + 200 = 400
Ein = Eout = 400
Green plate:
Ein = 200
Eout = 200
Ein = Eout = 200
Units omitted for clarity.
You can’t have it both ways, Clint. You can’t claim to be using SB Law, but only use it part of the time.
SB says that both the blue and the green plate emit equally if they are the same temperature. Period.
When you claim that both plates are at the same temperature, you claim they emit equally. Period
* If the blue plate is 244 K, it is emitting 200 from each side
* If the green plate is at 244 K, it is emitting 200 from each side
Since both are black bodies, they both absorb all the radiation coming toward them from the other. Green absorbs 200 from blue and blue absorbs 200 from green.
So if both are 244K, then
Ein(blue) = 400 + 200
Eout(blue) = 200 + 200
Ein(green) = 200
Eout(green) = 200 +200
Find a new law, or accept a new answer. SB does NOT give you the conclusion you reached.
Tim, you’re really confused. You don’t understand the physics, and your thought process is perverted because you refuse reality. You still believe the wooden horse, bolted to the floor, can rotate about its axis. In your cult, you are required to believe that. You can’t get away from your cult, so you can’t recognize reality.
When you can admit the wooden horse is not rotating about its axis, then maybe I can explain the physics of the plates.
Tim,
Your figures match mine exactly.
There is a positive energy imbalance on the BP. +100 W/m^2 (or +200 W for 1 meter plates with an SA of 2 m^2). The BP warms.
There is a negative energy imbalance on the GP. -100 W/m^2 (or +200 W for 1 meter plates with an SA of 2 m^2). The GP cools.
262K/220K is the configuration in which each plate individually and the 2 body system (BP and GP together) as a whole have achieved energy balanced in the original GPE thought experiment in which the both the BP and GP are black bodies. There is no violation of the 1LOT or 2LOT.
I’ve explained this ad-nauseam to the contrarians.
And I see ClintR is still invoking the magic mirror on the right side of the BP to reflect away the 200 W/m^2 coming from the GP.
Yes bdgwx, all cult members always agree. That’s why it’s a cult.
tim…”Clint, I was talking net flows between green and blue. If you like we can talk about individual flows”.
Net flow of what time? Heat cannot flow between the plates in a vacuum, either way. Talking about a net flow of EM is ingenuous since there is not system in which a net flow can happen.
If two bodies of different temperatures are close to each other, each emits EM independently in the same manner they would have if isolated. If part of the EM from either body strikes the other, there is no relationship between them to form a net.
As Clint points out, you can’t add the fluxes to form a net between the bodies, therefore you must be referring to a net transfer of heat both ways. It’s not possible for a body to absorb EM without warming, therefore both bodies would be warming the other simultaneously.
Some have argued that one warms the other more therefore the net heat flow is from hot to cold. Wishful thinking. Those people are mixing heat with EM and forming a fictitious net energy flow. The truth is that only EM from the hotter body can cause the warmer body to warm, and that supports the 2nd law. The EM from the cooler body has no effect on the hotter body.
Tim,
Does it not occur to you that if your plates are dissimilar metals, you have constructed a Seebeck generator? Free electric power for all eternity? You might get politicians, climate scientists, or various delusional alarmists to believe you, but no one who accepts reality.
No perpetual motion, regardless of what pretty colours you use. Go away.
There is no free energy. There is a steady 400 W being put into the system. Some of that energy can used to power a heat engine or thermopile without any violations of conservation of energy or the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It was a good try, though.
It is the motion of the ocean
https://bit.ly/2FNJdib
It says the opposite. ENSO/AMO/PDO etc. can be ignored.
https://tinyurl.com/y67hsu8g
Hi Svante
Yeah, I saw the paper at RC and looked through it to see if there was a name recognized….. Lol
binny…”Show us the link to that paper, Robertson”.
I gave you the name of the paper are you too lazy to look it up for yourself?
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2011/November/Nov2011GTR.pdf
“While Earths climate has warmed in the last 33 years, the climb has been irregular. There was little or no warming for the first 19 years of satellite data. Clear net warming did not occur until the El Nio Pacific Ocean warming event of the century in late 1997. Since that upward jump, there has been little or no additional warming”.
1)..there was little or no warming
2)clear net warming did not occur until… I used the term ‘true warming’ which I regard as being the same thing. NOAA has defined anomalies below the baseline as cooling wrt to it. Therefore, any UAH data below the baseline, like the UAH average between 1979 and about 1997, has to be regarded as cooling and any warming trend a recovery from cooling. That is, not true warming.
The reference of UAH to ‘little or no warming’ has to refer to the brief instances where the average poked above the baseline before receding below it. See 1988, 1991, and mid-1995.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2020_v6.jpg
An extremely important video which explains the testing for covid and why it is wrong. It also goes into why people feel the need to believe this stuff.
PLEASE…it’s nearly an hour long and starts slowly. It doesn’t really get going till the interviewer, David Icke, starts to interview the expert Andrew Kaufman. So, PULEEEEEZE…try to refrain from jumping to conclusions and/or shooting the messenger through the intro.
Andrew Kaufman surprised me with his forthrightness and deep understanding of the subject. Well spoken guy with the courage to take on the authority figures and explain why he is doing it.
He explains that the genetic sequence which is the basis of the covid test is a natural genetic sequence called chromosome 8. In essence, the test is testing for a natural genetic sequence in all humans therefore the testing can never end. They will be testing for and finding evidence for covid for the next 40 years or more. That means we will be seeing the erosion of our democratic rights well into the future based on a seriously faulty test.
https://davidicke.com/2020/08/24/big-story-please-share-pcr-test-that-is-producing-the-virus-cases-triggering-the-new-lockdowns-worldwide-is-testing-for-genetic-codes-that-every-human-has-and-not-the-virus-david-icke-tal/
David Icke.
You are off the deep end officially…
plastic…”David Icke. You are off the deep end officially”
David Icke was asking the questions, the guy answering them has a degree from MIT and he is a medical doctor. He has a deep knowledge of how viruses operate and the relationship between them and RNA/DNA.
Typically, an alarmists shoots the messenger.
My last thought experiment aroused some ‘interesting’ responses. Let’s try a different variation on the “green plate experiment”.
We have two identical 1m x 1m plates, labeled “B” & “G”. Each has black body surfaces. Each is thin and has good thermal conductivity so that the temperatures on both sides of a given plate will be practically the same. Both are in space far from any other stars, planets, etc. I have adjustable heat sources available for each plate (this could be some incoming light from a laser or an internal electric heater or anything else you want to imagine; it really doesn’t matter.)
Base Scenario) The heaters for both B & G are set to 200 W each. The plates are slightly separated.
Everything is symmetric. Both plates are 244 K, so no heat flows between plates in either direction. (There are fluxes of 200 W worth of photons moving from B to G and from G to B, but these are equal and provide no net transfer of energy.
I think we can all agree here.
Alternate Scenario) The heater for B is turned up slowly from 200 W to 400 W, while the heater for G is turned down from 200 W to 0 W.
Intuition (and detailed calculations) conclude that as more and more energy is put into B and less and less into G, B must warm up and G must cool down. Heat in the form of thermal radiation will go from B to G.
This would be true for heated plates in your home or heated plates in space. This will be true whether the total power is 400 W or 4000 W or 4 W. If one plate has more power than the other, that plate will be warmer than the other.
Tim,
Quit while you are behind.
You havent done the detailed calculations, have you? Still no perpetual free heat source. Just the usual diversionary mishmash of heat sources, plates, wattages, trying to convince the suckers that you can get something for nothing.
If you had something besides “I have already made up my mind” you could share. Instead you stick doggedly to “heaters with different powers sitting near each other are the same temperature.” You stick to “energy flows from one object to another object at the same temperature.”
The calculations are pretty trivial .
* Radiation from any black body surface is P = (epsilon) T^4 A.
* All radiation arriving at any black body surface gets absorbed.
* At steady state, each object must separately have balanced energy flows.
Tim,
You haven’t done any calculations, have you? Just staring a few generalisations is not doing detailed calculations, is it?
Give it a try. You’ll soon realise it’s a little less trivial than you blithely assert.
Swenson, Yes, I have done all these calculations many times. They are just as easy as I think they are. I even have the value of epsilon memorized.
What calculations do you actually think are difficult? The only calculations required here are adding, subtracting, and calculating P = (epsilon) T^4.
I could send you the spreadsheet I just whipped up to calculate the actual progression in temperature as a function of time. Complete with adjustable heat capacities and initial temperatures.
Tim, your “intuition” fails you in this case. There are no losses, so all of the emission from blue (200W) goes to green. So to emit that 200 W, the green plate must increase to 244 K.
Clint says: “So to emit that 200 W [half of the 400 W being emitted from the blue plate @ 244 K], the green plate must increase to 244 K.”
The green plate, being the same temperature on both sides, would emit 100 W from each side at steady state if it were absorbing a steady 200 W. So it would only have to be 205 K.
Of course, in such a situation, the Blue plate’s energy balance is + 400 W (from heater] – 200W (to space) – 200 W (to Green) + 100 W (from Green) = +100 W. So Blue would start to warm up. And start to emit more than 200W to green. And then green would start to warm up. …
Sorry Tim, you’re violating the laws, just as the bogus solution does.
In the correct solution (244K/244K), the green plate absorbs 200 from blue and must be at 244K to then emit to space.
Tim, normal heat radiation laws do not apply between plates.
Why? Because their theory would otherwise fall apart.
svante…”Tim, normal heat radiation laws do not apply between plates.
Why? Because their theory would otherwise fall apart.”
Normal radiation laws (there is no such thing as heat radiation) obey the 2nd law. The fictitious laws you call normal were created by modern authors who have no idea why the 2nd law was developed.
They have presumed, incorrectly, that Stefan-Boltzmann can be arbitrarily reversed. S-B, actually derived first by Stefan, is based on an experiment by Tyndall, in which he electrically heated a platinum filament wire and recorded data as the current was increased and the filament glowed with different colours.
Someone else worked out the frequencies corresponding to the colours and Stefan used that info to work out the T^4 relationship between the temperature of the filament wire and its frequency. Note that the heat transfer throughout was from hot to cold, from the hot filament between about 700C and 1400C to the room at room temperature. There is nothing in S-B to indicate heat transfer from cold to hot.
“There is nothing in S-B to indicate heat transfer from cold to hot.”
But there is plenty in S-B and Planck Law experiments to indicate EMR can transfer energy from lower temperature to higher temperature objects. The proof of concept experiments were carried out at lab room temperature, 1bar with cavity EM radiation in dry ice bath registering on the room temperature instrumentation. Just like today’s IR thermometers, conceived from those experiments, do in everyday practice.
Your problem, Gordon, is not understanding heat is merely a measure of something.
ball4…”But there is plenty in S-B and Planck Law experiments to indicate EMR can transfer energy from lower temperature to higher temperature objects”.
Explain the mechanism by which such an illegal transfer, wherein heat is transferred by its own means from cold to hot. You did not even bother to link to your alleged experiments.
Let me guess, they used power to run a compressor, which compressed a gas to a high pressure liquid wherein heat in the gas was vented through a condenser, then the gas was reduced to low pressure where it collected heat from a cooler source and transferred the heat via a pressure change in a gas to an environment at a higher temperature.
Anyone who claims to have done that naturally is not doing it via the scientific method. Like Swannie, they are deluding themselves by mistaking a heat dissipation effect for an illegal transfer of heat from cold to hot.
Tim,
Make an imaginary plate of ice, 1m x 1m x 1mEach side radiating 200 W. Total would be 6 x 200 = 1200 W.
Cut it in half. Now 2 plates. Total radiation now 1600W. Any change in temperature? No. Paint one block green, the other blue. Temperature change nil.
Talking about wattages is pointless. Keep subdividing the plate, and you can have any wattage you like. Each piece of ice (or whatever) is still at the same temperature.
Deluded alarmists love to add and subtract wattages, and believe they accumulate or something. Complete nonsense, of course.
It is Gordon that is deluded. Citing a ref. is a waste on Gordon, I expect the ref. will do Gordon no good.
EM energy transferring from cold to hot by its own means is not illegal as universe entropy increases in the process. Maxwell-Boltzmann had already explained why when these tests were run.
H. Rubens und F. Kurlbaum, Sitz. Ber. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin vom 25. Okt., 1900, p. 929. Ann. d. Phys. 4, p. 649, 1901
Google string, see the harvard.edu link: H. Rubens F. Kurlbaum 1901
“…since (Planck’s) expression agrees perfectly with our observations, not only from o degrees to 1500 degrees but also from -188 degrees to o degrees, at least to within errors of observation.”
No compressor, no high pressure, no condenser, no pressure lower than 1bar, just a p=1bar cavity at the above temperatures spewing out blackbody radiation measured by room temperature instrumentation. See Fig. 1. The beginnings of the IR thermometer.
Again, your problem, Gordon, is not understanding Clausius writing heat is merely a measure of something. You need to understand it is EM energy in transit. Both ways.
Funny, Swenson at 5:50pm adds -200 + 200 = 400 instead of zero. What a bungler. Still only 1200 W out of the 2 blocks of ice Swenson. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Cut it as many times as you like, no energy will be created or destroyed in the process.
You keep assuring I am violating laws, but you can never seen to say which ones.
* Have I created or destroyed energy?
* Does heat ever spontaneously flow from cool to hot?
* Do photons reflect from blackbody surface?
* Does a surface emit anything other than P/A = (epsilon) T^4
What specific law do you think if broken, and where precisely do you see this happening?
********************************
On the other hand, you violate the SB law when you have photons being emitted by only 3 of 4 identical surface.
You also violate the 0th and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Systems at the same temperature are at thermal equilibrium, and cannot have thermal energy flow from one to the other. Heat cannot spontanously flow unless one object is hotter than the other.
Tim, the bogus solution attempts to create energy, for starters.
And the correct solution does NOT violate the 0th and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
No energy is created. Energy moves around. It gets added and removed from the objects. But there is never a net gain or loss of energy.
Lets take the two plates in contact at 244 K as a starting point. We agree that this is the correct solution when they are in contact. Not laws of physics have been broken. No energy has been created.
Now pull them apart.
In the first second, blue absorbs 400J from whatever is providing the input. It sends 200J out from each side (SB Law). It absorbs 200J from Green (SB law). It has a net gain of
400=200-200+200 = 200J (conservation of energy)
Green absorbs 200 from Blue (SB Law). It emits 200 from each side (SB Law). It has a net loss of
+200-200-200 = -200 (conservation of energy).
The extra 200 J in blue makes blue warm up a little — lets imagine it warms up 1 K. The missing 200 J in green likewise makes it cool down 1 K.
In the next second, the balance for blue is
+400-204-204+197 = +190
And for Green:
-197-197+204 = -190
They warm and cool some more (but a little less than the first second.)
Its easy to set up a spread sheet to repeat the calculations. The blue plate eventually settles in at (gasp!) 262K. The green plate settles in at 220K.
Tim,
Complete rubbish. Two objects in thermal equilibrium do not change their temperature spontaneously – close together or separated.
You are just deluding yourself. As I pointed out, you claim you can now produce infinite electricity using the Seebeck effect. No energy created? Just another crackpot perpetual motion idea.
Tim,
By the way, you manage to break the zeroth, first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Good effort! Keep going, and you will invent a perpetual motion machine!
Tim tries again, “In the first second, blue absorbs 400J from whatever is providing the input. It sends 200J out from each side (SB Law). It absorbs 200J from Green (SB law).”
There’s your mistake Tim, the blue plate would not be absorbing 200J from the Green plate. That is NOT the S/B Law.
Either you are terribly confused, or you’re making things up, or both.
Swenson,
Nothing here is actually in thermal equilibrium. Everything is merely in a steady state. So any appeal to “thermal equilibrium” already shows you don’t really understand the physics here.
* In thermal equilibrium, there can be no flow of thermal energy; everything will be exactly the same temperature.
* In this situation, thermal energy flows into the blue plate. It flows out of the blue plate to the green plate. It flows out of both the blue plate and the green plate to space. Constant energy flow; constant differences in temperature.
Even when the two are touching, the blue plate must be marginally warmer than the green plate so that ~ 200 W of heat can flow by conduction. So even in the initial case, the solution would be something like the surface of the blue plate being maybe 245 K and the green plate being maybe 243 K. If you make the conduction more difficult by adding some insulation or making the plates thicker, the difference will go up even more.
maybe 250 & 237. Maybe 258 & 227. (and yes, those are calculations of actual possible pairs of temperatures to radiate a total of 400 W to space in a steady-state situation. The calculations are indeed ‘trivial’.)
The plates will NEVER be the same temperature! The only question is “how much warmer will the blue plate be than the green plate in different scenarios?”
When touching and conduction is excellent, blue will be only *slightly* warmer than green. (And for general discussions, we can call them the same, even though blue will be 244 + delta, and green will be 244 – delta.)
When not touching and conduction is absent, the temperature difference will be large. If radiation is also prevented (with some sort of excellent mirror) then green would get (approximately) no energy and would be 3K, and blue would radiate (approximately) all 400 from one side (290 K).
Clint,
“There’s your mistake Tim, the blue plate would not be absorbing 200J from the Green plate. That is NOT the S/B Law.”
You keep stating that without any support. You keep being wrong.
1) The green plate is a black body. (given in the problem statement)
2) If it is at a uniform 244 K, it emits a uniform 200 W/m^2 from every bit of its surface. (SB Law)
3) The 200 W on the side facing the blue plate will hit the blue plate. (due to the geometry given in the problem)
4) The blue plate absorbs all 200 W. (Its a black body as give in the problem statement).
Therefore, the blue plate absorbs 200 W from the 244 K green plate.
I dare you find an error in any of those 4 statements (other than maybe a typo or two ….).
The first three are okay, the 4th one is incorrect.
The S/B Law deals ONLY with emission. The blue plate is NOT heated by the green plate. If you’ve never studied physics, use the idea from Ball4–the blue plate is a “perfect mirror” to the green plate. That should make it simple enough.
“the blue plate is a “perfect mirror” to the green plate. ”
The blue plate is a blackbody, a perfect absor.ber with emissivity = 1.
The blue plate is not a mirror, a perfect reflector with emissivity = 0.
It can’t be both at the same time! If you are using SB to calculate the emission from the blue plate using emissivity = 1, then you have to use emissivity = 1 for absor.ption from the green plate, too. Read up in Kirchhoff’s radiation laws.
Kirchhoff’s Laws? Did you stumble onto something else you can’t understand? That’s not even relevant here.
Since you don’t understand the physics involved, let’s see if your common sense works.
With the plates together, the green plate is NOT “supplying” 200J to the blue plate. The blue plate is NOT receiving 400J + 200J = 600J. Why would a slight separation turn the green plate into a heater?
Kirchhoff’s Radiation Law: “For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorp.tivity.”
That is EXACTLY the issue here. If the blue plate has an emissivity = 1, then it has an absor.ptivity = 1. I.e. if it emits perfectly it must absorb perfectly. It cannot emit perfectly (ie 200 W @ 244K) unless it also absorbs perfectly at the same wavelengths (ie the 200 W from the green plate @ 244 K).
Tim,
Hang on a second, pardner! Your plates seem to be infinitely thin black bodies, or physical bodies with conductivity and so on. Maybe you have forgotten that a physical plane surface radiates in all directions.
As well, any body with less than perfect conductivity leading to a temperature gradient, must have some radiation from the sides, as it must have some thickness. And so on.
Your trivial calculations are obviously crap. Don’t be a donkey. Think it through.
Tim, you don’t understand Kirchhoff. Please give up trying to pretend you know physics. You seldom get anything right.
Kirchhoff is satisfied at blue plate by Ein = Eout = 400J, Kirchhoff is NOT relevant to anything coming from green plate, as I stated.
You don’t understand physics. And if you can’t deal with the reality that the slight separation is exactly the same as in full contact, then you might be ready for the idiot test.
tim…here’s the main law you are breaking, the 2nd law:
“* Does heat ever spontaneously flow from cool to hot?”
According to Clausius heat can NEVER be transferred spontaneously from cold to hot. He also stated that law applies to radiation. No matter how many thought experiments you produce you must deal with the 2nd law and there is no way around it without immediate compensation of the cold body. Not possible under normal conditions, without human intervention.
“With the plates together, the green plate is NOT supplying 200J to the blue plate. The blue plate is NOT receiving 400J + 200J = 600J. Why would a slight separation turn the green plate into a heater”
1) Conduction occurs when objects are touching, but radiation does not.
Radiation occurs when objects are not touching, but conduction does not.
Creating even a SMALL gap completely changes the nature of the problem, from a thermal conduction problem to a thermal radiation problem. Of COURSE the nature of the solution can (and will) be wildly different.
2) The green plate is not a heat source in either scenario. It is a heat sink in both. You are rather sloppy with terms like “heater” and “equilibrium”.
3) The slight separation turns the green plate into a RADIATOR. It turns the blue plate into a radiator too. Now the blue plate can radiate 200 toward the green plate. And the green plate can now radiate 200 W toward the blue. And the blue plate can’t conduct 200 W to green. So in that instant of separation, we go from 200 W of conduction to 200-200 = 0 watts of radiation.
We are now FAR from the previous steady state situation, and things will start changing, seeking a new steady state solution. Blue has the same heat in (400 W) and the same heat out to space(200 W). But instead of 200 W of heat to green, there is 0 W of heat to green. Thermal energy will start to build up and Blue will start to warm. Conversely green will start to cool.
Gordon, then it is a good thing that nothing I have written describes heat flowing from cool to warm.
Heat flows easily from the slightly warmer blue plate to the slightly cooler green plate by conduction. 200 W at steady state with the blue plate at 244 + delta and the green plate at 244 – delta
Heat does not flow nearly as well by radiation. After separation, the heat flow will be more like 1 W, not 200 W. But heat is still definitely going from the warmer blue plate to the cooler green plate.
Tim, you’re turning this into just another typing contest. You won’t admit it when you’re proven wrong. You just keep typing like nothing happened. I see this all the time.
I’ll give you more examples.
Tim stated: “Conduction occurs when objects are touching, but radiation does not.”
That’s incorrect. Molecules emit even when “touching”.
Tim stated: “So in that instant of separation, we go from 200 W of conduction to 200-200 = 0 watts of radiation.”
That’s incorrect. It should be–In that instant of separation, we go from 200 W of conduction to 200 W of radiation.”
Tim stated: “But instead of 200 W of heat to green, there is 0 W of heat to green. Thermal energy will start to build up and Blue will start to warm. Conversely green will start to cool.”
That’s incorrect. The 200 W conduction (blue to green) changes to 200 W emitted. Thermal energy will NOT start to build up at the blue plate, because \ it is gaining 400J as it loses 400J. Concurrently, green will remain at 244K, gaining 200J as it emits 200J.
Swenson says “Hang on a second, pardner! …”
Damned if you do; Damned if you don’t!
Yes, all of these calculation are based on ‘reasonable approximations’.
* Nothing is actually a perfect blackbody.
* the heat source can’t be exactly steady @ 400 W for ever.
* it takes an infinite time to reach steady state.
* the plates cannot actually be perfectly thin and infinitesimally close together.
* the correct temperature is closer to 243.7 K than 244.0 K to radiate 200 W.
* etc. etc.
These are minor details, minor corrections, that do not affect the core issues.
* The blue plate MUST be warmer than the green plate for heat to flow from one to the other.
* The blue plate can be quite close in temperature to the green plate for conduction. (In the limit of perfect thermal conductivity and/or thin plates, the temperature difference goes to zero.)
The blue plate can NOT be close in temperature to the green plate for radiation. (In the limit of perfect black bodies very close together, the temperature difference does NOT go to zero.)
Don’t let “perfect” be the enemy of “good”. Fretting about just how close the plates are or exactly what the emissivity is obscurs the key points.
“Thats incorrect. It should beIn that instant of separation, we go from 200 W of conduction to 200 W of radiation.
In that instant, we go from 200W of conduction IN ONE DIRECTION (BLUE TO GREEN) to 200 W of radiation IN BOTH DIRECTIONS (ie a total of 0 W).
There, I fixed that for you.
Tim,
So you are keeping your specific assumptions secret? Too complicated for trivial calculations?
A series of reasonable approximations, you say. Why not just the physical laws you keep referring to? What happened to theory? Doesnt work for you?
Keep dreaming.
“in that instant, we go from 200W of conduction IN ONE DIRECTION (BLUE TO GREEN) to 200 W of radiation IN BOTH DIRECTIONS (ie a total of 0 W).”
Tim obviously does not believe in “back-conduction”. If both plates are at 244 K before separation then conduction is transferring energy equally in both directions. You have 200 W of conduction from blue to green, and 200 W of conduction from green to blue (ie a total of 0 W). So this is what we are supposed to believe:
Back-conduction: can’t warm the BP
Back-radiation: can warm the BP
“These are minor details, minor corrections, that do not affect the core issues.
* The blue plate MUST be warmer than the green plate for heat to flow from one to the other.
* The blue plate can be quite close in temperature to the green plate for conduction. (In the limit of perfect thermal conductivity and/or thin plates, the temperature difference goes to zero.)
The blue plate can NOT be close in temperature to the green plate for radiation. (In the limit of perfect black bodies very close together, the temperature difference does NOT go to zero.)”
So your number one ultimate “core issue” really is that you believe that there needs to be heat flow between the plates, so they “need” to be at different temperatures. This is a false premise, because at the same temperatures (together or separated) the plates emit to space the energy required to balance the input from the source. 400 W input is radiated to space at 244 K from the two plates, 400 W output in total.
Oooops!
Tim,
Make an imaginary plate of ice, 1m x 1m x 1mEach side radiating 200 W. Total would be 6 x 200 = 1200 W.
Cut it in half. Now 2 plates. Total radiation now 1600W. Any change in temperature? No. Paint one block green, the other blue. Temperature change nil.
Talking about wattages is pointless. Keep subdividing the plate, and you can have any wattage you like. Each piece of ice (or whatever) is still at the same temperature.
Deluded alarmists love to add and subtract wattages, and believe they accumulate or something. Complete nonsense, of course.
DREMT: “you believe that there needs to be heat flow between the plates … This is a false premise”
Of course there must be heat flow between the plates! Heat only goes into the Blue plate. It leaves from both. Ergo some must go from Blue to Green. Hence Blue must be warmer.
“Keep subdividing the plate, and you can have any wattage you like.”
You seem to have missed the fact that the plates were given as 1m x 1m. So 200 W/m^2 is 200 W from each side. IF you subdivide the plate,, it is not the same problem.
“And if you cant deal with the reality that the slight separation is exactly the same as in full contact”
So if I lift my a pan a couple mm off the electric stove, it is exactly the same as in full contact? The pan will heat just as well? IF I hold my hand 1/8 inch away from my grill, it will burn just as much as if I touch the grill?
Of COURSE the two are not ‘exactly the same’. ‘Almost touching’ and ‘touching’ are vastly different when it comes to thermal transfers.
“Heat only goes into the Blue plate. It leaves from both.”
If heat was being transferred to the blue plate, it would be getting warmer. If heat was being transferred to space, the plates would be getting cooler. Heat is something that is being transferred when objects are warming up or cooling down. Since we were talking about objects at steady state, no heat is being transferred.
“IF I hold my hand 1/8 inch away from my grill, it will burn just as much as if I touch the grill?”
Theoretically, it would in a vacuum and if view factors were 1 between your hand and the grill, yes.
No. Different formulas, different results.
Vacuum is a good insulator.
Have you ever considered what view factors = 1 actually means?
Consider two infinitely large flat parallel plates, facing each other. They have to be infinitely large for view factors to be equal to 1. Now, separate them by a finite distance. It doesnt matter how far apart they are, because you are comparing a finite distance to an infinite size. For all intents and purposes, the plates are touching. They are as good as touching. If you actually think about the scale involved…
Your approach is often good in physics.
To compare with the extreme case that is.
Here it fails because conduction and radiation are different:
dt=sQ/k
vs.
q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) A
As soon as you have the tiniest gap you have a different formula.
Why do you think they should give the same result?
Because there does not need to be heat flow between the plates. Both formulas give the same result for plates at the same temperature – no heat flow.
You argue based on the false premise that there needs to be heat flow between the plates, which allows you to exploit the differences between the two formulas to conclude that with radiative transfer there has to be a bigger temperature difference than with conductive transfer to “drive” the heat flow.
Yet there is no need for heat flow between the plates. At the same temperature, 244 K, the plates are already emitting the required 400 W to space.
If one was at 262 K and one at 220 K, the blue plate would just heat the green until they were at the same temperature again. 262 K/220 K is not>/b> a steady state solution.
DREMT, you have understood me correctly.
1) Heat is net energy.
2) Green plate temperature is steady if its net energy is zero.
3) The green plates are losing 400 W on outside.
4) It must be provided by the blue plate.
5) The equations say what the blue/green temperature difference must be for that to happen.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-516559
I know, you say “there does not need to be heat flow between the plates”.
No net energy from blue to green, but net loss from green to space?
Perpetuum mobile?
At the same temperature, 244 K, the plates are already emitting the required 400 W to space.
Remember, Svante, the green plate only has one side over which it can lose energy, the side facing space. It cannot lose energy on the side facing towards the blue plate, because that is the direction in which it gains all its energy. So, the 200 W it receives from the blue plate has to translate to a 200 W output. 244 K.
The blue plate, on the other hand, can lose energy from both of its sides, hence the 400 W input from the sun gets split two ways, and it too emits 200 W. 244 K.
Note I have been discussing the original 2-plate scenario.
And which physical formula gives you 2×200 W net from blue to green?
No idea what you are talking about, and have no interest in talking to you, generally. Have explained it all to you a dozen times, in many different ways. You choose not to understand. Not my problem.
With the plates together, the green plate is NOT “supplying” 200J to the blue plate. The blue plate is NOT receiving 400J + 200J = 600J. Why would a slight separation turn the green plate into a heater?
Svante, I especially enjoy it when you throw out that bogus equation:
q = ε&signa; (Th^4 – Tc^4)A
Clearly you idiots have no understanding of the physics involved.
Let’s try that again. (Must stop laughing before hitting “submit comment”.)
q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4)A
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“No idea what you are talking about”.
Physics is mathematical formulas, not words.
Which formula gives you the 200 W *net* from blue to green,
which green needs to cover its loss to space?
Svante performs: “Which formula gives you the 200 W ‘net’ from blue to green,
which green needs to cover its loss to space?”
Svante, the formula comes from the S/B Law. You wouldn’t know that because you’re an idiot.
That formula says 0 W between blue and green, so it doesn’t answer my question.
Svante mistakes the radiative heat transfer equation for the SB Law, once again.
The SB Law:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Stefan-Boltzmann-law
“if E is the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area in one second (that is, the power from a unit area) and T is the absolute temperature (in kelvins), then E = σT4, the Greek letter sigma (σ) representing the constant of proportionality, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This constant has the value 5.670374419 10−8 watt per metre2 per K4. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation.”
No Svante, the 200 comes from the S/B Law for blue plate at 244 K. You can’t understand Ball4’s model of the “perfect mirror”. So the 200 from green plate confuses you. And you can’t understand that the “perfect mirror” model also works when the plates are together. You can’t understand physics because you’re an idiot.
You cling to the bogus equation, because it fits your beliefs. You don’t know enough about physics to recognize the bogus equation has no value. It is easily debunked. Only idiots fall for it.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“Svante mistakes the radiative heat transfer equation for the SB Law”.
No, those formulas yield 200 W from blue to green, and 200 W from green to blue. Net 0 W.
Please show me the formula that gives 200 W *net* between blue and green.
DREMT: As I just argued, there is no need for heat flow between the plates.
Svante: OK, but physics is about equations. What equation gives you the result for the required heat flow between the plates?
DREMT: As I just argued, there is no need for heat flow between the plates.
Svante: What is the equation?
DREMT: Er…you are not listening.
Svante: The equation? If I ask a question and you do not answer, that means I am right.
DREMT: Yeah…but your question assumes as correct a point that I am debating…
Svante: Equation?
DREMT: You are not debating honestly.
Svante: Equation?
DREMT: OK, Svante.
Svante: I am glad you agree.
DREMT: No, I was just acknowledging that there is no point talking to you.
Svante: [pause] Equation?
Again Svante, you can’t understand the physics. The “net” is NOT zero! The net is 200, from blue to green.
Since you can’t understand the physics, you must rely on Ball4’s “perfect mirror” model. That model works for both the plates together and slightly separated. Idiots can’t understand the physics involved, so they must use simple models.
Some idiots can’t even understand the models….
Heat is net energy flow.
The green plate is losing 200 W to space.
It gets nothing from the blue plate.
Why is it not cooling?
Svante: “Heat is net energy flow.”
WRONG, idiot! “Heat” is the transfer of energy from “hot” to “cold”. The plates are at the same temperature in the correct solution.
Svante: “The green plate is losing 200 W to space. It gets nothing from the blue plate.”
WRONG, idiot! It gets 200 W from blue plate.
ClintR says:
There ain’t no formula that gives you that *net*.
Svante, you were given the S/B equation, more than once.
Why do you deny reality?
(That a rhetorical question, of course. Denying reality is what makes you an idiot.)
That equation gives you the same amount in both directions.
Net zero means no heat flow.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-517415
Svante, if you’re still confused, I thought of another approach.
In the gap between the plates, add the fluxes. (Leaving blue plate is “positive”, arriving blue plate is “negative”.)
+200 – 200 + 200 = +200
The “net” is NOT zero.
Does that help?
What is the physical formula you use there Clint?
The radiative heat transfer equation has only two terms.
Svante, can you add numbers?
Maybe even simple arithmetic is over your head.
No formula required?
Just random arithmetic?
You were given the formula, and shown the arithmetic, snowflake.
You still need a brain.
Dear ClintR.
You gave me this formula:
q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4)A
and these numbers:
+200 – 200 + 200 = +200
They do not match.
The formula has two terms but your arithmetic expression has three.
That’s the bogus equation, silly Svante.
The ONLY equation to use is the S/B equation F = σT^4
The numbers (+200 – 200 + 200 = +200) come from the different arrows between plates in the diagram.
(Silly Svante won’t be able to understand. He’s an idiot. This is for someone else that might be lurking.)
How come you use it three times when you have two plates?
You’re like bdgwx, unable to do a simple energy accounting.
Find MikeR’s graphic with two green arrows between the plates, and one blue arrow: The blue arrow is +200, one green arrow is +200, and the opposing green arrow is -200.
Get an adult to help you with the simple arithmetic, from there.
But, ClintR, your arithmetic (+200 200 + 200 = +200) shows total of three +200 “In the gap between the plates” and you just counted one green +200 and one blue +200, that’s two. Where is ClintR’s third arrow on RHS +200 “In the gap between the plates”?
Dear ClintR, please provide the physical formula first, then substitute letters for numbers so that the correlation is shown, as is customary in physics.
So far we have seen one formula with two terms, then a formula with one term. Your arithmetic has three terms.
Ball4 and Svante, sometimes when you are having trouble understanding something, it helps to memorize the explanation.
So memorize this:
Find MikeR’s graphic with two green arrows between the plates, and one blue arrow: The blue arrow is +200, one green arrow is +200, and the opposing green arrow is -200.
Get an adult to help you with the simple arithmetic, from there.
Apparently ClintR can’t count to 4: +200 – 200 + 200 = +200 arithmetic but only 3 arrows “In the gap between the plates”. The phantom +200 4th arrow strikes again as ClintR can’t even count arrows correctly.
Ball4 is not even up to the level of other idiots.
He’s clinically insane.
ClintR, you misunderstood.
I’m not asking for a cartoon.
I’m asking for the physical formula behind your arithmetic.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-518209
Dear ClintR,
Can you describe what’s what in your answer like they do in physics, e.g.
Formula: E=mc^2
where:
E=energy
m=mass
c=constant
Example:
m=1 kg
c=300000000 m/s.
Answer:
E=89875517874 MJ
Yes silly Svante, I can explain it but idiots can’t understand it.
The blue plate at 244 K emits 200 W/m^2 from each side, based on the S/B equation:
F = σT^4
F = (5.67*(10)^-8)*(244)^4 = 200.98 Watt/m^2 (rounded down to 200 and units omitted, for clarity)
F = 200
Green plate at 244 K also emits 200.
Between plates the energy balance (flow from blue to green is positive) is +200 -200 + 200 = +200
(It’s always entertaining to see how you and other idiots will attempt to pervert this simple reality.)
Very good ClintR, we are making progress.
Now you have explained two terms in your arithmetic expression. In physics you should include units in your calculation, so now we have:
+200 W/m^2 -200 W/m^2 = 0 W/m^2.
Which formula gives you the third term in your arithmetic expression?
No silly Svante, we are NOT making progress. You’re an idiot and can’t figure anything out for yourself.
Look at MikeR’s link. The diagram at bottom left shows TWO green arrows between the plates. One green arrow is +200 and the other is -200. How many times has this been explained to you, idiot.
Dear ClintR,
I know what your cartoon looks like.
I am asking how you derive it from physical formulas.
You have explained two out of three terms.
Please explain!
Wrong, silly Svante.
I’ve explained it many times. You just aren’t able to understand.
Face the facts — you’re an idiot.
Sorry about that.
Perhaps Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team can help out?
First you might want to sort out your disagreement.
Heat is net energy, but:
DREMT says: “As I just argued, there is no need for heat flow between the plates.”
ClintR says: “The ‘net’ is NOT zero! The net is 200, from blue to green.”
Wrong, silly Svante.
Your last comment just shows, again, that you don’t understand physics. “Heat” is NOT “net energy”.
DREMT’s and my statement are not conflicting. The only conflict is between you and reality.
Face the facts — you’re an idiot.
Dear ClintR, perhaps an example will help:
https://tinyurl.com/y4crg6lq
The heat of this process can be quantified by the net amount, and direction (Sun to Earth), of energy it transferred in a given period of time.
Yes Svante, the Internet is full of pretty pictures for kids and idiots.
That source clearly confuses “heat” with “flux”.
And, as we know, that’s way over your head.
Good thinking ClintR!
Let’s stick to physical formulas.
We have ΔU=Q-W
Where:
ΔU is internal energy, which can be measured in Joules.
Q is heat.
W is work, which is zero in our case, so:
ΔU=Q
In other words, Q is also a measure of energy.
If Q is not net energy, you can have a build up of internal energy without adding net energy. Have you patented this perpetuum mobile?
Yes silly Svante. If you violate the laws of physics you can end up with all kinds of ridiculous results. A perfect example is your bogus solution to the plates, where the temperatures are rearranged to 262K/220K, instead of the correct 244K/244K.
Svante, ΔU is a change per unit time. So Q and W are rates, thus Q cannot be heat as you write (since Q is a rate), a mistake made by many authors. The authors don’t ever talk about the work in an object but they do, sometimes mistakenly, discuss the heat in an object.
Actually, U (not ΔU) is the total thermodynamic internal energy in the object which is a measure of the total KE of the object’s constituents correctly aka heat.
Ball4, here we have:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Heat transfer rate is the proper name for what you are after.
We often drop the last bit when it is obvious from context.
Ditto for heat flux.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat#Notation_and_units
Do you agree ClintR?
ΔU is of course the change in internal energy, you are right there Ball4.
“Q = U + W” is often seen as an abbreviaion for 1st Law. It is quite acceptable for those that understand thermodynamics.
However, the 1st Law for a change of state of a system is more formally written:
δQ = dU + d(KE) + d(PE) + δW
“the amount of heat transferred in a thermodynamic process is Q”
Svante, you have found one of many mistaken unidentified authors, as Q is a rate not an amount. Find a more informed, critical, identified author to quote, one that has spent a successful career in thermodynamics. Likely, but not certainly, that author will also better understand the term “heat” as did Clausius in Clausius def. of the term. Many authors have drifted but there are a few trying to get the term “heat” out of the early 1800s & into the now.
Ball4, Wikipedia is good because it has references.
In this case there are eighty of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat#References
The first one says: “both heat and work have the dimensions of energy”.
Work and energy have the same units, I think you know that.
Otherwise you could not have “Q-W”.
Rate of Work/Energy is called Power.
What references do you have?
Clausius: Heat is a measure of the total KE of an object’s constituent particles. So yes that measure carries the units of energy not power. For more ref.s:
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.1341254
Agreed, back to ClintR’s:
With W=0 we have:
ΔU=Q
If Q is not net energy, U could increase without adding net energy. Please explain ClintR?
If ClintR doesn’t know, perhaps Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team (aka DREMT) could weigh in here?
I came back for looking for more examples of Folkerts messing up physics and found silly Svante still here!
He can’t learn.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-519159
A circular argument, brilliant.
As I see the futile efforts by the idiots to pervert both physics and reality to match their false religion, I am reminded of an exchange I had years ago with such an idiot.
He was arguing that since Arctic sea ice was melting, sea levels would rise. I explained to him that floating ice melting would not cause sea levels to rise. He could not understand. He used visuals like ice bergs, saying “You think that mountain of ice will not cause a rise in sea levels?”
I could not get him to understand, as like most idiots, he had never had any physics. He had never heard of Archimedes’ Principle. So, I suggested he perform an experiment. I told him to put ice cubes in a glass of water, mark the height of the water, and then come back after the ice had melted to compare levels.
So he came back to explain that the glass has overflowed!
He had FILLED the glass to the brim with water and then threw in the ice cubes!
When idiots don’t understand the physics, they can’t even do proper experiments.
ClintR
You are a legend of genius in your own mind only. Your thinking skills are limited. You make some correct statements but do not consider a larger picture since your small mind can only understand small ideas (you can’t comprehend radiation emitted by colder objects to hotter ones even though it is established physics, you do not grasp that cold insulation will raise the temperature of a heated object)
So with the Arctic ice, if it melts and energy continues to add to the water (summer in Arctic when sun does not set) the water will expand thermally and you will get a sea level rise.
https://physics.info/expansion/
Yet another display of Norman’s “physics” learned from wikipedia.
Norman,
Guess what happens when you heat water from the top? It stays on the top. It doesnt sink. That is just alarmist rubbish. Cold water sinks, you fool.
Swenson
Do all you skeptics have to be irrational? I have no clue of what your post has to do with my post.
Norman,
Do all dimwitted alarmists boast about how clueless they are?
Swenson
You make an irrational post about my post (no logical connection at all to what I said) and then follow with an equally irrational and pointless comment.
You are a senseless poster. Who can follow your bungled blathering babble? Maybe an infant might understand the content of your comments. I certainly can’t process your ridiculous nonsense.
Go away troll.
Guess what happens when you heat salt water from the top?
It evaporates becoming more saltier, more better denser, more better sinkier.
The warm salty water sinks because it is heavier than the cold not so salty water.
Which helps drive the ocean currents.
ClintR,
Believe it or not, one or more of your idiots at the NSF fought for years to justify the NSF website claiming that Archimedes principle had ceased to exist for climatological purpose.
The NSF claimed melting sea ice would raise sea levels. Donkeys.
At least they eventually said *we regret our error*. So much for believing experts.
It’s easy to believe such organizations would try to change the laws of physics. We see it all the time.
What’s hard to believe is that they would admit it.
Someone probably got fired….
“When idiots don’t understand the physics, they can’t even do proper experiments.” Although Hughes apparently has ego issues, he certainly is not an idiot (literally). Other than that, this is a fairly accurate description of what Hughes did and why it misled him.
Except you cannot explain what he did wrong with his experiments.
Dre,
I explained it to you but I cannot understand it for you.
I’m not sure you understand it yourself.
Gordon Robertson
As usual you have been conned by the kook David Icke who makes up anything he wants and people believe him for reasons unknown. He is a crackpot. The other dude Dr. Andrew Kaufman is a Psychiatrist. He is going well outside his field of expertise to make statements.
I did more research on this bogus video. I found this woman who made a version but she seems to be a complete liar.
Here is her video.
https://tinyurl.com/y583r6la
I video is intentionally blurry so you can’t easily disprove her false claims. I had to find the actual page she used to make the lying claim that the sequence used for Covid testing is the same as found on human Chromosome 8.
Here is the actual page.
https://tinyurl.com/y3vsf7bh
If you scroll down on the real page you see no sequence. I think it is fake for sure.
Gordon you will always believe con-artists and liars over the truth. In this post I give you clear evidence you believe liars and cons like the Peter Duesberg (dishonest con man). Why do you need to follow liars for you information and reject all others?
Your mind is unusual in that it requires constant lies in order to function.
Life passed Gordon by. As a defensive measure, he identifies with other losers.
Go away troll.
I am not a troll just because I don’t give the mental midget Gordon virtual blowjobs. Get off your high horse. You are defending a fucking loser.
Maybe just take it down a notch.
plastic…”Life passed Gordon by. As a defensive measure, he identifies with other losers”.
Yes…loser (in your mind) like Rudolf Clausius and a guy with a degree from MIT. Meanwhile, you kiss up to the likes of Michael Mann, Al Gore, and Gavin Schmidt.
What’s it like for you to be born with only part of a brain?
norman…”The other dude Dr. Andrew Kaufman is a Psychiatrist. He is going well outside his field of expertise to make statements”.
Norman, Andrew Kaufman has studied pertinent fields at MIT, such as organic chemistry. He studied to be a medical doctor like any other doctor. He is well versed in RNA/DNA theory and he actually debunked claims by Reuters that they had fact checked him and found him to be wrong.
Reuters consulted some wannabee who claimed vaccines like the one proposed for covid do not enter the cell nucleus as Kaufman had claimed. He quoted directly from the National Institute of Health and one other body that the vaccines do in fact enter the cell nucleus. The vaccines are meant to alter DNA, something every human should be concerned about.
Of course, the sheeple, being scared out of their wits will gladly go along.
You don’t realize the seriousness of this assault on our democratic rights. Bill Gates comes from a family who preached eugenics, the practice of selectively improving the human race. Gates is on record as claiming that life as we knew it will never get back to normal (gathering in large crowds) till a vaccine is found for covid.
What Gates has in mind is a new vaccine that will alter human DNA. What he doesn’t mention is that such a vaccine could have included in it a fertility feature to prevent certain people from reproducing. Furthermore, technology is now available to pass the genes onto future generations. He has already proposed that in Africa and the government wisely rebuffed him.
Rather than ad homming a guy like Kaufman, who is trying to make us aware of the dangers inherent in this covid mess, you might try to do what he advises. He suggests we don’t take what he says verbatim but to check out his sources, all of which come from legitimate medical sources.
Gordon Robertson
I will say that the Andrew Kaufman is quite ignorant. Really almost stupid. I have had the Covid-19 and it was very bad. For a few days I thought I might actually die from it. So you want to believe an ignorant uniformed person about something? If you or the Kaufman had the same symptoms I had come back and talk like intelligent informed people. As of now both of you are ignorant and stupid because you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. I have zero respect for Kaufman. I think he is a moron pretending to be important to idiots like you that believe any contrarian regardless of how stupid they really are.
Your Kaufman actually makes me rather angry. I will call him a babbling foolish person!
Here is one article on the idiot you think is of value!
https://medium.com/@achosenlife/10-things-a-conspiracy-theorist-taught-me-about-the-novel-coronavirus-98224413ed38
Also I think he is a very dishonest liar like you are
in his video he shows the exact page I have pulled up. Watch your stupid video again!
https://tinyurl.com/yyrknoyg
This is the actual page the Kaufman Kook uses in his video. I look at the end of the page and it looks like he edited putting a genetic sequence that is not on the actual page.
I think he is a bogus liar and as long as you stay Covid free you will believe this jerk. He is no hero he is an idiot and looks like a deceiver.
Norman, many have tested positive for C-19, and had little-to-no symptoms.
You need to learn how to protect yourself from viruses.
But, idiots can’t learn. They have to suffer the consequences, as you have seen.
ClintR
The only thing greater than you ignorance and irrational thinking is your arrogance and smug stupidity.
It is known that people like you with incredible arrogance and smug in their own conceit are usually the lowest intellect.
You prove this is a correct view. Ignorant, arrogant, offensive, and very stupid.
ClintR
Mr. Arrogant jerk. Why not tell these people about your gifted wisdom?
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/what-its-like-to-survive-covid-19
Or tell him how much of idiot you believe him to be see how he takes your wonderful thoughts on the topic.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53892856
Norman, insults and Internet links don’t make you smarter. You have to start accepting reality.
You need to learn how to protect yourself from viruses. Being an idiot is an individual choice. If you choose to be an idiot, don’t complain about the consequences.
ClintR
The saddest thing is nothing can make you smarter! I wonder can you get more arrogant? Do you know how links work? Maybe not, that is why you are not able to look at them.
I like to ignore you idiot pointless comments. You seem to need the attention because when I comment to Gordon Robertson you seen to have to comment even though I did not bring your name up.
Here is your theme song but you don’t know how activate links so you will be incapable of viewing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H6re3PCP3E
Like I said Norman, insults and Internet links don’t make you smarter. To be smarter, you have to start accepting reality.
Being an idiot is an individual choice. If you choose to be an idiot, don’t complain about the consequences.
Here’s a little reality for you: If you make a stupid comment on a blog, you can’t complain about responses you don’t like.
norman…”I will say that the Andrew Kaufman is quite ignorant. Really almost stupid. I have had the Covid-19 and it was very bad. For a few days I thought I might actually die from it”.
I am glad you survived but it does not surprise me that you did since most people do survive. Only a tiny fraction of 1% of populations have died from it.
Kaufman’s point is that no scientific proof exists that you were infected by a virus. He is not claiming you were not infected with a virus, he is simply stating fact. The virus has never been isolated and viewed with an electron microscope. Therefore they don’t have the actual RNA or DNA making up the genetic portion of the virus and the tests are invalid.
The test for covid, based on converting RNA to DNA then amplifying the DNA using the PCR method for DNA amplification is not converting RNA from a known virus to DNA. The methodology used, the viral load method, was debunked long ago when it was introduced for HIV.
Montagnier, who discovered HIV, if it in fact exists, admitted it is extremely hard to find since it is in such low quantities. That prompted the more observant scientists to ask why a virus that could not be isolated and is in such low quantities could cause AIDS. Montagnier now thinks AIDS is a lifestyle issue and HIV is a passenger virus that can only affect a depleted immune system.
Montagnier also admitted in the movie I posted that he was not able to see HIV using an electron microscope. The sample, even after purification was so contaminated he could not make out HIV. Being trained in retrovirology he then went looking for other evidence and claims to have found it.
Lanka has claimed that the methodology used by Montagnier does not meet the requirements of the scientific method. No control group was provided, just as with measles research. The exercise used by Montagnier was to take cells from the lymph node of a person with AIDS and process it with chemicals. Then he introduced that infected material into a normal cell culture and noticed that it killed cells.
Like Swannie, he leaped to the wrong conclusion. He did not have a control experiment to check whether the cells, removed from their life support system in the human body would have died anyway. Turns out, given the pre-treatment with antibiotics to get rid of bacteria, that the cells would have died normally.
If you were tested for covid, they used the same test and it is invalid for naming a virus. What they have done, according to Lanka and Kaufman, is extract several different strands of RNA from a person, checked the genetic material, then used a computer model to create a genome by splicing several small parts together. I think a witch doctor in darkest Africa could have done a better job.
Mullis, who invented the PCR method was adamant that it should not be used for diagnostic purposes like this for the simple reason that PCR cannot produce a virus in an amplified amount of DNA that was not apparent in the unamplified amount.
Even with the converted and amplified RNA, they still cannot see a virus on an electron microscope. Lanka should know, he recently convinced a German high court that insufficient evidence exists to support the claim there is a measles virus. He has done the same in Germany with HIV, convincing a court that a person accused of spreading HIV is not guilty because no scientific evidence exists to prove HIV exists. He has even convinced the German government of that fact.
Gordon Robertson
Why do you have to lie?
You make these claims with no evidence at all: “The virus has never been isolated and viewed with an electron microscope.”
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03_F5JbgfS1WIR1dzfPxhVEMfUk4g:1598574777866&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=electron+microscope+images+of+covid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiD6p-O07zrAhUSHc0KHRwyDwsQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=1920&bih=937
Basically you are just peddling falsehood. I have read where you call the many images of the Covid virus “fake” but you have zero evidence of your case. None at all. There are multiple images from electron microscopes from many labs and you claim (with no evidence at all to back your claims) they are fake. Why do you need to lie, you have no proof they are fake you just assert a false claim and think it makes it truthful. A lie and dishonest behavior IS NOT TRUTH!
Andrew Kaufman is still an ignorant kook! He directly lied in his video and I gave you the actual evidence of his lies! No most do not die but many suffer long enduring problems from having been infected. You should study the issue more before making ignorant comments.
You can start with this, there are others out there.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351
I do not want to talk to you about your conspiracy nonsense and HIV. I have given you tons of actual evidence that your ideas are crap, many many lines of evidence. You persist in your foolish opinions on HIV. Better hope you don’t get the disease and find out how stupid you really are. That goes for Covid as well God has to protect the ignorant like you. Your brain is not capable of helping itself so God takes mercy on you and protects you from harm. The protection makes you ignorant but it keeps you safe.
norman…”You make these claims with no evidence at all: “The virus has never been isolated and viewed with an electron microscope.””
Are you completely stupid? I posted a video in which Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, admitted he has never seen HIV with an electron microscope. In the movie, there is a brief statement from his lab assistant claiming they did not see HIV.
Montagnier explained that they tried to isolate HIV by the normal method of centrifuging a sample in a sucrose density gradient but when they extracted the material at the desired density level they saw no virus. He claimed what they saw was totally contaminated.
Don’t you understand basic logic? If the scientists who was awarded a Nobel for discovering HIV admits he saw no virus then there was no virus to see. Since the same methodology is used with covid, there is no virus to see.
So where are these viruses? Are they using a new cloaking technique so they can hide from an electron microscope?
The method Montagnier eventually used, TO INFER HIV, was extracting a sample from the lymph node of a person with AIDS and inserting the sample into a live cell culture. The cells died so they presumed there must be a virus killing them.
But wait, Stefan Lanka, who is as good a scientist as Montagnier, pointed out the error in Montagnier’s assumption. In fact, he used it in front of a German high court to demonstrate that in the live cell culture prepared as Montagnier would have prepared it, the cells would have died anyway. That’s how Lanka convinced the German high court that the measles virus has never been isolated.
Before he’s finished, he’ll likely prove that none of the well-known viruses have been scientifically isolated, only presumed. Polio was rampant in the 1930s and went away on its own. When it reappeared in the 1950s, it was dying on its own when the vaccine was introduced.
We are witnessing science in which scientists are so desperate to find a result that they cut corners and reach bad conclusions.
Gordon Robertson
I would also like you to explain what document did this Kaufman use to get a sequence of Chromosome 8 when I went to the exact same page as he used and found no such thing.
Also Chromosome 8 is composed of 145 million base pairs. Where did this tiny fragment of a huge genetic code come from in his video?
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/8
Gordon Robertson
Also the sequence for the primers they talk about are not what is getting amplified. The amplification is of an entire protein sequence for the Covid. They use the N-protein sequence which is much longer and unique to the Covid virus.
The primers just tell the materials in the soup where to start making copies of the RNA and where to end.
Read up on it.
https://www.labce.com/spg538191_polymerase_chain_reaction_pcr.aspx
Liquid or solid water in the atmosphere are not ghg and therefore do not contribute directly to warming. Water contributes to warming as a ghg only when it is in the form of water vapor. According to NASA/RSS at http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product/ they process the data carefully to assure that the TPW values that they publish are of high quality. They also state that Over 99% of the atmospheric moisture is in the form of water vapor. The 1.5% per decade increase in TPW Jan 1988 thru July 2020 that their data produces is valid and explains the human contribution to planet warming.
“Liquid or solid water in the atmosphere are not ghg and therefore do not contribute directly to warming.”
Dan, since 1948 entire atm. long-term relative humidity is observed decreasing and specific humidity increasing. When integrated over the entire troposphere and viewed in continuous time, the water vapor amount is observed fluctuating without a long-term monotonic trend (Koutsoyiannis 2020). If there were a monotonic trend in TOA flux found from the hydrological cycle, the many earth energy budgets (e.g. L’Ecuyer 2015) would show it. They do not.
Evaporation consumes thermal energy and condensation releases that thermal energy. So, if hydrological cycle is unbalanced, the amount of vapor, liquid, and solid water do contribute directly to Earth surface energy balance. Added low clouds (liquid water) reduce surface temperature, added high clouds (water ice), increase surface temperature. There is no unbalance in the system energy budgets from water found in any published long-term study of the hydrological cycle.
Observation in the CERES satellite era does show the amount of sea ice coverage is noteworthy in SW albedo and ENSO fluctuations exhibit pronounced TOA flux variability (Loeb 2018), they do not pick up any MODIS monotonic fluctuation in TOA flux tied to changes in the hydrological cycle including water vapor.
Dan, your work & conclusions are simply not compatible with that of the published authors. You need to reconcile your differences with them to convince critical, informed readers.
Bal,
I didn’t like to use the word ‘directly’ as it’s ambiguous but I couldn’t think of a better one. I meant it to exclude clouds and hydrologic cycle; essentially, exclude every consideration other than the ghg effect.
“specific humidity increasing” appears to be inconsistent with “without a long-term monotonic trend”. AFAIK TOA flux measurements are not sensitive enough to definitively challenge my work.
Water vapor is a ghg and its increase has a direct effect on warming in the same manner as CO2 increase is purported to by others. The hydrologic cycle is a separate consideration.
I am fully aware that my work is not compatible with much if not all that is published. My work should be challenged on its own merit using an extensive, solid knowledge and understanding of engineering/physics and paleo climate. Bottom line is I think that, they (climate science) are making a mistake in ignoring the TPW increase measured by NASA/RSS, solar influence as indicated by SSN proxy and the contribution to warming (and cooling) of the net of ocean cycles. The poor performance of GCMs corroborates this.
As I show, measured WV increase is greater than possible from temperature increase (feedback). Also, using freebe stuff from Hitran, I show that measured water vapor increase has been about 10 times more effective at ground level warming than CO2 increase.
A couple of reasons why long term temperature trend is still up are 1) AMO dominates the net of oceans and is staying high whereas my simplistic approximation has the net of oceans declining. 2) WV is still on an uptrend.
http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . Click my name for some additional stuff.
“exclude every consideration other than the ghg effect.”
Dan is making the mistake of writing water vapor increase has a direct effect on warming without considering an increase in water vapor means a decrease in water elsewhere in the atm. with an opposite sign on TOA flux. The many authors that do consider the entire water cycle in detail find nil meaningful long-term effect on TOA flux of total atm. water in all 3 phases.
They (climate science) are not making Dan’s mistake by ignoring the TPW increase measured by NASA/RSS (published reports conclude there isn’t a long-term monotonic increase in total wv), solar influence as indicated by SSN proxy and the contribution to warming (and cooling) of the net of ocean cycles because all of those and more are extensively reported in the published literature; some of the major work I’ve already cited for Dan.
Poor performance of GCMs is the poster child for many unknowns but reasonably well known, well reported, total water in the atm. is not one of the many unknowns.
Bal,
You said “an increase in water vapor means a decrease in water elsewhere in the atm.” This is downright silly.
A ‘monotonic’ increase would mean that each value was higher than the one before which is ridiculous here. The trend has been increasing which you should be aware of but apparently aren’t. It is shown here thru June: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uKgffZpZrwK9R6MamJBvlwBbdy2sOMUX/view?usp=sharing
Not using the measured WV data is at best a mistake and does partly explain the poor performance of GCMs.
Water in total atm. = wv + liquid water + water ice. Observations since 1948 in the 2020 cite I gave Dan show water in total atm. has not changed within measurement capability.
Thus if wv is up, then there is a decrease in liquid water and/or water ice in the total atm. i.e. “elsewhere in the atm.” resulting in no net change to global surface temperature as shown in the dozens of published papers, a few (major ones) I’ve cited. Looking at wv alone (without liquid and ice water) as does Dan, is a mistake not made by the published authors.
As the cites indicate, the GCMs do use the measured water in total atm. and are constrained to what has been observed, this is not a major source of error in GCMs per those authors.
Dan
– Liquid or solid water in the atmosphere are not ghg and therefore do not contribute directly to warming. Water contributes to warming as a ghg only when it is in the form of water vapor. –
You need to read about cirrus clouds:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-helping-make-the-planet-warmer
Snape,
You need to stop being so gullible. Learn physics, and think for yourself.
Sna,
Added CO2 and WV in the stratosphere would actually increase cooling there (more ghg molecules emitting to space; not addressed in the paper). The contrail effect is certainly tiny and it might even be net cooling.
You need to crawl out of your burrow, get some fresh air.
Go away troll.
Gordon
How does a difference in temperature govern the rate of conduction?
Snape,
Either you think you know the answer, and are trying for a gotcha, or you dont, and are too lazy to find out for yourself.
Which is it?
snape…”How does a difference in temperature govern the rate of conduction?”
In a solid body it obviously has something to do with the difference in energy levels of the atoms on either end of a conductor where one end is hotter. Heat is conducted through a conductor by the same valence electrons that conduct electrical charge.
It’s not clear to me why the same applies to radiation, especially in a vacuum, but the temperature gradient between a hotter body and the surrounding air determines the rate of heat dissipation.
I have spent hours looking through the Net for an answer but no one I have read knows either. All they do is offer equations without an explanation meaning the equations are suspect.
Gordon writes: “Heat is conducted through a conductor” but Gordon also writes “heat does not transfer”. Gordon is one confused writer on the subject of heat. Gordon can’t deal with Clausius writing heat is merely a measure of something & temperature is merely a measure of something else.
ball4…”Gordon writes: Heat is conducted through a conductor but Gordon also writes heat does not transfer. Gordon is one confused writer on the subject of heat”.
It is becoming apparent that you are trolling or you lack the ability to reason at more than a superficial depth.
I did not claim that heat does not transfer per se, I claimed that heat does not transfer physically between bodies of different temperatures VIA RADIATION. Heat at a hotter body is converted to EM and if that EM encounters a cooler body it will convert back to heat.
Heat from the hot body does not transfer directly through the air to a cooler body. It must first be converted to EM and during that process the heat in the hotter body disappears.
Do you not see the obvious? Heat is not EM and EM is not heat, they are two very different forms of energy. Of course, you are hung up on the notion that it’s all energy and that the form is irrelevant. That is precisely why you are so confused about global warming in the first place as are your authority figures, the climate alarmists.
“I did not claim that heat does not transfer” but Gordon did so claim that right here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-508451
I’ll improve what Gordon wrote to agree with Clausius that heat is merely a measure:
A measure of KE from the cooler body does not transfer directly through the air to a hotter body. KE of the body constituents must first be converted to EM radiation (spewing from the BB cavity) and during that process the measure of KE in the cooler body decreases.
A gotcha is a question intended to expose the stupidity/ignorance of the person who answers. Stay clear, Mike!
Who is Mike? Is he Gordon in disguise?
Go away troll.
“Snape” appears to be “Doris”, from upthread. She’s still unable to place her comments correctly.
Huffy,
I looked upthread, and thanks to the following comment by Gordon Robertson, discovered that Doris has multiple identities!
The plot thickens. Doris = Nurse Cratchet = Ball4.
********
Nothing gets past you two!
Gordon, Huffy,
Consider the Earths surface, which is often warmer than the atmosphere above.
Maybe the surface atoms are equipped with tiny thermometers, which can measure the temperature of the surrounding air, then adjust the rate of dissipation accordingly?
Snape,
Do you think so? What do you base this speculation upon?
snape…”Maybe the surface atoms are equipped with tiny thermometers, which can measure the temperature of the surrounding air, then adjust the rate of dissipation accordingly?”
If you consider a rod of iron and you heat one end with an acetylene torch, the atoms on the hot end become extremely agitated and vibrate hard. For whatever reason, they pass that heat down the rod, forming a thermal gradient in the rod.
I don’t think the surface needs tiny thermometers, all it needs is to sense the cooler air at the surface and it passes heat to the air molecules naturally via conduction.
Of course, if that air did not move, the two would remain in thermal equilibrium and the surface would be unable to rid itself of heat. As it stands, the heated air rises, allowing cooler air from above to descend to the surface and the cycle repeats.
Lindzen pointed out that without such convection, the surface would warm to around 70C.
“they pass that heat down the rod”
No Gordon, they pass their “agitated” KE down the rod. Heat is only a measure of that KE as Clausius tried in vain to teach Gordon. Clausius fairly obviously failed to teach Gordon.
Ball4,
*agitated KE*. Really? What does non-agitated KE look like?
Maybe you need a teacher who has knowledge unknown in 1888 (when Clausius died).
Just dumb, ignoring reality.
ball4…”No Gordon, they pass their agitated KE down the rod”.
Once again, for the cognitively impaired, kinetic energy is a descriptor that reveals energy is in motion. It does not reveal what type of energy is in motion. When heat is applied by a torch to the end of an iron rod, it increases the kinetic energy of the atoms at the hot end. That only means the atoms vibrate harder.
But what is the energy added at the hot end by the torch that causes the atoms to vibrate harder? It is thermal energy, the only known energy to be related to atoms in motion.
Kinetic energy is a descriptor that reveals iron rod constituent particles are in motion Gordon. The torch adds to the total measure of the particle’s kinetic energy.
https://notrickszone.com/2020/08/27/astrophysicist-asserts-the-globe-will-cool-1c-during-2020-2053-due-to-an-oncoming-grand-solar-minimum/
From the astrophysicist that thought Jupiter would cause cooling by pulling the Sun away from Earth.
A likely tale.
*Renowned climatologist James Hansen says they were hurled to the top of steep cliffs during storms when Earth warmed 100,000 years ago*
Oooooh! Flying boulders due to climate change! Sound the alarm!
A likely tale from an astrophysicist.
Ah yes…Zharkova. She says the grand solar minimum is already underway. The Earth will cool by 1.0C by 2043. That is a trend of -0.43C/decade. And I see some familiar names in her short bibliography including Svensmark and Easterbrook. She’s going all in with this paper.
It could shave a couple of decimals off the total, so it would be helpful if it happened.
It would help short term, but long term it might make things worse. A GSM would suppress the warming. That might sway public opinion to do nothing or even increase GHG emissions. Once the GSM is over the warming would be more than it would have been otherwise.
If the temperature drops by 1.0C it means we are back where we started , the claimed man made global warming is erased and non existent
Eben, it would still exist, one or more other (of many) cyclic (non-monotonic) global climate forcings would have turned down for a time. Enthalpy does not carry a name tag.
looks like Ball4 wants somebody to toss his word salad
Eben,
The planet won’t cool by 1C. It likely wouldn’t cool at all in fact. The Earth energy imbalance sitting at +0.6 W/m^2 currently.
Once any hypothetical GSM ends the solar radiative forcing resets back to what it was before the GSM started. Meanwhile GHG radiative forcing continues to increase.
And since a GSM would still suppress the warming rate it might give policy makers a false sense security deferring action at best or encouraging emissions increases at worst. Either way the planet could end up warmer long term as a result.
A GSM could negate over a decade of warming.
If it lasted for a hundred years we should be through the fossil fuel era, and oceans could bring atmospheric CO2 levels down somewhat, so we could cut the worst peak.
Wrong bdgwx.
There is no “energy imbalance”. You keep spewing that nonsense because you have no understanding of the physics. You can’t even balance the energy flows from the simple two plates. Your effort was a disaster.
And the only “radiative forcing” of any significance is due to Sun. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere would have a slight cooling effect
You have no clue about reality. You’re too obsessed with your false religion you can’t learn.
bdgwx and Svante, a consensus of idiots means nothing.
Sorry for bringing a little reality into the discussion.
ClintR, you can add another commenter to the consensus, the other twin just bolted from your “team” leaving you alone. Not sorry for bringing a little reality into the discussion.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-516568
Don’t worry, Ball4. You’re included in the concensus of idiots. One of the many reasons you’re an idiot is your propensity for misrepresentating others.
Gordon Robertson
Here is a broken version of the Covid genetic sequence and what each part does. Near the end they have the N-protein sequence. It is quite long. The primers talked about the Kook Andrew Kaufman (the person you think knows what he is talking about, yeah right! Just a kook with an inflated ego) just add starts and stops to this long segment of genetic code.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/03/science/coronavirus-genome-bad-news-wrapped-in-protein.html
The N-protein sequence of Coronavirus is over 1200 base pairs long. There is no confusing this with human Chromosone 8 except in Kook world of David Icke and Andrew Kaufman.
I think David Icke is good as an entertainer and coming up with wild ideas. The point to consider is he makes up most his material and has no supporting evidence for any of it. It is just good to stimulate the imagination, if you consider it real or valid with no evidence then that makes you the dumb one.
Norman, how many Internet sites did you need to find to become a DNA/Covid expert?
ClintR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H6re3PCP3E
Just one? Just one site and you believe you are an expert?
I guess that makes sense, since you can’t learn anyway.
norman…”Here is a broken version of the Covid genetic sequence and what each part does”.
Same question…how did these rocket-scientists get the genome when the virus has never been isolated? How do they confirm it when there is nothing against which they can confirm it?
Why do they need to convert RNA to DNA and amplify it using the PCR method if they have the virus? Makes no sense, if you have the virus, you have the desired RNA and the real genome. Initially that was done because they could not find HIV. Duh!!! No kidding!!! They still can’t find it and covid is based on the same pseudo-science.
We went through nearly 40 years of this crap science with HIV. Still no vaccine and still no spread of HIV into the heterosexual community in North America or Europe. The situation in Africa has nothing to do with HIV, it’s about people suffering with malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections.
Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, admitted circa 2010 that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. I posted a link for you in which he admits that. The pseudo-science related to covid you posted uses exactly the same method as Montagnier to find the genome.
Lanka has explained that it is all bs. They have no genome, as Lanka claimed they do it with a mouse on a computer. They piece together pieces of RNA BELIEVED to be from a virus and create a fake genome. They get away with it because the medical science community is corrupt and they think like you.
Gordon Robertson
I do not care one bit about the opinions of a goofy contrarian you name as Lanka. Why is his opinion so important to you. He sounds like a foolish clown pretending to be a scientist to amuse people like you.
He sounds like a babbling idiot from what you wrote about him.
I do not want opinions from a handful of contrarians! I want you to present evidence that the many many electron microscope images of both HIV and Covid=19 viruses are bogus or faked. I DO NOT want your stupid unsupported declarations or opinions of Kooks! I want you to present valid evidence to support your claims. What do you present to show the electron microscope images are fake and the entire science community is totally corrupt. I need evidence NOT OPINIONS OF crackpots! What evidence do you have? Present only valid evidence. No more opinions of kooks and cranks. I do not care for their opinions. They mean everything to you, they mean nothing to me!
Norman, you never mention all the times you have messed up the science. You never mention that you have no background in physics, or thermodynamics, or medicine. You just search on the Internet for things that fit your beliefs.
Also, you never mention all you activities as a troll, where you insult, misrepresent, and attempt to pervert reality.
ClintR
Your meaningless and empty comment is the product of an unthinking foolish idiot.
I think you are obsessed with people paying attention to you so you post really stupid comments that most have come to see are the product of an empty head that wants people to notice them.
I have sent you your theme song a few times already. Gordon Robertson is a compulsive liar and you are a compulsive attention hound.
I might consider your posts if you had even the slightest knowledge of information on any topic.
You are an idiot on the Moon rotation issue. Complete dense with little thinking ability but you think repeating your endless droll has purpose.
Of course you do not know anything at all about physics or thermodynamics. You think a blackbody can reflect incoming EMR. You are a really stupid person.
Lyrics that describe your mindless behavior very effectively.
“‘Cause I gonna make you see
There’s nobody else here
No one like me
I’m special (special), so special (special)
I gotta have some of your attention, give it to me.”
Like I said Norman & Lori Grinvalds, insults and Internet links don’t make you smarter. To be smarter, you have to start accepting reality.
Being an idiot is an individual choice. If you choose to be an idiot, don’t complain about the consequences.
Here’s a little reality for you: If you make a stupid comment on a blog, you can’t complain about responses you don’t like.
Thanks for supplying your full name, idiot: “Norman & Lori Grinvalds”.
Out of curiosity, I did a quick search. You live in a slum area, next to a grain field. (Do you like dust?) Your frame house only has one bathroom!
It’s no wonder you hate reality.
Norman is good.
Tell us about your personal issues ClintR.
You are quite regularly insulting, Svante, but I wouldn’t call you a “cyber-bully”. Just unpleasant.
Yes Svante, Norman is a “blog bully”. Or, closer to reality, he attempts to be a blog bully. Very few take him seriously.
Now, due to his “coming out of the closet”, we know why he’s so insecure. His failure in life makes him very insecure, and is why he hates reality.
Why do you hate reality?
Thank you.
Thank you to Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team.
ClintR is talking about himself again.
Huh?
Yeah Svante, I agree with DREMT. You’re no bully. You’re even less of a threat than Norman. He tries so hard to be vicious that he ends up being funny.
You’re just an effeminate snowflake.
ClintR
You paint me with the wrong brush. My goal here is to fact check and correct bad ideas or false information.
Your grasp of heat transfer is bad. It is not even remotely related to any real physics on the topic. I sent you a link to an actual textbook on the topic so you could understand your many many flaws.
Rather than learn, you reject the claims and attack. If you want to talk about bullies or rude behavior, you are a classic example of it. You have zero respect for any poster that tells you actual physics (like Tim Folkerts). You call everyone idiot many times.
I react to your incredibly rude comments. They are doubly rude because you have totally false made up physics that you cannot support and then when people kindly correct you all you do is call them idiots or that they don’t know reality.
Your rudeness gets rude results. With Gordon Robertson, he is a compulsive liar. I have gone to great lengths to correct his lies but it does little good.
If you act with a willingness to learn or if you think someone is wrong, give reasons why with good valid supporting evidence and you will do well. Going around and not supporting any of your claims and calling everyone an idiot is not a good behavior.
There are skeptics on this blog I have no issues with. Bart (a very intelligent poster) or gallopingcamel. Both very smart and can bring up good points. You do not bring up any good points. You bring unsupported made up physics with your idiot clause.
Norman, you have no interest in correcting “bad ideas or false information”. You’re lying. You only attack skeptics. You never attack your cult members.
Your interest is to promote the perversion and corruption of reality.
You constantly claim that I do not understand physics, yet you cannot provide even one example where I am wrong.
People that ignore reality are idiots. And I don’t hesitate reminding them. That’s why you are an idiot.
Your comments are always filled with attacks, false accusations, and your opinions. You constantly insult Gordon Roberston, yet he gets the bottom line correct. You don’t.
You’re a loser in life. You have no background in physics or thermodynamics, yet you try to fake it. Now you’re trying to fake a background in medical science. You’re full of “pretend”, “insults”, and “false accusations”. Reality is your enemy.
ClintR
Wrong again.
Your false claim: “You constantly claim that I do not understand physics, yet you cannot provide even one example where I am wrong.”
Yes I have provided them. One you believe a blackbody will reflect EMR. That is totally wrong.
You don’t think the Moon Rotates and Orbits on its axis. I have linked you to many things that show you are wrong. I have also engaged in logical thought over the matter. None of this seems to matter to you.
Another one of your incorrect comments: ” You have no background in physics or thermodynamics, yet you try to fake it. Now you’re trying to fake a background in medical science.”
That is a false statement. I took both High School Physics and had a year of College Physics. I have read textbooks on heat transfer. I get the science quite correct. There is NO faking at all. I link to multiple sources when I post. There is no fake. I am NOT trying to “fake” a background in medical science.
I am reading the compulsive liar (Gordon Robertson’s posts) and looking up things he claims. I post what I find. That is NOT fake. Do you know what the word fake means?
You are just wrong. Just as you are with physics of heat transfer and Moon rotation. I will stick to the REAL physics. You and the “skeptics” (not real skeptics…you are actually contrarians. There is a huge difference in the words) will keep your made up physics and ideas. You will continue to be wrong.
That is your choice. It is not I who avoid reality. I embrace it. You do not present any reality. You just make up stuff and think that makes it right. The problem is that this does not make anything right at all. In science you need evidence.
The “skeptics” (actual contrarians) do not need evidence they make unsupported claims, they make up physics that does not exist and then they think everyone but them is corrupt, wrong, delusional etc.
clint…”Yes Svante, Norman is a blog bully. Or, closer to reality, he attempts to be a blog bully. Very few take him seriously”.
I regard Norman as a comedian.
No Norman, you have not provided ANY examples of me getting the physics incorrect. A “black body” is an imaginary concept. It does not exist in REALITY. And linking me to things that claim Moon rotates about its axis just shows how incapable of logic you are. Of course you can find such links. That is the prevailing teaching from corrupt institutions. You don’t have the ability to think for yourself. All you can do is recite what you’ve memorized–what you have been indoctrinated with.
Swinging a ball on a string around your head demonstrates orbital motion. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis. It is merely orbiting. Stop the ball, and rotate it in place and the string winds up. There is a difference between the two motions, but idiots cannot understand.
And high school and one year of college physics is only an introduction. You don’t have the ability to think physics. You don’t have the ability to solve complex problems. You can’t even understand orbital motion. You certainly can’t understand 2nd Law. You may not believe you’re faking it, but you’re faking it.
Now I know you will continue this typing contest, but I will not respond unless you can come up with something intelligent. And, now that we know where you live, you might want to consider knocking off your childish insults.
norman…”I do not care one bit about the opinions of a goofy contrarian you name as Lanka. Why is his opinion so important to you”.
1)Lanka has expertise as a microbiologist.
2)He discovered the first virus in the ocean.
3)He has researched the history of medicine to find the origins of words like germ, virus, and bacteria and he has exposed much of the science as having been fraudulent and wrong.
4)He has challenged the retroviral theory and supplied a damned good argument against it.
5)He has convinced a German high court that insufficient scientific evidence exists to support the notions that measles is caused by a virus.
6)He convinced another German court as an expert that no science exists to support the theory that HIV exists.
I could go on.
Sounds like he’s very convincing.
Gordon Robertson
As I stated, I don’t care about Lanka or his opinions. I am asking you to support your claims that the numerous electron microscope images are fake. I have not seen you do so other than make unsupported claims.
Gordon Robertson
Lanka is a Kook and Crackpot with zero scientific integrity. He makes his money publishing Contrarian material for anti-science types like you.
Here is a long article showing how wrong this dude really is. I do not accept opinions of contrarians. He has zero evidence to support any of his claims. He gives unfounded opinions on topics he knows that several people will accept as factual.
http://www.integralworld.net/visser175.html
norman…”I am asking you to support your claims that the numerous electron microscope images are fake”.
1)most of them are obviously fake, they are computer generated or have vivid colours. An EM micrograph is normally black and white unless something with colour is added during pre-processing to protect the sample from the bombardment with electrons, which tends to destroy the sample.
1a)Many of the pictures show the required spikes emanating from the protein-coated virion but in many photos, the spikes are broken. To prepare the sample for a transmitting EM (TEM), the alleged virus is shaved with a diamond cutter to a thickness of about 100 nanometres, otherwise the electrons from the EM could not penetrate the sample.
So, the TEM, the most common EM, operates only on a thin-slice which is not a sphere. Most of the viruses I have seen use a complete virus showing a sphere with spikes sticking out of it. Not possible with a transmitting EM. There are some viruses that look nothing like a virus is supposed to look.
I think the spikes showing in micrographs from a TEM are caused by the electron beam interacting with the sample and causing pieces to break off radially to suggest spikes.
2)very few have the required size scale included.
3)the images themselves vary markedly for the same virus, with shapes that are nothing close to the shape of a virus.
4)Lanka has gone through all of the various images for the major so-called viral diseases and revealed what the images really are.
5)Montagnier, who discovered HIV, admitted he has never seen the virus on an EM.
6)Researchers like Fauci and Ho could not find HIV so they helped develop the viral load method which does not reveal a virus anymore than the one that cannot be seen with an EM. The viral load method converts RNA BELIEVED to be from a virus to DNA whereupon it is amplified by the PCR method for DNA amplification.
So let’s get this straight. You cannot find a virus using an electron microscope so you change the rules by claiming the virus genetic material (RNA) used is from a virus. Then you convert that RNA to DNA and amplify it, and voila, you have a whole lot of virus.
But wait!! You did not have the virus in the first place so how do you know the RNA you converted to DNA is the same RNA from the virus you could not find in the first place? And why are they suddenly calling free RNA a virus when in a real virus, the RNA is contained in a protein-coating?
The tests based on this viral load method for both HIV and covid have never tested for a virus. For covid, the CD-C has admitted that 40% of people testing positive using this method show no symptoms. They claim those people are silent carriers, I claim them as a 40% false positive marker.
After all the testing for HIV, Montagnier, who won a Nobel for being the first to allegedly discover the virus, has claimed HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. The same tests used for covid have a 40% false positive rating.
I think it’s safe to claim the tests are faulty and that the number of people testing positive for both HIV and covid is bogus.
Gordon,
Took me just a few minutes to google the answer to this question of yours
“Why do they need to convert RNA to DNA and amplify it using the PCR method if they have the virus? Makes no sense, if you have the virus, you have the desired RNA and the real genome.”
Because it is easier to duplicate DNA than RNA, and DNA is more stable. And DNA and RNA correspond to each other, the DNA made from RNA duplicates the sequence so the code is the same, actually slightly more complicated, but you should get it.
https://discoverysedge.mayo.edu/2020/03/27/the-science-behind-the-test-for-the-covid-19-virus/
bobd…”Because it is easier to duplicate DNA than RNA, and DNA is more stable. And DNA and RNA correspond to each other, the DNA made from RNA duplicates the sequence so the code is the same, actually slightly more complicated, but you should get it”.
Not so fast, Bob. You have not answered the question as to why they cannot extract RNA straight from the virus. Montagnier told us, he could not find it using the normal method. It’s not that the RNA->DNA + amplification is easier, it’s that they cannot find either HIV or covid using the normal method. Therefore, they inferred a method.
If you find free RNA floating around, and you infer it came from a virus, then you convert the RNA to DNA then amplify the DNA using the PCR method for DNA amplification, you still don’t have a virus. You have more DNA than you had when you converted the RNA to DNA. That’s all.
With the normal method of identifying a virus, they can actually see a virus on an electron microscope. With the RNA->DNA + amplification, they still can’t see a virus. That’s why Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR method was adamant that you don’t have a virus after amplification if you did not have one before.
If you are ever unlucky enough to test positive for HIV, and they want to pump you full of toxic antivirals, tell them to beggar off. Same applies to covid. Take megadoses of vitamin C every 4 hours instead. Based on the data, the likelihood of you dying from covid or HIV, if you have a healthy immune system, are slim to none.
Sorry Gordon,
You don’t have to see the virus to know it is there. And they do extract the RNA from the virus.
from the cite
“At the lab, the sample is processed so RNA is isolated and collected. Everything else is removed. The RNA is mixed with other ingredients: enzymes (DNA polymerase and reverse transcriptase), DNA building blocks, cofactors, probes and primers that recognize and bind to SARS-CoV-2.”
They isolate the RNA from the virus, not the whole virus. They identify it by the sequence of base pairs.
ClintR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H6re3PCP3E
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-516392
ClintR
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-516607
Gordon, ClintR
[I dont think the surface needs tiny thermometers, all it needs is to sense the cooler air at the surface and it passes heat to the air molecules naturally via conduction.]
My question was about the RATE of conduction. The surface will conduct heat* at different rates depending on the temperature of the surrounding air.
The above is true, even though the surface lacks a thermometer, thermostat and brain. So, how does it work?
*Ball4 needs to cover his eyes
The surface will conduct gross KE at different rates and different signs (1LOT), net KE will conduct at different rates and same sign (2LOT).
Snape,
Arent you ashamed of trying to make people look stupid, by posing gotchas?
How about you attempt to provide a correct, instructive and useful answer? I will do my best to make you look stupid, ignorant, or both.
If you claim you are merely a seeker after knowledge, what steps have you taken so far to inform yourself? What parts were beyond you? Hah ha.
Robertson
I answer for the very last time to your endlessly repeated nonsense about negative anomalies to be identified with cooling.
I tried to explain you that in a previous comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-515049
by showing two UAH graphs based on different reference periods.
*
Now you still repeat that nonsense, this time surprisingly referring to NOAA:
” NOAA has defined anomalies below the baseline as cooling wrt to it. ”
{ In fact, you rather mean ‘the portion of the trend line below the baseline’. }
Look at NOAA’s average Fahrenheit temperature data for CONUS, starting with 1900:
https://tinyurl.com/yxlfpxpq
The graph linked below is, together with the means for 1951-1980 (51.87 F) and 1981-2010 (52.82 F), computed by NOAA, what you obtain in absolute form when you download the NOAA data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DSi-fnZw1Dx-ITPDoPf2JXrOCd0KjL8h/view
As you can see, the two baselines differ by 0.95 F, what automatically let anomalies wrt the two baselines differ, though representing the same absolute value.
And the two following graphs represent the same absolute data shown above, but in anomaly form:
– (1) wrt 1951-1980
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-VgLdyHUiDvIQHXZvrk-MKGsxOPnUrNL/view
– (2) wrt 1981-2010
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lt0f_UemlRogpcthAo1zXInBSYxTWAZ7/view
*
Then, while according to graph (1), the portion of the data from 1900 till around 1928 is, according to your claim, a ‘recovery from cooling’, this recovery is suddenly extended to around 1994 in graph (2)!
This, Robertson, is utter nonsense.
Why don’t you (want to) understand that the value of anomalies solely depend from the mean of the reference period the anomalies were constructed out?
It seems that you are not interested in learning and understanding anything. You are only interested in writing, rewriting and rerewriting your egocentric narrative, and distort what is correct until it fits to that narrative.
J.-P. D.
binny…” NOAA has defined anomalies below the baseline as cooling wrt to it.
Yes, Binny, and here it is again.
Note: you need to alter the URL by removing the * from NCD*C, then copying/pasting into the browser.
https://www.ncd*c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
“The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value”.
Repeat…”… a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value”.
Therefore, as applied to the UAH graph, most anomalies pre 1998 were below the reference value (baseline) hence were cooler than the baseline.
Clear net warming did not occur till 1998 (in the UAH data set) and ever since, except for brief dips below the baseline circa 2001 and 2008, have remained above the baseline. That means any trend pre-1998 represents a recovery from cooling.
binny…”Then, while according to graph (1), the portion of the data from 1900 till around 1928 is, according to your claim, a recovery from cooling, this recovery is suddenly extended to around 1994 in graph (2)!”
Nein, nein, nein!!!
I am not applying my claim of a recovery from cooling to any other data set than UAH. There were two volcanic events between 1979 – 1998 that contributed to the anomalies in that range being below the baseline. UAH attempted to remove the effect of the aerosol cooling claiming a trend of 0.09C/decade. I consider that to be trivial. In the 33 year report they refer to the conditions as ‘little or no warming’.
The trend over the entire range is 0.14C/decade which would mean about 0.28C over the two decades from 1979 – 1998. That was not the case since the warming was not much more than 0.1C total. Much of that was a recovery from cooling since the volcanic aerosols had cooled the planet.
My argument is still that you cannot apply a number-crunched trend to the UAH graph because it makes no sense given the various contexts involved. There is an 18 year flat trend sandwiched between 2 decades UAH described as having little or no warming and a recent period with a major EN that has yet to recede back to normal.
ClintR,
FWIW, I enjoyed the moon debate. Nerdy fun.
[Swinging a ball on a string around your head demonstrates orbital motion.]
Yep.
[The ball is NOT rotating about its axis. It is merely orbiting.]
This is true from the POV of the person holding the string.
Worth noting – if there is no rotation, then an object does not have its own axis. It should go without saying, then, that an object that is not rotating, and has no axis, is not rotating about its own axis. Weird redundancy.
[Stop the ball, and rotate it in place and the string winds up.]
Of course. If you stop the ball and rotate it in place, then the ball IS rotating with respect to the person holding the string. Before it was not.
The *winding test* is a neat way of determining if an object is rotating.
Snape,
And just in case you are not confused, the Moon does indeed have an axis. It is inclined about 1.5 degrees to its equatorial plane, which is itself inclined to the Earths equatorial plane. All very interesting.
And it turns out that the Moons axis precesses, describing a circle about what could be described as its axis of precession. Add in a spot of lunar nutation, just to confuse you when the precessional rate doesn’t seem to be behaving itself, and things rapidly get complicated.
Good fun.
swenson…”And just in case you are not confused, the Moon does indeed have an axis. It is inclined about 1.5 degrees to its equatorial plane, which is itself inclined to the Earths equatorial plane. All very interesting”.
If you want to bend your mind a bit go out and look at the Moon and try to work that out visually. I am still working on it and getting closer. Right now, in the Vancouver, Canada area, on a clear night, I can see Jupiter clearly in the southern sky with Saturn nearby, both peaking around 20 degrees above the horizon.
Recently, the Moon is in the same location as Jupiter and Saturn. A few nights ago, it was in a line West to East with them. Towards midnight, Mars appears due East, about the same height above the horizon.
I am trying to imagine how the equatorial plane would have to extend into space to have us on Earth on the same solar orbital plane as Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. with the Moon’s orbital plane tilted about 5 degrees to the solar equatorial plane. Just as I get close to visualizing it, I realize the Earth’s axis is tilted 23 degrees to the Earth’s orbital plane.
In other words, try visualizing the solar system from our perspective on Earth.
snape…”[The ball is NOT rotating about its axis. It is merely orbiting.]
This is true from the POV of the person holding the string”.
Snape…it’s true from anyone’s POV or any frame of reference. The ball is attached to the string therefore every point on the ball is moving in concentric circles. Same with a wooden horse on a MGR which is bolted to the MGR platform. Neither are turning about their axes from anyone’s POV or frame of reference.
Robertson
” I am not applying my claim of a recovery from cooling to any other data set than UAH. ”
Why should there be any difference between UAH and any other data set?
Here is a graph showing that a ‘recovery from cooling’ in the UAH data is nowhere else than in your own fantasy:
https://tinyurl.com/y66fwlww
It is the same data as in the UAH anomaly graph, but in absolute form, in Kelvin, obtained by combining, out of UAH’s 2.5 degree LT grid, the anomaly data with the 1981-2010 climatology.
You think it’s fudged, Robertson? Then… ask Mr Spencer.
*
For interested persons: it is surprising to see that when using absolute temperatures, the so-called ‘2016 Super El Nino’ no longer bypasses 1998, as is visible in the top 10 for 1978-2020:
1998 7 265.80
2020 7 265.72
2016 7 265.67
2019 7 265.67
1998 8 265.62
2010 7 265.61
2018 7 265.59
2017 7 265.58
2016 8 265.55
1998 6 265.54
*
This might be due to the fact that when removing the annual cycle out of departures from the mean, recent summer months often show lower departures than other months:
2016 2 0.86
2016 3 0.77
2020 2 0.76
1998 4 0.74
2016 4 0.73
1998 2 0.65
1998 5 0.64
2017 10 0.63
2019 9 0.62
1998 6 0.57
J.-P. D.
binny…”Why should there be any difference between UAH and any other data set?”
1)it’s a lot shorter and we have no idea what was going on when the trend began in 1979.
2)UAH is not fudged whereas NOAA et all are badly fudged.
3)The UAH baseline is more pertinent to the short range than the longer surface baselines.
4)you’re an idiot.
Robertson
As usual: no thoughts.
Instead: you divert, pretend, insult, discredit, denigrate, and lie.
And how ignorant you keep is best visible when you write such nonsense as:
” The UAH baseline is more pertinent to the short range than the longer surface baselines. ”
1. Baselines are not ‘long’. Reference periods are short or long, whose mean is computed to obtain a baseline.
2. UAH’s current reference period (1981-2010) is 30 years long; exactly as long as are those chosen for
– GISTEMP: 1951-1980
– Had-CRUT: 1961-1990
– NOAA’s previous period for global series, JMA: 1971-2000
As a (real) former engineer, I feel happy to be named an idiot by this blog’s most ignorant, most uneducated, most incompetent and most pretentious boaster.
You, Robertson, an engineer? Ha ha ha. What you write here all the time rather reminds me a stubborn retired primary school teacher.
J.-P. D.
binny…”Robertson…”
That will be Mr. Robertson to a cantankerous, French-speaking Teuton like you.
“1. Baselines are not ‘long’. Reference periods are short or long, whose mean is computed to obtain a baseline”.
Thanks for telling me what I have been trying to tell you for a long time. The UAH 30 year baseline (1981 – 2010) is far more pertinent to a data range of about 40 years than the surface baseline of about 40 years is to its range of about 100+ years. Furthermore, one surface baseline covers 1960 – 1990 wherein two decades of that were below average temperatures.
On top of that, the surface data is seriously fudged and the UAH data is not. Although you try hard to compare the two it’s like comparing apples to oranges.
Gordon Robertson
Here is how evaluating competing ideas can work.
On one hand you have Stefan Lanka claiming measles is “Lanka claims the measles are basically a skin irritation caused by a mixture of psychosomatic triggers and poisoning.”
Or you have the standard accepted theory that measles is caused by a virus.
Here is some information that you can use to evaluate both claims. Remember science is not just evidence but a logical and rational understanding of evidence.
https://tinyurl.com/y58a22lp
“In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.”
If you would go with Lanka, then why was the disease nearly eradicated completely only to make a slight surge because parents were convinced vaccines were bad? If it is a poison and psychosomatic triggers then why did it go from millions of infections a year down to about none?
The vaccine was a weakened virus that did not produce the symptoms but allowed the immune system to build resistance against it so a stronger wild virus would not be able to infect a person.
I can’t see how logically you would go with Lanka and reject modern medicine. The more rational and logical conclusion (especially since the disease certainly seems to spread in areas where a person is infected) is that there is a real virus that infects people and causes the illness we see as measles.
norman…”I cant see how logically you would go with Lanka and reject modern medicine”.
Lanka is modern medicine. He’s a new breed who are not putting up with the established, incorrect paradigms of old medicine.
He discovered the first virus in the ocean and the science he talks is sound. The questions he has raised about why HIV cannot be seen on an electron microscope is extremely sound. There is no proof that the virus exists.
Gordon Robertson
Why are the paradigms of old medicine incorrect? Because an illogical contrarian that can’t logically process facts says so?
Lanka should be rejected for terrible thought process. You totally ignore what said and continue with unsupported contrarian claims.
HIV has been seen in electron microscope images countless times. Just because you say it has not does not make your opinion correct.
I hope you realize that the colorization is for the general public to help them see what the scientists see. I hope you realize they know what the original images look like. I hope you know that they say the image was colorized to enhance contrast.
You make claims, You can’t support them. You blindly follow and illogical contrarian Stefan Lanka who is clueless about measles or any disease.
norman…”Why are the paradigms of old medicine incorrect?”
Because of the idiots in the medical fields who adhere to age old paradigms that are incorrect.
Example. The Framington study of the 1950s concluded that cholesterol is responsible for clogging arteries and causing strokes and heart attacks. Within 10 years of the study being published, some of the authors had changed their minds, yet the idiots who maintain the medical paradigms are giving people statins to lower cholesterol today. The statins produce severe side-effects and use up CoQ10, a vital nutrient for heart health.
Linus Pauling on the other hand, arguably the best chemist of all time, learned from a colleague that the deposits (plaques) causing blockages had lysil deposits sticking them together. He immediately saw that taking 3 grams of lysine a day would dissolve the plaques and it works. However, the idiots in the medical profession fell all over themselves with envy, that someone who was outside the medical profession would discover that. So they boycotted Pauling’s novel idea.
The medical idiots are still teaching that the human body needs no more than 75 mg of vitamin C per day, yet tiny animals like guinea pigs make 10 to 20 times that amount daily in their body’s.
I’m going to say it, most medical people are just plain stupid. Let’s be clear, intelligent people with a capacity for awareness and insight block both with stupidity. Andrew Kaufmann, in his capacity as a psychiatrist with extensive training as a medical doctor has pointed out why. When medical students go through university, they are not encouraged to think, they are encouraged to memorize fact and regurgitate it on exams.
Sadly, the same is true for electrical engineering. All we ever did was work out problems. Lectures were largely an introduction in working out different kinds of problems. No theory was touched upon to any degree.
After my first year, I got a summer job working as an electronics tech. I already had 10 years experience in electronics, returning to study EE as a mature student. One of the engineers at the company who was a very recent EE graduate took a liking to me because I could build prototypes for him and test them.
One day he handed me a schematic with a transistor push-pull arrangement and the first thing I noticed was that he’d drawn the transistors backwards. I had to very diplomatically draw it to his intention but I put it as a question, did he intend to draw them like that. Of course not, he admitted he’d messed up and handed me a writing tablet, telling me to jot down any other errors. All told, I came up with over a dozen errors.
The guy had a degree IN EE and could not draw a transistor circuit diagram. On another occasion, a guy in a 2nd year lab was astounded to learn that an inductor was a real device. All we had seen till then was the equation el = -Ldi/dt, where el is the instantaneous voltage across an inductor L. No one had told him that L was an actual physical device, a coil.
You like to cite engineers in textbooks who write formulae suggesting EM can create a two way heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures, even though it contradicts the 2nd law. That particular subject is highly theoretical and does not belong in a mechanical engineering textbook. They should not make any claims they cannot back up with real, physical examples, and in that case, they can’t.
It’s the same in the medical field. Med students cannot get through school unless they follow the rules laid down for them. Those rules include conventional rules that have well outlived their time and usefulness.
Covid theory is based on unproved science and it is being perpetuated by researchers and medical personnel who have never learned to think or dared to question. Lanka is not afraid and I am thankful for that.
Gordon Robertson
Can you stop lying ever?
You make a complete false claim on what I state.
Your bogus lie: “You like to cite engineers in textbooks who write formulae suggesting EM can create a two way heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures, even though it contradicts the 2nd law.”
NO! They do NOT Say this at all. Here is how they define “Heat”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html#c1
Heat would be the NET energy transfer between a hot plate and a colder plate.
Here is what they actually say NOT WHAT YOU CLAIM THEY SAY!! Understand you are wrong! The evidence proves you are wrong!
“It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
You can easily prove what they claim is quite correct with experiments! If you have even a non heated hot object at a certain initial temperature, you will find that its temperature drop directly correlates to the temperature of the surroundings.
The amount of heat transfer from the Hot object to the cold depends directly on the temperature difference between the hot and cold object. The closer the cold object is to the hot object the less heat will transfer (less NET energy transfer). That is because the cold object is sending energy back to the hot object.
Your lack of understanding this is on YOU and no one else. You are just a contrarian in all your thoughts.
Nomran, we all know you can type forever, insult endlessly, and mess up the physics so bad no one can help you.
That’s why the simple examples like the blue/green plates are so instructive. The bogus solution violates the laws of physics. The bogus solution has the green plate either an insulator or a heater, or both.
As usual, you won’t be able to understand.
I am a bit bemused that …
* some insist that others need to learn more physics.
* some insist that physics is wrong and should be ignored.
* some insist that only certain physics is correct (eg as explained by certain authorities, like Tesla or Clausius).
*some insist on exactly precise terminology in every case (like “heat” vs “internal energy”; “steady-state” vs “equilibrium”).
* some blithely use the wrong word, but insist on drawing conclusions as if the word they are using is correct.
* some complain when other make idealizations
* some complain when idealization are not made.
* some want you to explain every possible variation they come up with
* some refuse to consider any other variation you come up with (especially when it clearly contradicts their incorrect conclusions).
* some insist that equations and calculations be shown.
* some get hopelessly confused by calculations and insist on words only.
* some grill you on every assumption.
* some come in during a thread and miss the assumptions, so they think you are wrong.
* throw in a few strawman arguments (‘you think you could warm water with the radiation from ice’; ‘you think heat flows from the cooler green plate to the warmer blue plate’)
Put this all together, and you get 2000 comments where little or no progress can be made, because any post immediately gets pulled in 6 different directions. It would be interesting to be able to deal with just one issue at a time and resolve it, but that will never happen.
I suspect that if/when I come back in a few months or years, the discussion will still be stuck on the same points with the same participants.
Tim,
Thank you.
You have described, in some detail, the ways in which alarmists refuse to accept reality and scientific progress.
As you do.
Tim…all I have insisted is that we must follow the scientific method in physics. That means respecting laws like the 2nd law until someone can disprove it using the scientific method rather than thought-experiments and consensus.
Gordon, we get the second law, not your perversion of the second law, you have to understand all of it, not just the half you always quote.
All the law, not half the law, look at the whole system not just one part.
bobd…”Gordon, we get the second law, not your perversion of the second law, you have to understand all of it, not just the half you always quote”.
My version is the version of Clausius who wrote the 2nd law. I have quoted him almost verbatim from the definition he gave. By verbatim I mean that I have changed nothing in the ideas he conveyed but the words may not be the exact words he used.
He claimed, heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body. I emphasize NEVER because that’s how it is. I can get the exact words if you like.
Never, never, never. No exceptions, none whatsoever.
Anyone on this blog, or elsewhere, who claim heat can be transferred cold to hot by its own means are using thought-experiments as the basis of their counter-proofs. Science does not work by thought-experiment.
If you think heat can be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body, then prove it using a thermometer. You can’t, therefore you are left with nothing more than sci-fi based thought experiments.
Can you imagine submitting a paper on this to a journal. “In this paper I plant to prove that heat can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot. Unfortunately I have no data to prove it but I have this nifty thought-experiment”.
Or, scientist Swanson did an experiment with a blue plate and a green plate…. “Reference????”, enquires the journal editor. “Well, um, er, Swannie never submitted a paper”. I seem Mr. Droege, don’t call us, we’ll call you”.
Gordon,
So then, a two way transfer of energy via electromagnetic radiation is possible without violating the 2nd law, between two objects of different temperature.
Hoping you will agree to that, because it is true, but you have argued against that idea.
You isolate the one way transfer of energy by isolating that when it is part of a larger system, you keep tripping up on the by its own means part of the Clausius statement.
“If you think heat can be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body, then prove it using a thermometer. You cant, therefore you are left with nothing more than sci-fi based thought experiments.”
Actually I have, using a thermocouple to measure the temperature of a heated block of metal in a gas chromatography instrument. With a constant temperature control, addition of insulation caused the measured temperature to increase. Same idea as the green plate effect.
No paper needed to be submitted, cause they would say “why would we publish an undergraduate level experiment?”
bobdroege,
You are an idiot. The cold insulation provided no heat. No heat transfer! Turn off your heat source. The temperature falls.
Swenson,
The insulation kept the heat from escaping.
I added something cold and the temperature went up.
Swenson,
Here is something on heat exchange that is your level
Ole and Lars go ice fishin. Ole pulls out his new thermos and Lars says to him, “Ole, whatcha got der?”.
Ole says, “Well Lars, dis here’s a thermos. It keeps hot tings hot, and it keeps cold tings cold.”
After awhile, Lars gets curious and says, “Vell Ole, whatcha got in dat der thermos?”
Ole says, “Vell Lars, I got a popsicle, and two cups a coffee.”
bobdroege,
Still no heat transferred from a colder to a hotter body, is there?
Playing with words wont change facts. Learn some physics. No wonder you got the sack.
Sven,
Of course their is no heat transferred from cold to hot, because heat is defined that way.
But there is radiation transferred from cold to hot, you didn’t pass that physics course did you?
Or even take any physics courses.
bobd…”So then, a two way transfer of energy via electromagnetic radiation is possible without violating the 2nd law, between two objects of different temperature.
Hoping you will agree to that, because it is true, but you have argued against that idea”.
What energy can be transferred in both directions by EM? Can you stop using the generic term energy and refer to the energy by it’s specific name? The 2nd law applies only to heat energy, aka thermal energy, and Clausius specified the rules for that. He said, heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. He emphasized that radiation heat transfer must obey that law.
No, I don’t agree there is a two way transfer of energy by EM. Quantum theory spells out why. In order to transfer heat from one body to another the EM must have the correct frequency, hence the correct EM intensity to raise an absorbing electron in a body to a higher quantum energy level.
By energy level, I mean a kinetic energy level determined by the orbiting electron. When an electron with a rotational frequency of f Hz. drops to a lower energy level, it must rid itself of the difference in kinetic energy levels between energy levels. It does so by emitting a quantum of EM where the intensity of EM = E = hf. E is the difference in energy between the levels through which the electron dropped and f is it’s frequency at the higher energy level.
To reverse that transition, that is raise the electron back to the higher energy level, the absorbed EM must have the frequency of the orbiting electron with the intensity at least equaling the difference in energy levels. It is possible to raise the electron through more than one energy level but that requires an even higher thermal energy source.
That frequency and intensity is not available with EM emitted from a cooler body, therefore, EM from a cooler body cannot transfer heat to a hotter body. That satisfies the 2nd law, your idea does not.
bobd…”Of course their is no heat transferred from cold to hot, because heat is defined that way.
But there is radiation transferred from cold to hot, you didnt pass that physics course did you?”
Name an energy other than heat that can be transferred by EM between bodies of different temperature? We know that at lower frequencies, in communications, electrical energy can be transferred by EM. However, temperature is not a factor and the process is different.
In communications, EM absorbed by an antenna causes electrons in the antenna to change direction in steps with the frequency of the converted EM. In that case, the electrons are free electrons that began as valence electrons. With heat transfer, the EM affects non-valence electrons, causing them to move to higher energy levels.
You have to remember that the transfer of heat operates in the IR spectrum or above. EM at microwave frequencies will cause heating but not through electron transitions. Again, it involves free electrons and heating due to them in the circuit.
Here’s a mini-course on how to do the calculations in an atom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxqrj14Wduc
Gordon, solar, atm., terrestrial radiation at much shorter wavelengths than mw or radio originates from vast arrays of tiny antennas (molecules) emitting more or less independently so incoherently of each other unlike a coherent antenna.
Tim, you forgot one.
* Some refuse to accept reality.
Swenson,
[And just in case you are not confused, the Moon does indeed have an axis.]
You should share this information with someone who is confused. ClintR comes to mind. For someone who is not confused – me, for example – there is no need.
Snape,
Did you not write this – * Worth noting if there is no rotation, then an object does not have its own axis. It should go without saying, then, that an object that is not rotating, and has no axis, is not rotating about its own axis. Weird redundancy.*
Bear in mind, I provided some information *in case you are not confused . . .*, which you confirm you are (not confused, that is).
Maybe your expression and comprehension skills need improvement? Or maybe I was wrong, and you really are confused.
snape…”You should share this information with someone who is confused. ClintR comes to mind”.
The Moon’s axis is an imaginary axis defined based on an axis perpendicular to its orbital plane. Unlike the Earth, it is not rotating around that axis. I think Clint is well-aware of that.
GR
“The Moons axis is an imaginary axis defined based on an axis perpendicular to its orbital plane.”
Not correct. The moons axis (which by definition is the only diameter which maintains a fixed direction relative to distant objects over the course of a revolution) has an obliquity of 6.7 degrees relative to its orbital plane.
That means the moon wobbles from the perspective of the earth) over the course of one rotation, so that the moon’s latitude at which the earth is directly overhead varies between 6.7S and 6.7N.
It’s impossible to deny rotation on its own axis given that fact. You will nevertheless, because “I am smarter and more knowledgeable than the real scientists”. The Trump disease.
Christians and Gordon Robertson – unable to abandon their geocentric view of the universe.
All “lunar obliquity” proves is that the moon remains aligned a certain way, relative to its orbital plane, whilst it orbits.
Make the obliquity 85 degrees, and try to get the earth zenith point (the point on the moon’s surface where the earth is directly overhead) to remain on the same meridian of longitude throughout the orbit without independently rotating about that oblique axis at the same angular rate. It can’t be done.
They cannot seem to separate axial rotation from orbital motion…
That’s right … YOU can’t.
Sheesh.
midas…”Make the obliquity 85 degrees, and try to get the earth zenith point (the point on the moons surface where the earth is directly overhead) to remain on the same meridian of longitude”
The Moon is moving on an orbital plane that is tilted 5 degrees to the Earth’s orbital plane. That’s a relativity problem and you cannot work it out as you describe.
Relativity?? You think Einstein must be invoked to analyse this very simple geometry? What a nutter.
Midas says: “…(which by definition is the only diameter which maintains a fixed direction relative to distant objects over the course of a revolution)…”
Moon’s “diameter” does NOT maintain a fixed direction. That should tell you something, Midas.
The moon’s axis precesses 360 degrees every 118 cycles, or roughly 3 degrees per cycle. My statement is true of the AXIS (not just any diameter as you stated) if precession is ignored.
So you back away from you comment, as expected.
If there were no precession, everyone I said would be 100% accurate. Apparently you believe that when you add a tiny precession …. POOF …. rotation disappears. No backing away here.
Midas, if you had a brain, and an appreciation for reality, you could prove yourself wrong with a simple tennis ball.
But, we know that won’t happen….
I made sure I did that before commenting. You clearly didn’t.
So you proved yourself wrong before commenting, but commented anyway?
There is no shortage of idiots here….
Tell me about it, Clint.
Oops – I mean g**ran
Moon’s “diameter” does NOT maintain a fixed direction.
That should tell you something, Midas. But, you’re unable to understand.
The “diameter” angle related to their phony “lunar obliquity” is 6.68° offset from perpendicular to lunar plane. That “diameter” angle then changes by twice that during one lunar orbit.
This could easily be verified with a simple tennis ball, if Midas weren’t an idiot.
Hey g**ran (sorry – “Clint”) – when you can actually describe something physical instead of only being able to tell people they are wrong (in other words, the definition of a real denier) perhaps one day someone will take you seriously.
I just told you Midas. It’s your job to either understand or ask intelligent questions. But, that would involve facing reality, wouldn’t it?
And if I remind you of your heroes, maybe you could link me to their comments. I’d be happy to tell you if I agree or disagree.
midas…”Not correct. The moons axis (which by definition is the only diameter which maintains a fixed direction relative to distant objects over the course of a revolution) has an obliquity of 6.7 degrees relative to its orbital plane”.
The Moon has no axial wobble nor does it rotate about an axis. The wobble to which you refer is due to libration, a property of the Moon’s position in its elliptical orbit. Libration is an apparent motion, not a real motion.
A wobble would require an out-of-balance axial rotation. The Moon is not rotating about any axis hence no wobble and no axis of rotation.
As I said, the axis is defined on an imaginary basis perpendicular to the Moon’s orbital plane but only to orient the Moon in space as having an upside and downside.
I said it is a wobble in the apparent rotation of the moon’s earth zenith point, not a physical wobble. What is preventing you from googling the moon’s obliquity? You people are adept googlers, but your ability eludes you when you decide you don’t want to know the answer.
Midas, Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. The example of a ball on a string indicates “orbiting” but not “rotating about its axis”. That’s the same motion as Moon.
Get over it.
You can’t even imagine the motion I am describing. Perhaps purge those thoughts of a “god” from your head – they are taking up the already-limited space.
Wrong Midas. The simple example of a ball on a string reduces all your desperate meanderings to rubbish.
Ignoring reality is what you do best. Don’t blame others for your ill-chosen path in life.
Apparently you believe that a ball on a string is an analogy for gravity. Way to go “proving” other motions don’t exist by deliberately choosing a setup where they can’t exist. Try to mimic the earth’s daily motion with a ball on a string, S4B.
There you go again, Midas, twisting and distorting reality. A ball on a string is not “an analogy for gravity”. It’s a model for Moon’s motion — orbiting, but not rotating about its axis.
So you can’t use a ball on a string as a model for Earth. Because Earth is BOTH orbiting AND rotating about its axis.
If you spin a basketball in a horizontal direction, there will be an imaginary, vertical line around which the ball is turning. The axis of rotation.
If you spin the ball in a vertical direction, there will be an imaginary, horizontal line around which it is turning. The axis of rotation.
Describe the axis of rotation when the ball is stationary.
Snape,
Another gotcha? Based on a pointless analogy? Learn some astronomy. You will learn more than playing with your imaginary balls.
“Gotcha”
The language of Mike Flynn / “Amazed”
Midas
The language of Mike Flynn / Amazed
And?
I do not recall your name from the time of Mike Flynn. Do you even know who I am referring to?
Midas,
And? Does anyone care?
Given that you have had multiple aliases banned here my Mr Spencer, I should think that he would care.
Funny how you flatly denied being Mike Flynn when you were “Amazed”.
Midas,
What are you babbling about?
midas…”Funny how you flatly denied being Mike Flynn when you were Amazed.”
If Mike is banned then how can you write “Mike Flynn”?
I always enjoyed Mike’s commentary, it kept alarmists on their toes. I am also curious as to how things are in Darwin.
Does Mikey live in Darwin? I assume you must be talking about him as I’ve never been there.
Amazing Mike Swenson (aka eh_?), you are a man of regular habits.
My sock puppet detection software shows that you are a man who is early to bed (by 9:30 pm) and early to rise (by 5:30 am).
https://i.postimg.cc/4Zp5k4wR/Swenson-Mike-F-Time-of-Posts.jpg
Sounds like you are healthy, wealthy but I am not too sure about wise. I wil take a rain check on that one.
So Mike , you can dispense with the stress of being under cover. The bottling in of your GHG emissions could result in a distended abdomen so let em rip, but open the windows first and for safety’s sake, evacuate you nearest and dearest kin.
So seriously Mike, you are obviously proud of your numerous contributions over the many years. I used to enjoy them immensely, so why don’t you just go back to being Flynn of the North?
Swenson
Now that your sock puppetry has been exposed and you have fled to another thread, I have a suggestionthat I have offered to two others previously. Why don’t you join the new tour of Puppetryof the Penis which is run by our compatriots?
ee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppetry_of_the_Penis#:~:text=Puppetry%20of%20the%20Penis%20is,(known%20as%20Dick%20Tricks).
I am sure you are well equippedas Territorians are used to lassoingcrocs.
You could perform a new act called the “Foucault Pendulum” with a mobile phone appropriately attached as the weight (it can also be used to measure the rotation of the appendage on its axis via the internal gyroscope).
Taking 24 hours would be rather onerous, so in the interestsof brevity maybe a carouselcould be set up. This could allow you to moonthe entire audience while simultaneously checking the gyroscope. If you start getting giddy justrotate on your axis in the opposite direction to the rotation of the carousel(and at the same speed).
The onlydown sideI can envisage is possible torsion of the testicles. That damn rotational inertia can get you where ithurts.
Anyway this act should bring the house down and I hope the Australianstates open up soon,so we can all be exposed to a performance. If we eventuallyopen up internationally you couldbe an overnight sensation.
Hmm, WordPress has swallowed many of the spaces in the comment above, but I am sure it can be still interpreted.
snape…”Describe the axis of rotation when the ball is stationary”.
There is none. However, if you launched the basketball into orbit around the Earth, without a rotation about an axis, you might want to orient the basketball to its orbital plane, in which case you’d have to define an axis. If it was rotating about an axis as it orbited the Earth, the axis would be perpendicular to it’s direction of rotation and possible at angle to its orbital plane.
When you read such tremendously superficial quick shots like Tesla’s
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
you inevitably ask why this good fellow did not think even half a second about his view on Earth’s ability to rotate if the Sun wasn’t a hot star but a giant planet with Earth’s temperature, and he could have managed to land on it.
Would Tesla, looking at our Earth from the Sun’s surface, not have written the same text with ‘Moon’ replaced by ‘Earth’, and ‘Earth’ replaced by ‘Sun’ ?
*
My guess: all the people allegedly denying Moon’s rotation about its own center of mass don’t believe what they write here.
They just want to provoke, and to silently laugh at all commenters contradicting what they themselves don#t believe.
J.-P. D.
One has wonder what they believe their trajectory would be if they were standing on the moon’s surface and the moon’s gravity suddenly switched off.
From the perspective of someone standing on the “stationary” earth, that is.
Bindidon confirms once again that he simply does not understand the “Non-Spinner” position.
Pseudomod
But… I very well understand the “Non-Spinner” position:
” The Moon does not rotate about its axis. By definition. ”
Your own words some months ago ( plus minus small details).
J.-P. D.
You claim you do, your comments reveal you do not.
DREMPTY,
That’s exactly what you do, you define non rotation as what the Moon is doing.
We understand all too well.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
dremt…”Revolution”
I noticed a while back that the spinners are also climate alarmists and they apply the same pseudo-logic to climate science as they do to orbital science. I think they are all likely capable of understanding but some entrenched belief system or appeal to authority is overruling their ability to understand.
Hoisted by your own petard
“Earth rotates around on its axis in the same way. In fact, so do many astronomical objects: stars, moons, asteroids, and pulsars.”
The Moon rotates around on its axis.
Also
” Earth orbits the Sun. The Moon orbits Earth.”
So the Moon orbits the Earth as it rotates on its own axis.
That’s what your cite says.
bobdroege,
His cite doesnt say what you just made up, does it? Hoist by your own petard, were you?
Swenson,
You know what those little ” things mean?
It means what is inside those are directly copied from the source.
There was a plane crash in rural Minnesota last night, a single engine Cessna crashed into a cemetery, first responders Swenson and Ollie are on the scene, death count is 82 and expected to increase further.
bobdroege,
*So the Moon orbits the Earth as it rotates on its own axis.*
His cite doesnt say that, does it? Go away lying troll!
Sven,
You have to be able to add 2 plus 2 and get 4, or maybe 3 or 5, it depends on precision.
He says moons rotate on their axis, and he says the Moon orbits the earth.
You don’t seem to be capable of that.
Ole, Sven, and Nels came into the bar. They were high-fiving each other, shouting, and generally having a celebration of some sort.
“Line ’em up,” Ole shouted as the party continued.
They drank and carried on for hours. Finally the bartenders curiosity got the better of him. “Just what are you celebrating?” he asked.
“51 days! We did it in 51 days!” they responded.
“What did you do in 51 days?” he probed.
“Put the puzzle together,” they replied, “51 days, and the box said 3-5 years!”
There are moons out there that do rotate on their own axes. As well as stars, asteroids and pulsars.
Our moon does not rotate on its own axis.
“There are moons out there that do rotate on their own axes”
Which ones?
So DREMPTY,
Do all these moons not rotate on their axes?
Phobos, Deimos, Metis, Adrastea, Amalthea, Thebe, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Pan, Atlas, Prometheus, Pandora, Epimetheus, Janus, Mimas, Enceladus, Telesto, Tethys, Calypso, Dione, Rhea, Titan, Iapetus, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon, Proteus, Triton,
Pluto Charon
Your cite says they do, like it says the Moon rotates on its axis.
Sorry your support for you position is non-existant.
It doesn’t say all moons rotate on their own axes.
If it did, the article would be contradicting itself.
And even if the article were contradicting itself, there is no changing that definition of orbital motion.
You are evading the question DREMPTY.
But that’s to be expected that’s what you always do.
Yeah, you can’t change your definition of rotation with respect to the Moon, because the heart of the matter is that you define non-rotation of the Moon as being what the Moon is doing.
Although no-body else does that, even Tesla didn’t define what rotation is with respect to the Moon.
“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.”
Rotation?
…is a separate and independent motion from revolution. So, in the case of the ball on a string; for the ball to be rotating on its own axis, the ball would have to wrap around the string.
…is a separate and independent motion from revolution except in the case of the moon where they are combined into one orbital motion per DREMT. So, in the case of the ball on a string:for the ball to be rotating on its own axis more or less than once, the ball would have to wrap around the string.
More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.
DREMTPY,
Your cite says many different objects rotate on their axes, so a basic understanding of English would conclude that when he says
“Earth rotates around on its axis in the same way. In fact, so do many astronomical objects: stars, moons, asteroids, and pulsars.”
He means all moons rotate on their axis, so when you say
“It doesnt say all moons rotate on their own axes.”
You are incorrect, and in order to prove your cite is contradicting itself you must provide evidence that there is a moon that is not rotating on its axis.
Which you have not done, you merely claim the Moon is not rotating on its axis, even though there is plenty of evidence that it is rotating on its axis, which you conveniently ignore.
The Moon has days and nights, therefore it is spinning on its axis.
It really couldn’t be simpler than that.
You see any change in orientation the moon makes as it moves, as proof of axial rotation.
However, the definition of revolution is a rotation about an external axis. An object rotating about an external axis necessarily has to change its orientation as it moves.
Use the transmographer to rotate an object “around a point” to confirm this for yourself:
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
DREMPTY,
“An object rotating about an external axis necessarily has to change its orientation as it moves.”
No it doesn’t, we have discussed the Hubble Space Telescope oriented on a distant object.
You are yet, wrong again.
DREMPTY,
But you have to be smart enough to use the transmogrifier to separate rotation around an internal point and rotation around an external point.
Apparently you fail that challenge.
“An object rotating about an external axis necessarily has to change its orientation as it moves.”
No DREMT that means dependent motions. As you write, the orbital and rotational motions are independent…independent means not dependent.
The baseball player could run around the bases watching the home run ball fly out of the park all the way around to home not rotating on player’s own own axis. Or the player could turn at each base and face forward all the way around rotating once on player’s own axis per rev., keeping the left shoulder facing the pitcher just like the moon, ball on string, phone on turntable, and transmographer rectangle.
You see any change in orientation the moon makes as it moves, as proof of axial rotation.
However, the definition of revolution is a rotation about an external axis. An object rotating about an external axis necessarily has to change its orientation as it moves.
Use the transmographer to rotate an object “around a point” to confirm this for yourself:
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
The moon is just revolving.
See change in orientation the moon makes as it moves, as proof of axial rotation if the stars and sun (a star) rise and set as they do. No moon axial rotation means the stars and sun stay fixed in the moon sky which is not observed.
You see any change in orientation the moon makes as it moves, as proof of axial rotation.
However, the definition of revolution is a rotation about an external axis. An object rotating about an external axis necessarily has to change its orientation as it moves.
Use the transmographer to rotate an object “around a point” to confirm this for yourself:
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
The moon is just revolving, not rotating on its own axis.
Use the transmographer to rotate an object “around a point” to confirm ftop_t steps were wrong for yourself, I already have done so, it’s easy but tedious.
DREMTPY,
You are still using the transmogrifier wrong. #1.
How can I be using it wrong? All I said was use it to rotate an object “around a point”.
DREMTPY,
Which involves two motions, rotation and revolution.
Not one.
You are still using the transmogrifier wrong. #2.
“Around a point” is just revolution. There is no axial rotation programmed into that motion. That is why it has a separate option for “around center” (axial rotation).
Because they are independent motions.
So bob is wrong. Well done, Ball4.
bob is correct: “two motions, rotation and revolution” so two motion options in transmographer, one for each motion.
As usual, Ball4 cannot follow a discussion.
You push a button that says “rotate”
its going to rotate.
How is something going to not rotate, when you hit the rotate buttion?
A rotation “around a point” (orbital motion) is just one motion, as the transmographer shows.
A rotation “around center” (axial rotation) is just one motion, as the transmographer shows.
Two separate and independent motions.
With transmographer, make sure “around center” is unchecked:
1) Click “New Triangle”.
2) Under “Around a Point” enter x = 0, then y = 0, degrees: 45
3) Click “Rotate” and again & again.
Watch the triangle (proxy moon) center of mass translate about external axis (center 0,0) AND the triangle rotate about an internal axis once per rev. (orbit) coming back to start position after 360 complete orbit (check on “original polygon” to make sure) keeping same triangle edge facing to center (0,0).
A rotation “around a point” (orbital motion) is just one motion, as the transmographer shows.
A rotation “around center” (axial rotation) is just one motion, as the transmographer shows.
Two separate and independent motions.
Look how much this has worked up poor Ball4. He is working overtime to try to smother this, but all anyone has to do is use it for themselves.
binny…”Would Tesla, looking at our Earth from the Suns surface, not have written the same text with Moon replaced by Earth, and Earth replaced by Sun ?”
You forgot to mention that the Earth rotates one per days and 365 times+ during a revolution about the Sun. At no time does it keep the same face presented to the Sun or the Moon.
What I don’t understand is why you cannot understand that every particle on the Moon is moving in concentric circles/ellipses around the Earth, ruling out any possibility that it is rotating on an axis.
It’s easy to prove that the inner face is always pointed toward the Earth, therefore all parts of the near face, to a certain depth, are moving in concentric circles. The same must apply by logic to the far side and the centre. Doesn’t take much logic to reason that all parts must orbit in the same concentric paths.
How then, does it get the chance to rotate on a local axis? That’s partly what Tesla is implying with the globes attached to the Earth by rigid members.
The only thing I question in Tesla’s analysis is his use of orbital revolution as rotation. Whereas it is not wrong it tends to confuse the issue between a local rotation and a rotation generally referred to as a revolution, or an orbit.
Actually, I need to backtrack a little. You could create a coordinate system within an orbiting body, even if the body is not rotating as it orbits.
The x and y-axis could run through the center of mass, parallel with the plane defined by the orbit. The z-axis would run through the center of mass, perpendicular to the plane.
So, in that sense, the body would have its own axis even if not rotating.
Snape,
Maybe you need to do your backtracking before your fronttracking.
In other words, think it through before you commit your thoughts to your keyboard.
You are still wrong. The Moons axis is not perpendicular to its orbit. Figure out how this is known.
Sorry
I did not see the other, related comments that were posted while writing mine.
Gordon
[Same with a wooden horse on a MGR which is bolted to the MGR platform. Neither are turning about their axes from anyones POV or frame of reference.]
Let me use the toy train example to explain why thats not right. This will be a variation of the *compass* example I used a few years ago.
– a wooden, toy train is on a circular track.
– we drill an inch-wide, vertical hole down through the middle of the train.
– a 3/4 inch diameter, wooden dowel is dropped into the hole. A loose fit.
– The top of the dowel protrudes above the hole.
******
– attach one end of an elastic string to the top of the dowel, the other end to a hook on a nearby wall.
– make a mark on the dowel that faces the wall.
– when the train is put in motion, the mark should continue to face the wall; the dowel held in place by the string.
*****
– the train will be seen to rotate around the fixed dowel.
I’ve tried this one with him before. Even this simple example is too complex for him.
snape…” the train will be seen to rotate around the fixed dowel”.
How can the train rotate around the dowel when its wheels are constrained to follow the circular track? The wooden dowel is incidental, it has no bearing on the motion of the train, only the tracks affect its motion.
The only other possible motion is if you get the train running too fast and it leans into the curves due to a torque set up around a horizontal axis through the train.
Remember, the train wants to move in a linear direction and the rails guide it into a circle. If the linear momentum is too high, the forces in that direction will overcome the circular forces imposed by the track and the train will tend to rotate about a horizontal axis, or maybe the rails as an axis, since they will oppose a torque about a horizontal axis.
Furthermore, if the train has any rotation about the dowel, it would have to leave the tracks.
suggestion: stop relying solely on thought-experiments and try to understand the situation from a perspective of hard physics. I see no problem with dabbling in thought-experiments but when it comes to proof, you need to produce real data to validate the thought-experiment. Validation of a thought-experiment cannot come from the mind that produced it.
If anything, the dowel is turning within the hole you drilled in the train. You seem to think if it’s turning in the whole then in a relative sense the train is rotating about the dowel. That is a danger of relativity theory, using distortion in the thought processes that are not accurate.
Always suspect anything that comes out of your mind. Not just you’re mind, anyone’s mind.
Maybe we should make a video, so they could see the set-up instead of having to visualize it?
The issue is that they imagine points on the moon as being distinct from the moon itself, and it IS true that any single point on the moon is rotating in a uniform circle about the earth. They clearly don’t understand that the sum of the kinetic energies of all points that make up the moon is greater than the sum of the kinetic energies when the moon is not rotating relative to the background universe. When integrated over the entire moon, the resultant energy is equal to the sum of the two rotational kinetic energies. But there is no hope of them understanding the concept of a triple integral.
Another attempt to pervert reality.
The list gets longer and longer.
All you had to say was “I do not understand how to calculate kinetic energy of a non-point mass undergoing non-translational motion, let alone the concept of a triple integral”.
No, what I had to say is what I said.
You must pervert reality to defend your false religion.
Why don’t you EXPLAIN what is wrong with my comment. You know – show off your education in science and mathematics.
I don’t waste my time trying to explain reality to idiots that reject reality.
Midas,
Sir Isaac Newton provided a nice illustration in his *Principia* showing the stupidity of your comment mentioning kinetic energy.
Who should I believe? I choose Newton unless Midas can prove him wrong about gravity.
How about you link to this illustration, and an English translation of his explanation of what it illustrates.
Funny how Mike Flynn and g**ran have returned as Swenson and ClintR. They have referred to respect for Mr Spencer, yet refuse to take his hint to leave, showing exactly what they mean by “respect”.
Midas,
You really do expect everybody else to overcome your deficiencies, dont you? How about you read the *Principia* for yourself?
Funny how you seem preoccupied with snarky ad-homs. You could always read about sciencey stuff written by actual smart people like Sir Isaac Newton, or the Nobel Prize winning physicist, Richard Feynman. If you wanted.
So you’ve read Principia? How did you cope with those tricky Latin verb declensions?
midas…”They clearly dont understand that the sum of the kinetic energies of all points that make up the moon is greater than the sum of the kinetic energies when the moon is not rotating relative to the background universe. When integrated over the entire moon, the resultant energy is equal to the sum of the two rotational kinetic energies”.
We are not talking abut individual particles per se we are talking about the motion of a rigid body. I use individual particles only for a visualization of the orbital process to show the Moon’s motion, even to a particle level, is strictly translation.
You admit that each particle of the Moon is moving in concentric circles around the Earth. Each particle has a kinetic energy in a tangential direction due to the Moon’s linear momentum as a rigid body. We don’t know exactly how Earth’s gravity operates on a mass but it operates on the entire mass of the Moon to shift the Moon’s linear path of momentum slightly away from a linear path, the resultant being the orbit.
All of the kinetic energy to which you refer has only a linear, tangential component of its own. The action of gravity bends the path of each particle as a rigid body into an orbital path but at all times the only motion the Moon has is its linear momentum. It has no local rotational motion. None of the particles have that local rotational motion or they would be operating as the Earth does with local rotation and linear momentum. Furthermore, with local rotation, the Moon would have to rotate and the near face would move away from the Earth.
The Earth does not keep the same face toward the Sun, or even toward the Moon. Even though the Moon keeps the same face toward the Earth, the Earth shows the Moon different faces over a 24 hour period. The Earth is performing local rotation, the Moon is not.
Referring to kinetic energy as having a “tangential component” means that you believe kinetic energy is a vector quantity. Scalar quantities do not have “components”, and referring to components of energy shows an utter lack of understanding of the physics. It is meaningless to say an object has a kinetic energy “in a tangential direction”.
When you sum (by integration) the kinetic energies of of each differential element of mass over the volume of the moon, the result is the same as the translational kinetic energy of a point mass with the mass of the moon located at the centre of mass PLUS the rotational kinetic energy of the moon rotating with the same angular velocity about its centre as that of its orbit.
But you can do a much simpler calculation:
(1) Calculate the kinetic energy of a point mass of 2 kg rotating in a circle of radius 10 metres with a period of 10 seconds.
(2) Now consider two point masses, each of mass 1 kg, connected by a massless rod of length 1 metre. Let this system rotate in a circle of radius 10 metres with a period of 10 seconds, where the radius is measured to the centre of mass of the 2-mass system, so that the rod always has a radial orientation. Calculate the sum of the kinetic energies of the two masses.
(3) Calculate the sum of the kinetic energies of the two masses in (2) if they instead rotate about the centre of mass with a period of 10 seconds.
You will find that (1) + (3) = (2).
In other words, when this object rotates about a displaced centre so that the same “side” always faces that centre, the kinetic energy of the system is the sum of the kinetic energies of two rotations.
As a professed expert in physics, you should find that calculation trivial.
Midas, if you swing a ball on a string around your head, is the ball rotating about its center of gravity?
Once per rev.
midas…”As a professed expert in physics, you should find that calculation trivial”.
I have no interest in engaging in a proof of point masses and kinetic energy related to a thought experiment. The reality is obvious, all points on the Moon move in concentric circles as a rigid body. As a rigid body, you can draw a radial line through the Moon with each point mass moving perpendicular to the radial line, hence at the constant velocity of the radial line.
That defines curvilinear translation without rotation. Translation explains why the Moon faces East, West, North and South throughout its orbit.
Conversely, local rotation would require each point to be rotating about an axis during translation, like the Earth.
I go with
– Cassini, Newton, Mercator, Lagrange, Laplace, Delaunay
– Habibullin, Calamé, Chapront, Eckhardt, Migus, Moons
and many other intelligent persons who observed the Moon using telescopes and lunar laser ranging data.
All what contrarian people can bring up to this is the ridiculous saying: ‘that’s appeal to authority’.
They prefer to appeal to the antiauthority of an inventer who never finished any scientific education in any high school or university.
*
And the most stupid of them still did not understand the difference between Moon’s optical and physical librations. Incredible.
In French we say in this case: “Plus bte tu meurs.”
J.-P. D.
P.S.
A bit of Tesla’s history:
” In 1875 he began his “Studium Generale” at the Imperial and Royal Technical University in Graz and attended an above-average number of lectures in the first year. On July 21, 1876 he was granted access to the main course in mechanical engineering. He got to know the Gramme machine from the physics professor Jakob Pöschl, a then new type of D-C generator from Zénobe Gramme. In the second year of study, his study activity decreased significantly. In the third year of study he did not complete an examination and was finally de-registered from the university in 1877/78 after he had not paid the tuition fees.
Tesla moved to Marburg an der Drau, where he found a job as a mechanical engineer. He spent his free time playing cards and billiards in relevant pubs. On March 24, 1879, Tesla was expelled from Marburg / Maribor by police order and sent back to his home town of Gospić. A month later, in April 1879, his father died. After his death, Tesla initially stayed in Gospić and took a job as a substitute teacher.
In 1880, Tesla went to Prague with financial support from his uncle Dane Branković to complete his studies at the then German-speaking Charles University there. However, neither the attendance nor the completion of the lectures he has attended is documented; the necessary tuition fees were never paid either. ”
Source
Franz Pichler, Augustinus Asenbaum: Zum Studium von Nikolaus Tesla in Graz und Prag. Februar 1996.
Oh Noes! The blog’s crazy lazy scanner once again has let a spec char disappear… thus again, for the sake of completeness:
In French we say in this case: Plus bête tu meurs.
C’est la vie.
binny…you are trying to malign and ad hom a great scientist who discovered the principles of 3-phase power transmission and invented 3-phase transformers and motors long before anyone else understood the concept.
He convinced vested interests in the US to go with 3-phase transmission facilities rather than using Edison’s idea of D-C transmission. Tesla played a major role in the power transmission technology we use today. I’d say the guy was brilliant based on what was known around the turn of the 20th century about any of that technology.
On the other hand, you’re an idiot who is incapable of understanding the genius of Tesla or simple matters of physics related to the non-rotation of the Moon.
Bindidon claims he will “go with”, and then names a bunch of people. The first on the list is Cassini, who was an astrologer, and likely is the only who started the Moon nonsense. He wasn’t a scientist. He was a fortune-teller. Just the kind of “science” Bindidon relies on.
The second name on the list is Newton. Newton was the one who proved Moon is not rotating. He invented the calculus that Midas tries to corrupt.
ClintR
You are exactly the same kind of dumb, ignorant, discrediting and denigrating liar as Robertson.
1. Cassini wasn’t an astrologer, he was an astronomer, and has setup laws you neither understand let alone would be able to build by your own.
These laws are still in use today, e.g. recently by the Chinese conceptors of the Chang’e 4 Moon mission.
*
2. Exactly the contrary is the case. Newton never proved that Moon is not rotating, see Principia Mathematica, Book 3, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV:
https://tinyurl.com/yytuurr9
TProposition XVII’s official translation in English by Andrew Motte, republished in the US in 1846:
https://tinyurl.com/y6rd423p
” PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I.
Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25½ days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
These things appear by the Phænomena. The spots in the sun's body return to the same situation on the sun's disk, with respect to the earth, in 27½ days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25½ days.
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb; but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moon's latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic. ”
There are persons – like e.g. JD*Huffman – who are so stubborn that they reject Newton’s thoughts due to the concept ‘wrt the fixed stars’ … because they don’t understand what this means.
Other persons are so ignorant that they don’t even understand the fundamental difference between optical and physical librations!
This is the summum of ignorance.
Are you as dumb and ignorant as is JD*Huffman, ClintR ?
*
I don’t mind about your opinion, nor did I write this comment for you, ClintR.
I wrote it for intelligent people, a category of persons you don’t seem to belong to.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, I noted the childish insults. Such is the result of your frustration because you are unable to pervert reality.
Now, let’s correct some of your nonsense:
Cassini was definitely an astrologer. In fact, he was court astrologer to Louis XIV. Wikipedia even mentions that, but tries to cover up for him, as you do. Cassini was jealous of Newton and other true scientists. After Newton formulated his Laws of Motion, Cassini came up with his bogus 3 “laws”, which are easily debunked.
Newton provided the calculus to demonstated how gravity affects an orbiting body. His work allowed for the disproof of both Moon’s bogus axial rotation, as well as the bogus “tidal locking”.
Thanks for the links and quotes that add nothing to your disjointed typing exercise.
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…”
Newton seems to be talking about the Moon’s orbit, not a lunar rotation about a local axis. I think the axis to which he refers is the Earth.
That’s correct, Gordon. The key to what he’s talking about is “lunar day”. A lunar day is caused by Moon’s orbit around Earth. There are two orbits involved–Moon around Earth, and Earth around Sun. It’s confusing to some because an Earth day is caused by Earth’s axial rotation, but a lunar day is caused by Moon’s orbit. Moon is not rotating about its axis (as you know).
The Moon can’t have a lunar day without spinning on its axis, that should be obvious by now.
Something that isn’t spinning can’t be spinning, something that can’t be spinning can’t turn with respect to the Sun and have days and nights.
Something that has days and nights has to be spinning to turn the object with respect to the Sun. Something that has days and nights has to be spinning. Something that is spinning can’t be not spinning.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-519066
The subject is rotation around an axis within the body, not revolution which is rotation around an axis outside the body.
What part of that do you not understand?
You see any change in orientation the moon makes as it moves, as proof of axial rotation.
However, the definition of revolution is a rotation about an external axis. An object rotating about an external axis necessarily has to change its orientation as it moves.
Use the transmographer to rotate an object “around a point” to confirm this for yourself:
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
The moon is just revolving.
ClintR claims the motions are dependent: “A lunar day is caused by Moon’s orbit around Earth.”
No ClintR, a lunar day is the period of time for Earth’s moon to complete one rotation on its own axis with respect to the Sun independent of moon orbit.
Since the moon rotates once on its own axis per rev. like a ball on a string, a lunar day is also the time the moon takes to complete one orbit with respect to the Earth and return to the same lunar phase.
ClintR and DREMT should use the transmographer to rotate an object “around a point” to confirm the moon’s motion is same as ball on string rotating once on their own axis per rev. and show their steps like ftop_t so any errors as are found in ftop_ts work can be pointed out.
You see any change in orientation the moon makes as it moves, as proof of axial rotation.
However, the definition of revolution is a rotation about an external axis. An object rotating about an external axis necessarily has to change its orientation as it moves.
Use the transmographer to rotate an object “around a point” to confirm this for yourself:
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
The moon is just revolving, not rotating on its own axis.
The moon is just revolving, not rotating on its own axis when the stars and sun are fixed in the moon sky. Not observed except in DREMT’s imagination.
Ball4 is clinically insane.
Please don’t get too close.
You see any change in orientation the moon makes as it moves, as proof of axial rotation.
However, the definition of revolution is a rotation about an external axis. An object rotating about an external axis necessarily has to change its orientation as it moves.
Use the transmographer to rotate an object “around a point” to confirm this for yourself:
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
The moon is just revolving, not rotating on its own axis…
You can use the transmogrifier to rotate the square around a point within the square or a point outside the square.
The first case is just rotation, the second case is both rotation and revolution.
The transmogrifier won’t do just revolution.
“Around a point” is just revolution. There is no axial rotation programmed into that motion. That is why it has a separate option for “around center” (axial rotation).
Yes, two buttons! DREMT can’t use them correctly though (no steps shown) just like ftop_t couldn’t (incorrect steps shown).
Poor Ball4. He has completely lost it.
Nope DREMPTY
Rotation around a point is still rotation plus revolution.
What part of that do you not understand?
Wrong, blob.
Not necessarily bob if the point of rotation isn’t itself orbiting anything, go to transmographer:
1) Click “New Triangle”.
2) Under “Around a Point” enter x = center of mass x, then y = center of mass y, degrees: 45
3) Click “Rotate” and again & again.
THAT is pure rotation about cg, no orbiting about external point. One kinematic motion, not two.
Ball4 probably believes he has a point.
ball4 and bobd…”No ClintR, a lunar day is the period of time for Earths moon to complete one rotation on its own axis with respect to the Sun independent of moon orbit”.
There’s a confusion here between a day = 24 hours, and ‘day time’. A lunar day is the time when the Sun is shining on the Moon and that occurs when the near side is on the other side of the Earth.
There are many people seriously confused about this including wikipedia. Day time means sunlight…case closed. Wiki is claiming a day as a full orbit which is nonsense.
If you live on the near side of the Moon, you have to ask when that side will be lit. It obviously only happens when the Moon is opposite the Earth from the Sun.
If you live on the so-called dark side, that side is lit when the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, making the near side dark.
Don’t you see where this confusion about rotation leads? If you lived on the near-side, you’d want to be seriously careful about day and night since there is a huge temperature difference between the two. The idiots at wikipedia seems to think the near side rotates through 360 degrees and gets lit that way.
You live in Oz don’t you, bobd? Is there such a thing as a universal day/night on Earth? No, it depends on where you live. Since you are pretty well on the other side of the Earth from Vancouver, Canada, when it is day time here it is night time on your side.
Why? Because the Sun shines during ‘day time’.
We all know the day is defined as 24 hours duration and that’s because it takes roughly 24 hours for the Earth to complete one rotation. The idiots at wiki think the same is true for the Moon because it takes an alleged 28 days to complete one rotation. How idiotic can you get?
Defining a lunar day as one orbit of the Moon is absolute nonsense. Lunar day and Earth day are derived by two different means. Earth day is defined based on one rotation of the Earth. A lunar day is based on the position of the Moon in its orbit.
“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 ORBIT
Gordon, it is clear, to even blind Freddie in a drug induced coma, that Newton was referring to the revolution of the moon about its axis and explicitly stating that is equal to the moon’s orbital period.
Space Cadet Gordon, your eccentricity never ceases to amaze. As a consequence you seem to be spending most of your time well beyond Pluto’s orbit and only the briefest time in the vicinity of the Earth. Maybe you should occasionally phone home.
The idiots continue their attempts to pervert reality.
Taking Newton out-of-context is a trick Bindidon has used before. It is documented in their growing list of failed attempts.
Rather that argue endlessly about all of their failed attempts, I prefer to just bring everything back to reality with simple examples like the ball on a string, or wooden horse on a mgr.
They hate reality.
…reality with simple examples like the ball on a string, or bolted wooden horse on a mgr rotating once on their own axis per rev. two motions as demonstrated by the transmographer.
“A lunar day is the time when the Sun is shining on the Moon”
The sun is always shining on the moon Gordon unless it is eclipsed in Earth’s shadow.
The “around a point” motion is one distinct, separate and independent motion. Axial rotation is another.
ClintR,
Interesting choice of words above, in particular the use of “pervert ” . You have used this term as a verb and the noun ( ” perversion” ) some 48 times in this thread. This seems to be excessive. Your trademark is so reminiscent of the dearly departed g*e.. who used his own trademark “hilarious” prolifically before he was unceremoniously ejected. Could there be a genealogical link?
There is another curious aspect of the choice of this word. In particular the overuse of this word suggests it is a projection of ClintR’s state of mind.
However there is the possibility that “perverted physics” is just a variation upon a theme, such as “decadent art”, but that might be unnecessarily invoking Godwin’s Law.
Ball4, I have to correct (slightly) your statement that the sun is always shining on the moon. Technically there are deep craters at the poles of the moon that are in permanent darkness.This is despite the 2 degree tilt of the rotational axis of the moon with respect to the normal of the orbital plane.
Even during the lunar summer for each pole, the sun only rises to a maximum of 2 degrees above the horizon,
Information about the craters at the north lunar pole is here-
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20101005-lunarpole.html
MikeR, thus the sun always shines on nothing. There are exceptions to many statements.
Very good, MikeR. Keep reading and studying my comments. Memorization is also helpful. You’re welcome to print then out and put them on your walls. Count the words.
Idiots can’t learn, but who knows, maybe if you continue to put out enough effort….
Gordon,
The Moon has night time and day time because the Moon spins with respect to the Sun, so when the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, and you are on the near side, it’s dark, then 14 days or so later when the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon, it is day time on the Moon.
The only way this can happen is if the Moon is rotating on its axis.
bob, that apparent “spin” is due to Moon’s orbit. It is orbiting, not rotating about its axis.
It’s the same motion as the ball on a string. Not hard to understand, unless you’re an idiot.
“Very good, MikeR. Keep reading and studying my comments. Memorization is also helpful. Youre welcome to print then out and put them on your walls. Count the words.”
No Clintr I tend to use a computer to count the words for such an intensive task,
They can also provide evidence for Sock Puppets, without providing absolute proof.
On that note, I think lexical and behavioural analysis combined with the commonality of obsessions and delusions confirms that the null hypothesis, that you Clint are not the spawn of g*e/huff is false (p<0.05) . The evidence with regard to DREM is not as clear cut, probably not to the 2 sigma level.
I seem to recall that these nominal ancestors of yours started the nonsense in the first place.
When is the next cull due?
ClintR,
Nope, it’s not apparent, it is actually spinning on it’s axis turning its face so that almost all of the Moon is exposed to the light from the Sun each month.
You know the far side of the Moon is farther from the Earth-Moon barycenter, because its the far side so for each orbit it moves farther, because the orbit path of the far side is 2*pi*r, and the near sides orbit path is also 2*pi*r, but the r for the near side is smaller, because it’s the near side.
So the far side is moving faster than the near side, so they should be moving apart since one is moving faster than the other.
DUH
The only way that could be is if the Moon is spinning.
Double DUH
Gordon,
Entries are still open for this challenge-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-519767
Why don’t you have a go?
No bob, Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. It’s the same motion as the ball on a string.
The string imparts torque if the ball rotates off centre.
Quite unlike the moon.
ClintR,
Nope, it’s not just like the motion of a ball on a string, an idiot could observe that the Moon moves in an ellipse, not a circle like a ball on a string.
Also it can be observed that the axis the Moon rotates on is not 90 degrees to the axis the Moon revolves around, so it’s not like a ball on a string where the two axes are perpendicular.
An idiot could see that.
I think you mean parallel, not perpendicular.
DREMPTY,
No, I meant perpendicular, both the axis the ball on a string rotates around and revolves around are perpendicular to the plane of the orbit the ball follows.
But I should have said the plane the Moon revolves in.
It’s the same point I have made, that the axis the moon rotates around and the axis the Moon revolves around are not parallel, because the axis of rotation of the Moon is tilted with respect to the axis it is revolving around.
Which is the fact that you deny.
Whatever.
The moon remains oriented to its orbital plane a certain way whilst it orbits.
DREMPTY,
yes, very good.
The orientation of the Moon to its orbital plane is tilted, and that orbital plane is also tilted so you can see more than 1/2 of the Moon from any vantage point on the Earth.
And the axis it is actually rotating around is tilted to the plane of the orbit.
All of this has been observed by competent astronomers.
Still two motions rotating and revolving.
“The orientation of the Moon to its orbital plane is tilted, and that orbital plane is also tilted so you can see more than 1/2 of the Moon from any vantage point on the Earth.”
That’s right. And none of that proves axial rotation of the moon.
ClintR,
In the interests of historical accuracy Cassini was primarily an astronomer and not an astrologer (but in those days sometimes the roles overlapped), He dabbled in astrology in his youth but denounced it later in life.
See –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Domenico_Cassini
Even the great Newton spent most of his life dabbling in alchemy. Another genius who had weird ideas in areas outside his expertise, was Nikolai Tesla. Just goes to prove that you can be an absolute genius in one field but get thing totally wrong in another.
In contrast, the ability to get it totally wrong, in so many areas, seems to be the chief expertise of so many people who comment here. Sigh.
The transmographer settles our disagreement. Sorry for your loss.
I think Gordon might have been right once, in this exchange with Bindidon and me:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-337736
Do we have any other experts in the field that can confirm it?
The transmographer does settle any disagreement, there are two motions for the moon as shown by the triangle. One motion for the turntable.
The “around a point” motion is one distinct, separate and independent motion. Axial rotation is another.
The transmographer correctly shows the motions for any reader, DREMT, not DREMT’s inept descriptions which are inaccurate.
I recommend any reader uses the transmographer for themselves, rather than listen to either of us contradicting the other one endlessly and pointlessly.
Yes, the transmographer will correctly show the 2 motions (rotation about own axis, cg translation) of the moon in orbit (curvilinear translation) for any reader, even DREMT.
Ball4 relishes endless, pointless contradiction.
The point is to correct DREMT to that which the transmographer shows for the observed motion of the moon (rotation about own axis, cg translation).
“Around a point” rotation is one single motion, and the object moves with one face always pointed towards the center. The transmographer proves me right.
But anyone familiar with rotation about an external axis would have already known that, anyway. This is just to enlighten readers who might not have been familiar with that fact.
MikeR, “in the interests of historical accuracy”, you try to fake a knowledge of things but don’t know crap. You couldn’t even define “torque” correctly.
You have repeatedly tried to pervert reality. You’re an idiot.
Clint , I feel your a pain but try not to be so bitter and twisted.
Some words of reassurance.
You can always dispense with this terminally sick puppet at any time.
G* maybe it’s time to move on again. Choose a different trademark. Hilarious perversions are old hat,
Gordon asks,
How can the train rotate around the dowel when its wheels are constrained to follow the circular track?
Sigh….. did you see my last comment?
Snape,
Sigh….. I did. You are still an idiot.
So now Mike Flynn / Amazed / Swenson is admitting to being Gordon?
Bobdesbonddesmidas, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
[If anything, the dowel is turning within the hole you drilled in the train. You seem to think if its turning in the whole then in a relative sense the train is rotating about the dowel.]
There is a mark on one side of the dowel that always faces the same direction – towards the hook on the wall. Like a compass needle that always faces North.
Why do you think an object that always faces the same direction is turning?
Snape,
Why do you keep on about irrelevant nonsense?
The choo choo faces one direction after another…. north, east, south, west…. the dowel always faces the hook.
– if anything, the dowel is turning –
??
snape…”The choo choo faces one direction after another. north, east, south, west.”
That’s a property of the orbit and involves curvilinear motion, not rotation.
Figure it out. The Moon has only one property of motion a linear momentum. If you released it from Earth’s gravity, it would move off in a straight line and that would be rectilinear translation. What happens if you gradually nudge if off that trajectory into a circle or ellipse? You have curvilinear translation and the Moon naturally faces E, W, N, and S due to translation without rotation.
Someone told me that my toy train is spinning around Earths axis of rotation – so I nailed it to the floor. It aint going nowhere now!
Snape,
Still playing with words? What an idiot.
snape…”so I nailed it to the floor. It aint going nowhere now!”
First you drill a hole in the poor train and now you have nailed it to the floor. You have to learn how to play nicely with your toys.
But Ive been keeping an eye on it just to be sure. So far, It hasnt moved an inch.
Snape,
Still playing with words? What an idiot. Quit while you are behind. You need to read Sir Isaac Newtons *Principia*. An oldie but a goodie.
Why so chippy, Mike?
I thought we were friends?
Go away troll.
Hey Mike,
I was browsing through another thread, and was struck by something Gordon had written about COVID,
[It means that only 187,624 people have been alleged to have died and that comes out to a ratio of 0.000566 people per 328 million,]
If I read Principia, will I be able to do math like that?
Who is Mike?
Go away troll.
You admitted to being Mike, Mike.
“Gotcha! Troll!”
Midas,
Who is Mike? Dont expect me to participate in your fantasy.
If that is all you can contribute, go away troll
Exactly your response when you were “Amazed”.
Snape,
Read Principia and find out. Nullius in verba.
Before Newton, nobody had managed to figure out why the Moon traced out the path it does. The generally held belief was that angels or similar beings pushed celestial bodies around.
Of course you wouldnt believe that a force needs to be exerted to push the Moon around the Earth, would you?
If one thing is certain, it is that you have never read Principia,, Mikey.
Midas believes he can read the mind of a figment of his imagination. What a guy!
Oh look!! A figment of my imagination just replied to me again!! And it is giving off such rotten odours.
Hey Mike,
You and me have something in common – I noticed your apostrophes disappear too!
Maybe we should get a Fosters, talk about what to do?
Try a VB or a Cooper’s instead.
bobd…”Try a VB or a Coopers instead”.
Send me a dozen and I’ll let you know.
Been a while since I was down under, you will have to go there yourself.
bobd…”Been a while since I was down under, you will have to go there yourself”.
Might just do that one day. Kinda fancy seeing Perth for some reason. Might get up to Darwin and visit Mike Flynn. If the fresh-water crocks don’t get me first.
Gordon, I would worry about all types of crocs.
However the crocks are normally harmless in comparison, except for Mike Flynn. After keeping the emission of GHG under check while he was undercover, as I suggested previously, he is dangerous.
Bring a gas mask (something more effective than a P95).
Midas,
So, from an Earth reference frame, the kinetic energy of the moon would be based on the velocity it moves across the sky (diurnal motion) + orbital velocity + wobbles.
Because it is not rotating WRT the earth, there would not be any kinetic energy associated with rotation.
That is my VERY novice take, anyway. Please correct me as if I have it wrong.
You have it wrong.
snape
You all can argue forever about what you think is the accurate description for orbiting objects. But nature ultimately will give us the proper answer.
The contenders for a definition of ‘an orbit with no rotation’ for a moon seem to be:
The path of the point that marks the center of mass, and the object maintains an orientation such that some point is always …
1)) pointing toward some fixed point in space.
2a) pointing forward along the direction of travel
2b) pointing toward the center of the orbit
2c) pointing toward the planet.
For a tidally locked, circular orbit, all of these can accurately explain the motion. They use different words (1: rotating with uniform angular velocity about its axis once per orbit vs 2: not rotating on its axis), but they all predict identical motions. All are equally good at conserving energy and conserving angular momentum (and obeying any other laws you want to invoke).
Nature really wouldn’t care which description based solely on circular orbits.
So now consider an elliptical orbit. All four of those descriptions of “an orbit with no rotation” give different motions! A moon, will, naturally, only execute one of those 4 motions. If you can show that conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are true for your description, then nature has selected you as the’winner’!
Note that you can’t argue by analogy to anything like “a horse bolted to a merry-go-round” or “a train moving around a track” since there are no wooden platforms or train tracks holding moons. You must invoke only the gravitational force and/or gravitational torques.
Tim believes: “They use different words (1: rotating with uniform angular velocity about its axis once per orbit vs 2: not rotating on its axis), but they all predict identical motions.”
Tim, 1 and 2 are NOT the same motions!
PS A “point” doesn’t point! You need two “points” to establish a line that can then point.
You comment adds nothing but your confused opinions.
Clint you make two objections. They both show you don’t understand.
1) “You need two points to establish a line that can then point.”
And since there was a postulated object, the object provides infinite other points with which to establish orientation.
2) Yes, the two motions are identical. Consider an x-y coordinate system, where the origin moves in a circle at uniform speed. You could have:
a) the x-y coordinates maintaining a fixed orientation relieve the the fixed stars, with an object rotating relative to the those fixed axes.
b) the x-y coordinates maintaining a fixed orientation relative to a rotating platform, with an objected fixed to those x-y axes.
Mathematically produce IDENTICAL motions of the object.
Tim, remember that old adage: “Don’t drink and type”.
Tim,
[Note that you cant argue by analogy to anything like a horse bolted to a merry-go-round or a train moving around a track since there are no wooden platforms or train tracks holding moons. You must invoke only the gravitational force and/or gravitational torques.]
********
That misses the point of the analogy. Earths gravity forces the same side of the moon to always face Earth. The track forces the same side of the train to always face the center of the track. Similarly, the horse, being nailed down, means the same side will always face the center of the MGR.
Different forcings, same result.
*******
Walking in a circle, I have no such constraint. I can continuously face any direction I want – a point inside or outside the circle.
******
Slightly off topic, but Midas disagreed with my previous comment. Maybe you could weigh in and elaborate?
“Different forcings, same result. ”
No. Not at all.
A train following a circular track MUST keep one side toward the center.
A horse bolted to the merry-go-round MUST keep one side toward the center.
Gravity only makes a very weak suggestion to keep one side of a moon toward the center.
Gravity is not a “constraint”, it is merely a suggestion.
If gravity DID force objects to move with one side always facing inward, the earth itself would ALSO keep one side toward the moon. And the earth would keep one side toward the sun. (The earth’s rotation is indeed slowing due to gravitational , but it will be many billions more years before the earth becomes tidally locked.)
Bolts are “the next-best-thing-to-infinite-friction bearings”. Gravity is “the next-best-thing-to-frictionless bearings.”
As for observing the moon from the earth rotating frame, my suggestion is to avoid non-inertial reference frames whenever possible. They introduce “fictitious forces” (like centrifugal force and Coriolis force). Sure, it can be done, but almost always it is simpler to use an inertial frame.
(Also, it is not clear if you mean the frame rotating with the earth once per day. or the frame rotating with the moon once per month).
For a little levity along such lines ….
https://xkcd.com/123/
Going back to my very first comment on this silly debate:
– Find a toy train that circles a little track. From high above, hold your phone still and make a video of the train and track below.
– When the video is done, zoom in on just the train, so it fills the whole screen.
ClintR and Gordon will watch in horror as the train is seen to rotate around its own axis.
Yep, once per rev.
No, it would appear to be rotating on its own axis. In reality, the change in orientation is due to the orbital motion.
The transmographer proves DREMT wrong, there are two motions displayed showing triangle cg translation AND triangle rotation about internal axis 360 per rev.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-519484
So much anger, Herr/Frau/Fraulein ClintR, so much anger but so little content
Definition of torque is here if you need to know. Just replace mass with moment of inertia.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-518810
Yes I made a mistake which I readily admit to. Fortunately it made zero difference to that discussion.
Clint, have you never made a mistake? As you are clearly a figjam kind of guy, you will probably answer no but others can judge accordingly (not looking good).
MikeR, you don’t know crap about physics and you run from reality.
All you can do is make up nonsense, as you type. Your comments are of no value.
Yeh ClintR, I know nothing. I don’t know why they put the same three letters after my name that Dr Roy has after his.
Clint, I can think of many T.L.A.s that could be appended to your name. The first that comes readily to mind is T.F.I..
MikeR tries for some reality: “Yeh ClintR, I know nothing.”
I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but when you are dealing with a twit it can be useful.
Anyway ClintR he has now graduated to T.F.I.(honours)
snape…”ClintR and Gordon will watch in horror as the train is seen to rotate around its own axis”.
No, we are watching this hilarious misunderstanding of science with utmost amusement.
Try to understand the following, it’s really not that difficult. Rotation about an axis requires a tangential force or momentum about an axis to drive the angular velocity of the rotation. Your train is clearly prevented from rotating by the tracks and even if it could rotate about its COG, there is no force in a direction tangential to the COG to do that.
The only driving force for your train is straight ahead and the train turns because the rails guide it in a circle. In a similar manner, the Moon has linear momentum and Earth’s gravity guides it in a circular orbit.
Don’t believe that? Take the train off the rails and run it on the floor, even if you have to push it from behind due to the power coming from the tracks. While pushing it from behind, does it turn in a perfect circle? Does it rotate?
You are viewing curvilinear translation and the change of direction is totally explained by that motion, just as it is with the Moon in its orbit.
“The only driving force for your train is straight ahead and the train turns because the rails guide it in a circle. ”
The rails guide the train in a circle BY PROVIDING A TANGENTIAL FORCE! An object can only be ‘guided’ by a (net) force. Circular motion requires a constant sideways (“centripetal”) force. The only (net) force is sideways. There is no (net) ‘driving force’ required to keep the train moving forward. Just like there is not ‘driving force’ required to keep the moon moving forward.
If you remove the ‘guiding force’ of the rails, the train would move straight ahead!
tim…” There is no (net) ‘driving force’ required to keep the train moving forward. Just like there is not ‘driving force’ required to keep the moon moving forward.
If you remove the ‘guiding force’ of the rails, the train would move straight ahead!”
Then what keeps the train moving forward, Tim? It’s the train motor, n’est-ce pas? It’s the Moon’s momentum keeps it moving straight forward and that momentum was produced by a force. It would take a force acting over a certain time to stop that momentum so I have argued that momentum is the equivalent of a force.
Newton referred to inertia as a force that resists motion. In the same way, momentum should be a force that resists a loss of velocity.
With the Moon in its orbit we are not talking net force, we are talking resultant force. The Moon’s momentum keeps it moving straight ahead and Earth’s gravity pulls it toward the Earth. The resultant between the Moon’s momentum and the force of gravity is the orbital path.
If you don’t like momentum as a force than calculate the force required to stop its momentum and replace it with the equal and opposite force. The resultant of that force with the force of gravity should give you the resultant orbital path.
The rail’s action on the train wheels cannot supply a centripetal force, it can only supply a friction force. A centripetal force like gravity is due to an actual gravitational force field. The rails possess no such field, all they can do is guide the wheels in a circle by friction.
All the same, my point is that the friction contact between the wheels (actually a wheel flange that sits inside the rails) prevents the train from turning around its own centre of gravity as would be required for rotation about that COG.
The motion of the train on the tracks is no different than a car on a non-linear highway. As the car moves along the highway it can face in any number of directions and we know a car on rubber wheels on a highway does not rotate about its COG unless the driver loses control and the car goes into a spin.
Tim was confused about orbital motion back in May, when I joined the discussion. He remains confused: “The rails guide the train in a circle BY PROVIDING A TANGENTIAL FORCE!”
The rails provide a force (reaction) PERPENDICULAR to the circle tangent. That reactive force is called “centripetal”. A centripetal force is NOT the force “pulling” the train. As Gordon hinted, the “pulling” force is provided by the train engine.
Tim was confused about this back in May, as he stated that Moon only had one force acting on it. Moon has TWO forces acting on it. If gravity supplied the only force, Moon would fall into Earth. Moon’s orbital path is the resultant of these two forces.
I have not seen even one of the idiots that understands basic orbital motion. All they have are their cult beliefs.
ClintR,
The Moon has two forces acting on it if you call inertia a force.
That’s just like saying my cat has five legs if you call its tail a leg.
Yes bob, we already know you don’t understand physics.
ClintR,
There are only three forces, the strong force, the electro-weak force and gravity.
Gravity is the one keeping the Moon in orbit.
Note inertia and momentum don’t make the list.
Where did you study physics?
Crackerjack U?
Wrong again, bob.
There are considered to be 4 “fundamental” forces. You forgot “electromagnetic”.
But, if you had ever studied physics, you would know there are more forces than just the “4 fundamental”. Moon has two forces acting on it. If it were only acted on by gravity, it would fall to Earth.
ClintR,
You have to keep up.
I mentioned the electro-weak force which is a combination of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force.
“Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam,[1][2] and Steven Weinberg[3] were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for their contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, known as the WeinbergSalam theory.”
Most of that work was done before I graduated high school.
So when and where did you study physics to get it soooo ****** up?
Must have missed the chapter on Modern Physics.
3 forces, one simple machine and one significant figure.
ClintR,
You have to keep up.
I mentioned the electro-weak force which is a combination of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force.
“Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam,[1][2] and Steven Weinberg[3] were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for their contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, known as the Weinberg–Salam theory.”
Most of that work was done before I graduated high school.
So when and where did you study physics to get it wrong?
Must have missed the chapter on Modern Physics.
3 forces, one simple machine and one significant figure.
Wrong again, bob.
An interaction between two forces does not mean that the two forces don’t exist. This stuff is so far over your head that you remind me of Norman.
ClintR,
You really need to provide assistance to poor old DREMT.
He is struggling big time with this
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-519767
A & B both appear to be rotating on their own axes, C appears to be not rotating on its own axis…
…but appearances can be deceptive.
DREM,
Do the dumbbells A and B only “appear” to be rotating on their axes or are they actually rotating on there axes?
This the crucial question.
https://i.postimg.cc/m4pX0W1b/Guess-Which-One-is-Rotating.gif
DREM,
If you have any doubt about reality, then calculate the Kinetic Energy of rotation of the three examples.
That should help you sort out reality from fantasy.
p.s. you do know how to calculate the kinetic energy fro rotation? Assume the moment of inertia of each dumbbell is the same.
They appear to be. Only when we “zoom out” to see the orbital motion can we know for sure. You can skip ahead to that part now.
And to further assist DREM to calculate the kinetic energy for each dumbbell, he can calculate the angular velocity by measuring how long it takes for each dumbbell to rotate once though 360 degrees.
Ok DREM needs more help.
K.E. = 1/2 I w^2 , where I is the moment of inertia around an axis through the centre of mass (i.e. the red dot on the dumbbell) and w is the angular velocity.
So DREM which of A, B and C has the largest Rotational K.E. and which has the least?
I have given you my answer, and await the “zooming out”.
Ah the avoidance of DREM. It is like pulling teeth.
It seems he can’t even cope with a simple calculation of K.E..
Amazing!
So DREM if you can’t calculate it why not estimate it visually.
Which of A,B or C has the largest K.E. of rotation and which has the least?
This answer, of course, does not depend on zooming out or in.
It just establishes that when it comes to reality, physical properties such as angular momentum and kinetuc energy matter.
So no more I have already answered it b.s..You simply haven’t.
I am tired of waiting for DREM to answer the kinetic energy question so before I retire for the night, I must further comment.
DREM is relying on the “it appears” or “it seems” defence because he knows where this is all heading. But in the end reality always wins and is currently biting him on the bum .
Howrver there is one thing I can say about DREM.
He maybe totally incompetent in physics, but he is great at evasion. I think he might have had some involvement with the law or politics. I think he should have stuck with that.
It can be fun skewering a troll, particularly this serial pest but a new week now beckons.
p.s. i will wait until tomorrow to zoom out and deliver the final coup de grace. Presumably DREM will claim the rotating dumbbell only “appears” to rotate because, in reality, it is only orbiting. If this is the case the kinetic energy of rotation (and the angular momentum of rotation) have now instantaneously disappeared. Probably fallen behind the couch, along with the lost keys.
“Presumably DREM will claim the rotating dumbbell only “appears” to rotate because, in reality, it is only orbiting.”
Yes, MikeR. If indeed it is the case that one of the dumbbells is only orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis, then that will be that. Of course we already know that such a dumbbell appears to be rotating on its own axis, from inertial space.
You really haven’t progressed one iota in understanding.
You forgot to do the calculation.
ClintR,
You still clutching to inertia and momentum being forces or are they non-existent forces.
Make up some more physics.
bob, you’re confused by physics. And, you reject reality.
That makes you doubly funny.
Before I administer the final dose of the Russian approved Sputnik vaccine (a.k.a. Novachok) to put DREM to sleep, I note with amusement ClintR contributions to my compendium of schoolboy and undergraduate howlers (Newton must be spinning on his axis in his grave).
As DREM (I need to stop laughing…) has , despite an intensive search for the missing kinetic energy ( and his accomplice angular momentum) seems to have given up, I will now post the “zoomed out version”.
https://postimg.cc/k63hJyqm
Case B is the relevant version. Case A would have been the relevant version if the orbital frequency was doubled to match the axial rotational frequency.
Case C which has zero axial rotation and conseqently zero axial rotational kinetic energy clearly doesn’t work for any orbital frequency.
Finally, despite DREM’s bluster and his final death rattles , the fat lady has sung. Game over. This dead parrot has gone to meet its maker.
We have got to the end of the yellow brick road to find that in “reality”, in contrast to “appearance”, the wizard is actually a pathetic old man.
So, A is rotating on its own axis once, CW, per CW orbit.
B is not rotating on its own axis.
C is rotating on its own axis once, CCW, per CW orbit.
The EveryReady Bunny is back, sowing (and showing) confusion.
My reply to his comment above is here in one of the originating threads.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-520657 .
Over and out for the moment. Out to enjoy the sunshine.
Back from enjoying the sunshine and I note this response from DREM.
“So, A is rotating on its own axis once, CW, per CW orbit.
B is not rotating on its own axis.
C is rotating on its own axis once, CCW, per CW orbit.”
Hmm, where have I seen this before? Sounds oddly familiar.
I am pretty sure it is a close match to the response of g^e^r^a^n or one his many spawn when first confronted by the same questions . I must get my sock puppet detection software out and do a search for the relevant keywords.
Going back even earlier, I wonder who was responsible for starting this lunacy and exactly when it started?
Only a complete idiot would have started this and only a Team of Idiots would have continued it.
I am hoping to confirm the many suspicions regarding the identities of the protagonists to a certainty comparable to the confirmation of the Higgs Boson, rather than just at the two sigma level.
Stay tuned.
Preliminary results as to the origins of the moon lunacy theory is presented here.
As expected patient zero was g-e-r-a-n. The date and time the patient first exhibited symptoms was Dec 16 , 2017 at 7:33 pm
See https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276566
Valiant attempts were made to control the initial outbreak of stupidity by several such as Norman, Svante, bobdroedge slong with the many, many others who risked their sanity attempting to deal with this outbreak.
Conventional treatments, from day one, such as reasoned arguments and explanations about frames of reference, graphical depictions etc, were found to be ineffectual and these mainstream treatments are to this day are still stubbornly resisted, due to the patient’s lack of insight.
After patient zero expired from terminal stupidity, contact tracing established that the infection propagated via a number of vectors , two of which were the aptly named J.Hopeless and Huffnpuff (both since succumbed).
It is now being actively spread by the superspreaders of stupidity, DREMT and the new kid on the block ClintR.
There are also susceptible individuals, due to unusally high levels of gullibility, such as Gordon and Mike Flynn (alias Swenson and many others) who need to be monitored carefully.
The replication rate, R0 is below 1 at present but it still very stubbornly persists at a low level in the community so we may have to wait for the vaccine against stupidity to become widely available to be safe from another wave of idiocy.
I for one, will volunteer for the stage 3 trials because of my recent daily close contact with these Typhoid Marys of Madness. I can already feel the onset of stupidity as a result of dealing with these characters but it might just be my early onset dementia.
p.s. Putting on my serious hat for a moment, what truly impreses me is how little progress has been made in the years from day one. Same arguments are being run, from the 5 minute argument to the now almost 3 year ongoing argument.
I guess when you are dealing with an individual (s?) who is so overly emotionally invested in their theory and accompanying delusions of grandeur, it becomes impossible to penetrate the defensive barriers.
Of course I also ask why do I bother, perhaps it is just the fun of mocking the pretensions of such people. Perhaps it is the realisation that these guys infict so much damage to their own side,that you feel you might as well participate in the carnage.
The “around a point” motion is one distinct, separate and independent motion. Axial rotation is another.
Yes DREMPTY,
There are two distinct motions, and the Moon is doing both of them.
Case closed.
You are wrong if you continue to argue otherwise.
Moon’s motion is the same as a ball on a string, being swung about one’s head. It’s “orbiting” but not rotating on its axis.
The transmographer proves you wrong, blob. Case closed.
Nope, DREMT is wrong, the transmographer correctly shows the ball on string rotating on ball’s own axis once per rev. (orbit). DREMT can’t reopen a long lost case.
Look how worked up Ball4 is by the transmographer. He is flying around all over the thread trying to cover up for it. Leaving comments every five minutes. He just cannot leave it alone.
They’re desperate to protect the nonsense.
Their Moon nonsense collapses, along with the bogus plates solution.
They’ve got to be worried.
What, Me Worry?
I know I am right, and I know you are wrong.
The transmographer proves you wrong, blob.
DREMPTY,
The transmogrifier only appears to prove me wrong to you.
It actually proves me right.
You push the rotate button, the thing rotates, it only appears to you to not rotate.
You rotate an object “around a point”, it rotates about 0,0 with one face always pointed towards the center of the orbit. One single motion, rotation about an external axis.
There is a separate option for axial rotation (“around center”).
DREMPTY,
nope, it is still two motions, rotating and revolving.
Just like any chart showing the properties of planets and moons, there are separate boxes for rotation rate and orbital rate.
They are separate motions.
You can “nope” until the cows come home, rotation about an external axis is one single motion of its own, not two.
DREMPTY,
It’s two motions for the Earth, and every other object except the Moon.
No it doesn’t work that way.
They are defined differently, here is orbit
“In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object”
and rotation
“the action of rotating around an axis or center.”
Yes, blob, there is revolution, and there is rotation. Two separate and independent motions.
Using the transmographer:
You rotate an object “around a point”, it rotates about 0,0 with one face always pointed towards the center of the orbit. One single motion, rotation about an external axis. That is “revolution”.
There is a separate option for axial rotation (“around center”).
Drempty,
When you rotate it around a point not at its center, it’s the path it takes that is revolution or orbit, whether it is spinning or not is a different question.
Since you pushed the rotate button, it is rotating, while it follows the path of the orbit.
Kinda high level science for you isn’t it?
The object is rotating about an external axis. One single motion.
Revolution is just another word for rotating about an external axis. That is why revolution is synonymous with rotation.
DREMPTY,
It’a always two motions, unless you can measure the rate of rotation to 34 decimal places.
You also say it just orbiting, that’s just following a path and has nothing to do with how fast it is rotating.
#2
Yes, blob, there is revolution, and there is rotation. Two separate and independent motions.
Using the transmographer:
You rotate an object “around a point”, it rotates about 0,0 with one face always pointed towards the center of the orbit. One single motion, rotation about an external axis. That is “revolution”.
There is a separate option for axial rotation (“around center”).
Yes bob, the obvious relevant two degrees of freedom of the moon IS kinda’ too high level science for DREMT. The transmographer gets the 2 DOF correct proving DREMT remains wrong.
Incorrect.
bob, DREMT 3:03pm has been easily refuted with transmographer, make sure “around center” is unchecked:
1) Click “New Triangle”.
2) Under “Around a Point” enter x = 0, then y = 0, degrees: 45
3) Click “Rotate” and again & again.
Watch the center of mass translate about external axis (center 0,0) calculations AND the triangle rotate about an internal axis once per rev. coming back to start position after 360 orbit (check on “original polygon”).
You rotate an object “around a point”, it rotates about 0,0 with one face always pointed towards the center of the orbit. One single motion, rotation about an external axis. That is “revolution”.
DREMT 3:25pm is also easily refuted with transmographer:
If you want to see 1DOF orbit, one single motion, rotation about an external axis that is “revolution” and no rotation on own internal axis, compute the coordinates on an orbit say at 90 degree locations from a starting point:
1) Click “New Triangle”. Mine had cg point at (5.67,2).
2) Under “Translate” enter x = first 90 degree point on ccw orbit away from (5.67, 2) e.g.: (0,4).
3) Click “Translate”
Observe orbiting 0,0 with no triangle rotation about internal axis, one DOF, like an orbiting moon not spinning on own axis.
Ball4, “rotation about an external axis” is not “translation”.
If you are using the “translate” section, you are not rotating the object about an external axis.
That’s correct DREMT, for once, the object (triangle) is then 1DOF orbiting (0,0) and not rotating on its own axis. Like a moon orbiting a planet where the stars are fixed in the moon sky and there is no moon day/night cycle as only one hemisphere is ever illuminated by the planet’s star.
“Orbiting” or “revolution” is defined as a rotation about an external axis:
“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.”
Just like the triangle kinematics the transmographer shows after the steps at 3:39pm, I’ll leave it to DREMT to compute rest of the points for experience.
No, just like the triangle kinematics the transmographer shows after the steps at 3:17pm.
The def. is appropriate after the steps at 3:17pm AND 3:39pm as there is a revolution (orbit) in both cases about (0,0). Only 3:17pm steps add the addition of rotation on its own axis once per rev. for the triangle.
3:17 is “revolution only”. One single motion.
Not according to transmographer which shows data for the triangle cg translating too DREMT. 2 DOF: translation of cg orbiting, rotation about triangle cg once per rev. You always miss or omit that first translation detail shown in transmographer. As bob points out, DREMT is not capable of understanding 2 DOF situations.
You rotate an object “around a point”, it rotates about 0,0 with one face always pointed towards the center of the orbit. One single motion, rotation about an external axis.
There is a separate option for axial rotation (“around center”).
Rotation about an external axis is motion in which all particles of the object move in concentric circles about the axis. That can only happen if the same face of the object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit.
That’s proven wrong by 3:17pm transmographer steps DREMT which shows translation of cg (orbiting external axis through 0,0) and triangle rotation about internal axis once per rev., 2 degrees of freedom not one single motion DREMT imagines.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.“
Concentric circles, Ball4. If all the particles of the body move in concentric circles about the external axis, then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The only way the particles of the body can move in concentric circles is if the same side of the body is facing towards the center of the orbit throughout.
Thus, a body that is moving in this manner is moving in purely rotational motion, by definition. Rotation about an external axis. One single motion. Revolution.
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line.”
3:17pm transmographer steps DREMT which show translation of cg (orbiting external axis through 0,0) is purely rotational motion occurring since every particle in the triangle moves in a circle about that single line through (0,0) AND purely triangle rotational motion occurring since every single particle of the triangle moves in a circle about a single line thru internal axis at cg once per rev.
Two single lines, two single axes of rotation (inside & outside triangle), one single line outside body and one single line inside body, two degrees of freedom DREMT not rotation about one single external axis, or one single motion, transmographer correctly shows triangle revolution about two independent single line axes, 2 degrees of freedom, like the moon, ball on string, cell phone on turntable, and toy train.
“AND purely triangle rotational motion occurring since every single particle of the triangle moves in a circle about a single line thru internal axis at cg once per rev”
…obviously not, or the particles of the body would not be moving in concentric circles about the external axis. The paths of the particles would cross, if there were any rotational motion about an internal axis of the triangle.
“Concentric” is not in the wiki def. DREMT, that’s your incorrect word usage. The transmographer 3:17pm steps correctly show the 2DOF motion consistent with wiki def.
I explained the connection between concentric circles and the wiki def.
You are just desperate.
DREMT incorrectly explained the connection between concentric circles and the wiki def., wiki def. does not use the word concentric. Wiki: “Any displacement of a rigid body may be arrived at by first subjecting the body to a displacement followed by a rotation, or conversely, to a rotation followed by a displacement.” the transmographer 3:17pm steps are correct for 2DOF, 2 axes of rotation – inside and outside of a rigid body triangle – consistent with wiki but not DREMT imagination.
You are just desperate.
ClintR
[Moons motion is the same as a ball on a string, being swung about ones head.]
Yep.
– From high above, hold your phone still and make a video of the ball and string below.
When the video is done, zoom in on just the ball, so it fills the whole screen.
********
G*eran, Huffy, DRE and ClintR (the four stooges?) will watch in horror as the ball is seen to rotate around its own axis.
Snape proudly repeats the same mistake.
And if the boys arent scared enough by the video, theres a full-length feature:
https://tinyurl.com/yyl9zawl
snape…”And if the boys arent scared enough by the video, theres a full-length feature:”
The only thing I find scary is your interpretation of physics. You are not alone, you have Swannie’s terrible conclusion from his experiment that heat can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot. Then you have Ball4’s assertion that heat does not exist, not to mention Norman’s belief system that allows heat to be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures by EM. He read it in a textbook, you know?.
Why is it that all the pseudo-science types are also climate alarmists?
On the statistical end you have Binny and Barry, who refuse to accept a citation from their authority, NOAA, that they have slashed their surface reporting stations from 6000 to less than 1500. When I pointed out to Barry, with a direct citation from the IPCC that no warming had occurred over the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012, he brought out a red herring argument that 15 years is too short a period to be significant.
Huh? A 15 year period of no warming when CO2 had been increasing yearly? The IPCC thought it had significance.
No, sir, you have all the dingbats in the climate alarm section. On the skeptical side, we are aligned with luminaries like Newton, Clausius, Wood, and Tesla.
bobd…”There are two distinct motions, and the Moon is doing both of them”.
That’s really odd physics. If the near face is always pointed in, that means all points on the near-face are moving in a circular orbit. Since the far-side is directly behind the NF on a radial line, it means all points on the far-side are moving in a concentric orbit outside the NF orbit.
It also means that all points in between are moving in concentric orbits. How do you get those points to rotate around the Moon’s imaginary axis if they are all moving in concentric orbits?
because the ones on the far side are moving farther than the ones on the near side, so they must be moving faster, if they are moving faster, they must be moving apart, but since they are not moving apart…
You figure it out, if they must be moving apart since they are moving faster, then how are they not moving apart?
All points of the Moon move at the same speed as the center of mass. Idiots can’t understand the physics.
Clint claims: “All points of the Moon move at the same speed as the center of mass.
Point on a merry-go-round farther from the center move faster than points closer to the center. Every 6 year old child knows this.
Points on the moon farther from the earth similarly move faster.
Every 6 year old child knows they are rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on their own axis, too.
Yes Tim, referenced to the center of orbit, you are correct. But that does not mean the far side of Moon is actually moving slower than the near side. All points of Moon are moving with it’s center of gravity.
Orbital motion can be very confusing, as you’re learning. (You are learning, aren’t you?)
Yes, Clint, different parts of the moon ARE moving at different speeds. If “R” is the diameter of the the moons orbit and “r” is the radius of the moon and T is the period, then the speeds of he nearest point, the center, and the farthest points are (distance travelled) / (time) = (circumference) / (period) = …
2 pi (R-r) / T
2 pi (R) / T
2 pi (R+r) /T
You can calculate these if you want. They are about 3675 km/hr, 3690 km/hr and 3705 km/hr. Or about 1% faster at the far side than the near side. (Since the moon’s orbit is not a perfect circle, these vary a bit, but the close side is always about 30 km/hr slower than the far side.)
“Orbital motion can be very confusing”
Clearly this is true for some people. Personally, this level of stuff is pretty simple. v = rω and d = vt should not be that tough.
Tim, you are still confused by orbital motion.
All points of Moon have the same speed, relative to its center of mass. All points of Moon have the same angular speed, relative to the center of orbit. You are confusing speed relative to center of mass with speed relative to center of orbit.
If the far side was moving at a higher speed than the near side, relative to center of mass, Moon would deform itself!
You can’t understand the physics. At least try to use some common sense.
tim…”Yes, Clint, different parts of the moon ARE moving at different speeds”.
Doesn’t matter Tim, the rules are different for a rigid body than they are for independent particles. If you consider a radial line from the Earth’s centre that intercepts the Equator at the Greenwich meridian, all points along that line are moving at different speeds but the radial line must complete a rotation in 24 hours.
You have to make a distinction between the instantaneous velocity of an independent particle and the overall angular velocity of particles that are not independent and part of a rigid body.
The reason the particles move at different velocities is due to the requirements of a rigid body. That radial line must complete a rotation in a certain time and the particles have to move at different speeds to since they are all connected together.
There’s another way to look at this. Consider the same radial line at the Equator. Now go up near the North Pole and draw a similar radial line from the Earth’s axis so it intercepts the Greenwich meridian at say 85 degrees N. The points where the radial lines meet the Greenwich meridian will travel at very different speeds but both will complete one rotation in 24 hours.
Same with the Moon. The point to note, however, is that a radial line through the Moon from the Earth must complete one orbit in about 28 days. All points on the Moon must comply. So all points are moving at the same angular velocity and in concentric orbits as part of the rigid body. Therefore they are performing curvilinear translation as per the definition.
At no time do any particles rotate about an axis through the Moon. If they did, the near face would be required to move away from pointing at the Earth.
I don’t see how NASA missed that one. Of course, many people at NASA are hired because they are good team players, they don’t question.
ClintR gets tripped up by a simple equation, D = 2*pi*r
Right ClintR, bigger circles have bigger diameters, right?
If you are referring to what I think you’re rerferring to, that was a test for Tim.
He failed again.
ClintR,
It was to this statement, I believe it was yours, maybe you should use quote marks if someone else said it.
“All points of the Moon move at the same speed as the center of mass. “
You quoted me correctly.
Good job.
Also bob, since you were unable to pass the test I left for Tim, you need to be informed that your equation is wrong.
A circle’s diameter (D) is NOT = 2*pi*r.
A circle’s CIRCUMFERENCE (C) = 2*pi*r.
Thanks for the correction ClintR.
Now properly apply it to the question, how are the pieces of the Moon staying together if they are moving at different speeds?
Answer, because the Moon is rotating.
Answer: The “pieces” of Moon are staying together because they are all moving at the same speed, as I explained. You don’t understand physics, and you can’t accept reality.
ClintR,
Nope, you explained incorrectly, the parts of the Moon on the surface of the far side move faster because in the equation C=2*pi*r, the distance to the far side r is bigger so the far side traces a longer path and since it revolves at the same rate it is moving faster.
Because the path follows the equation C=2*pi*r and r is larger for the far side as compared to the near side.
So the near side is not moving at the same rate as the far side.
I could post the equation for the perimeter of an ellipse, but I don’t want your head to explode.
Or another argument, if all the parts of the Moon are moving at the same speed, each tracing the same ellipse, then the Moon is not rotating and we would see all sides of the Moon from earth.
bob, I see you now have the equation correct, after I corrected it for you.
But, you’re making the same mistake as Tim. You are trying to claim one side of Moon is moving faster than the other side. That’s NOT happening.
All points of Moon move at the same speed as its center of mass. You are trying to claim the outer edge moves a greater distance not realizing how gravity is instantaneously changing the direction of Moon. That’s how orbiting works. Moon is NOT rotating about its axis, it is changing direction just as the ball on a string, or Tim’s toy train, or the wooden horse.
You need to come up with some new perversion of reality. This one has already been throroughly debunked.
ClintR,
Changing direction is spinning or rotating.
Gravity causes the Moon to change direction by spinning it on its axis.
Something can’t change direction without spinning, or turning.
Something that isn’t changing direction keeps pointing in the same direction which is something the Moon isn’t doing.
With your kind of physics there would be no problem building a space elevator to launch satellites into orbit as the top of the space elevator would be moving at the same speed as the base, so there would be no stress on it because of the different speeds.
Obviously your kind of physics doesn’t work.
Wrong again bob, as usual.
“Turning” is not the same motion as “rotating about center of mass”. Idiots can’t understand the two different motions.
ClintR,
Did I say turning about the center of mass?
Try again.
Yes idiot, that’s what you said: “Gravity causes the Moon to change direction by spinning it on its axis.”
ClintR,
I don’t see the phrase center of mass in that sentence.
You didn’t see the phrase “bob’s an idiot”, either.
But, there is very little reality that you do see.
CLintR,
What you don’t understand is that all parts of the Moon move at the same radial velocity because the Moon is spinning on its axis.
However, they are all not moving at the same linear velocity.
Radians/second or degrees/second don’t mean the same as meters/sec in any kind of reality.
When did you study physics?
Oh wait, I know, never.
bobd…”because the ones on the far side are moving farther than the ones on the near side, so they must be moving faster, if they are moving faster, they must be moving apart, but since they are not moving apart”
I already did figure it out, it’s call rigid body mechanics. Even though the outer particles move faster, as part of a rigid body they are constrained to move at the same angular velocity of a radial line drawn through the body from an external axis. Since all points along that line are moving at the same angular velocity and they are all moving parallel to each other, that defines the motion as curvilinear translation with zero rotation about a local axis.
Gordon,
You missed the definition of curvilinear translation. All points of the Moon are not moving parallel, they are moving in a circular motion, which means it’s not curvilinear translation.
Curvilinear translation requires that the object keeps pointing in the same direction, check your texts again.
“same angular velocity of a radial line drawn through the body from an external axis.”
You just said it has to spin, because it has angular velocity.
bobd…”You missed the definition of curvilinear translation. All points of the Moon are not moving parallel, they are moving in a circular motion, which means it’s not curvilinear translation”.
Bob…if they were moving in straight lines it would be called rectilinear translation. Curvilinear translation applies to curves.
To define the motion of individual particles on a non-rotating rigid body following a curve, two things are required:
1)a radial line defining the centre of curve (axis) that passes through the rigid body must be moving as a unit and have angular velocity.
2)each particle in the rigid body must be moving perpendicular to the radial line. With a non-rotating rigid body you can average that to the motion of the COG, which must be moving in a direction tangential (perpendicular) to the radial line.
That’s the different between rectilinear and curvilinear translation. With RT, all points move in a straight line and all move parallel to their initial motion. With CT, one has to redefine parallel motion and that is done using the radial line to the curve and a line perpendicular to the radial line, which is the tangent to the curve at that point.
That’s the situation with the Moon. The centre or axis of the curve, presuming a circular orbit, is one end of a radial line at Earth’s centre, through the Moon. The radial line turns once every 28 days. Each point on the Moon along that line is moving parallel to each other at any instant.
Curvilinear translation.
Gordon,
this is where you went wrong
“To define the motion of individual particles on a non-rotating rigid body following a curve, two things are required:”
We are talking about a rigid body that is rotating, so it’s not curvilinear motion.
It’s revolving, not rotating.
DREMPTY,
I thought you said it was rotating around an axis not within the body.
Now you are saying it’s not rotating!
Rectilinear translation, curvilinear translation and rotation.
Three different kinds of motion all not the same.
“I thought you said it was rotating around an axis not within the body.”
I am. That’s what “revolving” means.
DREMPTY,
so is it rotating, revolving or both?
I thought you said revolving means rotating, but you said not rotating.
You seem confused, you should get some help.
The moon is just revolving, not rotating on its own axis.
DREMPTY,
Except that if it wasn’t turning to keep its face pointed in a certain direction, we would see both sides from Earth, since we don’t, then it must be turning.
The change in orientation is due to the revolution.
How do you get those points to rotate around the Moons imaginary axis if they are all moving in concentric orbits?
Watch the video.
Gordon,
From a high vantage point, looking down:
You could live stream your own video…… a close-up of a baseball rotating about its own axis. Round and round the laces go, like a top.
Zoom out, we discover the ball is attached to a rope, with someone swinging it in a circle above their head.
Zoom back in again, so all you see is the ball….. round and round the laces go, like a top.
Snape proudly makes the same mistake once again…
…never grasping that the change in orientation of the basketball is due to the orbital motion, and not axial rotation.
DRE,
When we see an object spinning around like a top, we call the motion axial rotation. Documented in a live stream, close-up video.
[never grasping that the change in orientation of the basketball is due to….]
What is the cause of the observed axial rotation? You can argue about that with someone else.
There is no axial rotation. The change in orientation of the baseball, which you mistake for axial rotation, is due to the orbital motion.
Which is a combination of revolving and rotating.
Wrong again, bob. The ball on a string is ONLY orbiting.
If you rotate the ball on its axis, the string winds up.
You can’t pervert reality, you can only try. Reality always wins.
Except that the string is also rotating at the same rate as the ball, so it doesn’t wrap around the ball.
The string rotates once per orbit, just as the ball rotates once per orbit, no more and no less.
If you weren’t an idiot, bob, you could prove yourself wrong very easily with a ball and a string. But, you’re an idiot so that won’t happen.
ClintR,
It has already been shown that the ball on the end of the string is rotating, remember the guy in the space station and his video of what happens when he releases it.
It continues to rotate because it was rotating before he let go of it.
In accordance with Newtons laws.
Sorry bob, that one has already been debunked.
ClintR,
I think I remember the claim of debunking due to the fictitious torque put on the ball by the string.
A fictitious debunking, try again.
bob, no one expected you to understand Newtonn’s 3rd Law.
ClintR,
I see you are getting it wrong.
When he let go of the string, he did no action that would stop the ball from spinning, so it continued to spin.
The string keeps the ball from rotating on its own axis, whilst he is revolving the ball around his hand.
The video proves the string keeps the ball from rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev. or the srtring would wrap the ball, whilst he is revolving the ball around his hand.
Incorrect.
bob, no one expected you to understand Newton’s 3rd Law.
Ya see here ClintR,
The question is not whether or not I understand Newton’s Laws, the question is whether you have debunked the astronauts demonstration that the ball with the string was rotating before he let go of the string, because it continued to spin once he let go of it.
It’s too simple for you to debunk it.
bob, your failure to understand physics is most entertaining. What is being debunked is your false religion that everything that is orbiting is also rotating on its axis.
The reason the astronaut’s released ball is rotating on its axis is due to Newton’s 3rd Law.
You can’t be expected to understand physics, because you’re an idiot.
Not everything that is orbiting is also rotating on its axis ClintR, try learning about Hyperion kinematic degrees of freedom.
It’s hard to disagree with me when you’re agreeing with me, huh Ball4?
Maybe that’s why you went insane.
ClintR makes no sense. Try again Clint.
Ball4 seldom makes sense. So there’s no need to try again, Ball4.
DREM and his alias ClintR just like to keep going around orbiting in circles resurrecting the same rubbish. They must wonder why they get giddy.
The argument is explained well by bobdroedge and Ball4 and therefore I know i am labouring the point , but this point is about the twins themselves going around in circles.
From my summary of the assertions by the mental midgets
( September 1 ,12:02 am).
2. The Ball Rotating on a String Argument.
i) the ball is connected to the string and revolves at the same rate as the string rotates .
ii) As a consequence there is no mismatch between the two angular velocities and the string does not wrap around the ball.
iii) From the perspective of an external observer following the ball around on its orbit, the ball is rotating on its axis.
Here is also a visual depiction which explains why the string doesn’t get wrapped around the ball. I know its a dumbbell but I can change it to a ball if necessary
https://i.postimg.cc/DzxG0Tpr/dumbell-on-string.gif
You’ll have to argue that out with Norman, MikeR. He agrees with the “Non-Spinners” on this one.
By the way ClintR,
Newton’s first law is about inertia (in this case rotational inertia). Newton’s 3rd law can be invoked to explain the nexus between centripetal and centrifugal forces.
DREM,
You must be having a visual disturbance. You must have missed the the spinning dumbbell in the box at left for case A.
It looks like I might have to administer last rites here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-520401 .
Norman would agree that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of appearances from a certain reference frame. I just thought you might prefer to argue with someone on your own team for a change.
MikeR, i said “3rd Law”.
All you can do is misrepresent me because you’re an idiot.
The last rites have been delivered with an accompanying eulogy, see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-520613
As for Norman he may have, at some stage, succumbed to DREM’s reality distortion field ( I doubt it) but I am not going to follow DREM down another rabbit hole. Enough time has been wasted on this troll.
No, Norman is still a “Spinner”. He just disagrees with you on the ball on a string, and wooden horse front.
No ClintR. Sigh.
Newton’s first law of inertia (rotational inertia) explains the rotation of the ball after the string has been let go.
See –
https://postimg.cc/LYNcX8q8
Concentrate on what happens after two revolutions.
MikeR, watch a real hammer throw, once released the ball is not spinning as per your image, the link on ball points more or less in same direction before landing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNLyGhFdnHw
The kinematics after release depend on more variables like if a whiffle ball is released in ~1 bar air at zero g or that steel ball in 1g and 1bar air.
Yes Ball, I saw that video (or a similar video) a couple of years ago when this all started.
I seem to recall, that the hammer throw technique is complicated by the wrist action of the hammer thrower to minimise the rotational kinetic energy (and thereby maximise the linear k.e.) of the hammer plus the the action of air friction on the the chain. Correct me if I am wrong.
It is clear that these two characters have never thrown a stick for their dog to chase, either with an over arm action or with an additional flick of the wrist. They have never thrown a Frisbee or skipped rocks across the surface of water.
Perhaps if they spent less time in their bunkers?
No wrist action in this video and still the ball attachment points in more or less same direction after cut, the previous once per rev. rotation mostly stops as the tangential or shear force causing a torque & spin once per rev. about ball vertical axis thru cg is suddenly removed and air friction remains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxrM5tv_RNI&t=17s
Yes Ball4, that is an interesting video. I am pretty sure the ball used was a table tennis ball.
As an inveterate player, I know that you need to impart lot of side spin on the ball (via you wrist) to get it to arrive on the other side of the table still carrying enough spin to cause your opponent problems.
That’s air resistance for you. For a light smooth object like a table tennis ball it is incredibly significant. If they used a dimpled heavier ball like a golf ball they might have been able to record some spin. However their insurance policies may have had to have been upgraded.
Ball4,
I just had another closer look at the video. It looks a bit bigger than a table tennis ball and it moves quicker, after release,than one would.
However it is a short period after release compared to the rotational frequency, and you can actually see the ball bounce to the left when it hits the ground, showing it was still rotating at that stage.
Count off the last complete spin, then count off the time to floor hit, they are about the same. The ball has enough time to complete one spin as it was doing before cut, but it doesn’t. The attachment point more or less points in same direction at floor hit as it does when cut is made, the ball has stopped spinning because the forcing was removed.
Ok Ball4,
Because of the quality of the video it is really hard to tell conclusively how far it rotated.
I also listened more carefully to the audio and it sounds like it may actually have been a ping poll ball or something very light so the aerodynamic drag would have slowed the rotation significantly.
Anyway it is clear from the sideways bounce when it hit the ground that it definitely had some residual spin in the appropriate direction (i.e. in the same direction as the rotor).
That video is not ideal.
Set the speed to 0.25.
The attachment point goes belly up at 1:43.
https://youtu.be/xxrM5tv_RNI
That’s a gyro effect caused by a blunt knife.
You can confirm that the gyro twist is in the expected direction using the right hand rule.
The gyro effect is an artifact of rotation.
The kick comes after the cut.
Explain that DREMT.
If it is rotating on its own axis after the cut, then it is rotating. What needs to be explained?
Before the string is cut, the ball is unable to rotate on its own axis…but it is still rotating about the center of the orbit.
What you guys seem to experience is a total breakdown in all logic and reason.
The ultimate demonstration for this argument you are trying to make was the video bdgwx found of the record being spun around so fast that the vinyl disintegrated into dozens of pieces, which flew off at tangents whilst rotating on their own axes. According to you, that meant that the pieces must have been rotating on their own axes before disintegration – in other words, before they were actually pieces! Before it was physically possible for them to rotate on their own axes.
That to me is the ultimate distillation of your argument. Completely illogical, irrational, abstract, and utterly disconnected from reality.
In reality DREMT, before it was physically possible for each eventual piece or free ball to rotate on its own axis more or less than once per rev.
That is the ultimate distillation of the argument. Completely logical, rational, concrete, and connected to reality as observed in the videos.
See what I mean? They actually defend the idea that the pieces of record are rotating on their own axes…before they even exist. Before it is physically possible for them to do so.
They actually defend the observation that the pieces of record are rotating on their own axes no more, no less than once per rev. …as they previously exist in the record. When it is physically observed they do so in the video.
The record exists, as a whole, before disintegration. The pieces only exist, as pieces, after disintegration. The entire record, all parts of it, are rotating about an axis in the center of the record, before disintegration.
There is an infinite number of potential sub-divisions of the record before it breaks apart. You could draw an infinite number of circles, of varying sizes, in different positions all over the record. They are not all rotating about their own individual centers of mass just because the record is rotating!
Yeah, the motion is composed of rotation and orbiting.
Cut the orbiting and rotation remains.
Correct Svante, as the video shows, the eventual pieces, if you outline them before break, are all rotating once per rev. about their own individual single line centers of mass before break because the record is rotating about its own different single line center of mass! Two degrees of freedom before break, same two DOF shown after break.
Each record piece air resistance is close to nil and easier to see the pieces retain their individual angular & linear momentum (and KE) they had right before the break.
Ball4 thinks there are pieces, that are rotating on their own axes, before disintegration. You can’t help these people.
No commenter here familiar with basic meteorology texts will benefit from DREMT help anyway.
ClintR,
Let me help you out, you seem to be confused about which of Newton’s laws to use in this example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Study up
Wrong bob. Go back to my comment and memorize it. If you still can’t understand then see if you can come up with an intelligent question.
Misrepresenting me just shows again what an idiot you are.
[….is due to the orbital motion.]
Again, you make an assertion about cause.
What do we observe? A ball spinning like a top. Is a ball spinning like a top an example of axial rotation? Yep.
The ball only appears to be spinning.
Wow, look how low you have sunk DREMPTY,
now you are making the it only appears to be spinning argument.
Just admit you are wrong.
Batman and Robin were not really climbing up the wall. The camera was just turned on its side. Appearances can be deceptive.
DREMPTY and company are not really stupid, they just appear that way.
OK, blob.
Gordon
“If you are inferring that a ball on a string is an example of Newton III you are wrong. There is only one force along the string, a centripetal force pulling in on the ball. There is no equal and opposite force toward the ball during rotation about the external axis.”
No, just an equal and opposite force experienced on the person holding the end of the string (not the ball!). This is the “fictional” force that related to the rotating reference frame see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force.
When teaching Newtons 3rd law to the undergrads, many moons ago, the classic paradox they were introduced to was the horse and cart. How could the horse and cart move if the forces were equal and opposite? The answer of course was the point of application of the forces. The cart experienced the single force of the horse and moved while the horse experienced the (“fictional”) force in the opposite direction.
I don’t why I am explaining this to someone who is supposed to be an engineer. Gordon, did you miss the mechanics part of your course?
Test time,
Which objects are not rotating?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APIA20052-SmallMoonsOfPluto-Animation-20151110.webm
The four outer objects are both orbiting and rotating about their axes. The two objects in the middle are only orbiting.
Easy-peasy.
Fail, do not collect $200, do not pass go, go directly to jail.
The objects in the middle only appear to not rotate, they actually are rotating.
You can tell because they are not pointing in the same direction all the time.
bob claims: “You can tell because they are not pointing in the same direction all the time.”
That’s because they’re orbiting, idiot. It’s the same motion as a ball on a string, idiot.
bobdroege
Yes you are quite correct but I do not think you will ever convince the contrarians on this blog of that fact. I also shared a video with some of them and it has zero effect. They are not able to see it or do, but want to be contrarian anyway.
Norman, you agree the wooden horse does not rotate on its own axis. So, to blob and several others, you are also the “contrarian”.
Norman has to go along with his cult because without his cult, he would be forced to face reality.
DREMT
I look at the bolted wooden horse similar to how I would view a metal rod with a rubber tip. The rubber tip is part of the steel rod not a separate object with independent motion. When the steel rod rotates around a center, the whole rod rotates including the rubber tip. But no part of the rod is rotating on its own unique axis since it is one object.
I view it similar to the Earth rotation on the axis. I would not think Antarctica is separate from the Earth and rotating on its own axis. It is just a part of the Earth and rotates along with everything else. Antarctica would seem to be rotating from a fixed location in space but I would not consider that it is rotating on its axis since it is solidly connected with the Earth and the whole Earth is what is rotating.
I could be wrong with what I think but is seems logical to my understanding. I can’t think part of an object has its own rotation of axis when no such thing can exist as long as it is a solid part of the whole.
Kind of like the rubber tip on the metal rod. It rotates when the rod rotates but stop the rod and you can make the rubber tip spin on any axis because it has no axis of rotation.
But this debate has nothing to do with the Moon and it spinning slowly as it orbits to maintain the same face always pointing toward Earth. The Moon can rotate on its own as can any body in space.
Just pointing out that you are in direct disagreement with many (most?) of the “Spinners”, who fail to understand that rotation can be about an external axis…and when an object is rotating about an axis that is external to the object itself, it keeps the same face always towards the center of the revolution (facing towards that external axis). The wooden horse rotates about the center of the merry-go-round, not on its own axis. The same side of the wooden horse is always facing towards the center.
On the other hand, a line drawn from the center right through the wooden horse points through N, W, S, and E as the merry-go-round rotates, but that still does not mean it is rotating on its own axis. The change in orientation of the horse is due to the orbital motion.
DREMPTY,
You say
“who fail to understand that rotation can be about an external axis…and when an object is rotating about an axis that is external to the object itself, it keeps the same face always towards the center of the revolution (facing towards that external axis).”
Except this is wrong, and the counter example I will use to prove that you are wrong is the Earth.
The Earth is rotating around an axis external to itself, remember it is revolving around the Sun. And no, it doesn’t keep the same face toward the Sun.
You should just stop trolling about science that you don’t understand.
Good example bob, proving DREMT wrong.
Also correcting DREMT to observations: a line drawn from the center right through the wooden horse points through N, W, S, and E as the merry-go-round rotates, bolted down horse is rotating on its own axis once per rev. facing N,W,S,E back to N, the universe is NOT spinning about the horse (or moon, ball on string) as DREMT imagines. The change in orientation of the horse is due to 2 degrees of freedom being rotation on its axis and orbital cg translation as proven using the transmographer steps.
blob is easily confused. Yes, the Earth is both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis. I will clarify my statement for you:
“…who fail to understand that rotation can be about an external axis…and when an object is just rotating about an axis that is external to the object itself (and not rotating on its own axis), it keeps the same face always towards the center of the revolution (facing towards that external axis).”
bob, the transmographer proves DREMT’s clarification is also wrong.
Incorrect.
DREMPTY,
I corrected your statement.
““…who fail to understand that rotation can be about an external axis…and when an object is just rotating about an axis that is external to the object itself (and not rotating on its own axis), it keeps the same face always towards a distant point”
There now it is correct.
Remember grasshopper,
The orbit is the path, rotation is just something you can do on the path.
To enlightenment or not, that is the question.
The motion you have described is not a rotation about an external axis. You have described curvilinear translation.
DREMPTY,
Check your source again, you seem to be confusing curvilinear translation with orbiting with no axial rotation again.
Though you never did grasp the concept of orbiting without axial rotation.
No axial rotation means the object constantly points in the same direction with respect to distant objects.
blob cannot follow a simple discussion, once again. Never mind.
No axial rotation means the object always points towards the center of the orbit.
Like I said:
“rotation can be about an external axis…and when an object is just rotating about an axis that is external to the object itself (and not rotating on its own axis), it keeps the same face always towards the center of the revolution (facing towards that external axis).”
DREMPTY,
It is you who can not follow the facts, evidence, logic.
The Moon does not face the center of it’s orbit, because the axis it rotates around is tilted with respect to its orbit.
So this statement is not true, no matter what you claim, with respect to the Moon.
“No axial rotation means the object always points towards the center of the orbit.”
It works for the ball on a string or the merry-go-round, but not for the Moon.
So you agree that the ball on a string and the wooden horse on a merry-go-round are not rotating on their own axes? If so, that’s a start.
DREMPTY,
No, I was discussing whether your my little pony or the ball on a string are rotating about their axis.
I was pointing out that the Moon, unlike your my little pony, does not face the center of the axis it is revolving around.
The Moon does not face the Earth, either, close but a little off, because it is rotating around an axis through its body that is tilted with respect to its orbit.
Aren’t you a little old to be playing with my little ponies?
Yawn.
Are you bored DREMPTY, from playing with your little pink ponies?
Well that’s better than trying to learn science as you just can not figure the science out.
So just go play with your little ponies on your merry-go-round.
Yes, you are boring.
Then go to your local library and crack an Astronomy textbook, which will tell you where you went wrong.
Bring your my little ponies.
When I link to a statement from a physics and astronomy professor, you ignore that, too.
Whats going on?
I woke up this morning and found myself in BIzzaro World, agreeing with some of the recent comments by Gordon, Clint and DRE, disagreeing with parts of what Tim, Midas and Bob wrote. For example:
ClintR –
[All points of Moon have the same speed, relative to its center of mass.]
I agree.
[All points of Moon have the same angular speed, relative to the center of orbit.]
Sort of. All points of the Moon have the same speed relative to the center of orbit. The speed of a point relative to the center of orbit is called its angular velocity. So yeah, they all have the same angular velocity.
[You are confusing speed relative to center of mass with speed relative to center of orbit.]
More like you and Tim are looking at the situation from different frames of reference.
[If the far side was moving at a higher speed than the near side, relative to center of mass, Moon would deform itself!]
Agreed. Well put!
Gordon,
[Same with the Moon. The point to note, however, is that a radial line through the Moon from the Earth must complete one orbit in about 28 days. All points on the Moon must comply. So all points are moving at the same angular velocity and in concentric orbits as part of the rigid body.]
I agree.
[Therefore they are performing curvilinear translation as per the definition.]
I disagree.
All the points on the moon are moving parallel to the curvature of the earth. Moving parallel to the curvature of the Earth, they are not curving WRT the curvature of the Earth. Not curving WRT the curvature of the Earth means the motion is not curvilinear.
Translation? Yes. Curvilinear translation? No.
snape…”All the points on the moon are moving parallel to the curvature of the earth. Moving parallel to the curvature of the Earth, they are not curving WRT the curvature of the Earth. Not curving WRT the curvature of the Earth means the motion is not curvilinear”.
The curvature of the Earth has nothing to do with it, the Moon’s motion is related only to its orbital path, which is the curve. If gravity could be turned off, the Moon would move in a straight line and all points on the Moon would be performing rectilinear translation. The moment that straight line curves, even slightly, the Moon’s motion is curvilinear translation.
If it was moving in a straight line, without rotation, and encountered a gravitational field like the Earth, and the Moon’s distance from the Earth and it’s velocity was right for orbital entry, Earth’s gravity would bend the Moon’s rectilinear translation into a curved line.
All points on the Moon would be moving parallel to each other during RT without rotation, and the moment it began to follow a curved path, the same would be true. Earth’s gravity would not apply a torque to start the Moon rotating since it is applied equally across the near face. By bending the Moon’s path into a circular orbit, the equivalent of rectilinear translation is accomplished for a circle (curve).
The difference is that with a curved line, which is defined mathematically as a continuous series of instantaneous points, you have to treat the motion instantaneously at each point. That is a basis of calculus. Therefore, parallelism related to a curve involves the parallelism of tangent lines at each point of the curve. If you have a series of concentric paths intercepted by a radial line perpendicular to each line, parallelism is defined based on the parallelism of the tangent lines to each point intercepted by the radial line.
Tim Folkerts
[As for observing the moon from the earth rotating frame, my suggestion is to avoid non-inertial reference frames whenever possible.]
We almost always view the Earth, not the stars, as our inertial frame of reference. An inertial frame means the frame is not rotating.
The field of astronomy is an exception. where the stars, not the Earth, is considered the inertial frame.
Different frames for different purposes.
@Tim Folkerts,
Me: Different forcings, same result.
You: No. Not at all.
A train following a circular track MUST keep one side toward the center.
A horse bolted to the merry-go-round MUST keep one side toward the center.
Gravity only makes a very weak suggestion to keep one side of a moon toward the center.]
Me: The result is the same in all three examples – synchronous rotation – but the forces that led to synchronous rotation were different.
Doesnt matter if one of the force of gravity is just a suggestion, It is still different than the forces involved in the other two examples.
Whoops. should be: Doesnt matter if the force of gravity is just a suggestion
Norman
[I cant think part of an object has its own rotation of axis when no such thing can exist as long as it is a solid part of the whole.]
The concept is no doubt counterintuitive. If the rod is rotating about its center of mass, then when viewed from above, for example, each section of the rod is will necessarily rotate about its own axis.
To demonstrate this, draw a plus sign on any section of the rod you want. Then, make a video as I explained earlier. Zoom in on the plus sign so it fills the whole screen – will see that it spins like a top.
Snape
In my thought process what you describe would be an illusion of spinning on some axis when the reality no section of the rod can spin on its own axis as they have no axis of rotation. The rubber tip cannot spin on its own axis, it has no axis to spin around. The rod can spin on its axis, you can put an axis through any section of the rod and it can spin around such, but no part of it has a unique axis to spin around.
As I stated, I could be wrong but maybe you would have to point me to some actual rotational motions textbooks that make the claim that all parts of a rod are spinning on their own individual axis. If what you describe is not just an illusion produced by the rod spinning then it should be possible for each section of the rod to spin in their own unique ways (some faster, slower, backwards etc.) there does not appear to be any logical possible way for parts of an object to have an independent spin so I would conclude that the spin you claim is an illusion of spinning on an axis. The illusion will disappear the moment the whole rod is no longer spinning on its axis.
Correct!
Norman,
The rod is spinning around a center point. If thats your frame of reference, then I would agree with most everything you wrote. Notice, however, that my claim was WRT an external frame.
This should help:
Hold a compass flat and steady in the palm of your hand. Now, pivot your body around in a full circle, while keeping an eye on the magnetic needle.
Do you think the compass rotated on its own axis relative to the needle?
snape…”Do you think the compass rotated on its own axis relative to the needle?”
Nope…the compass body has no axis, you are its axis. The compass needle is affected by the Earth’s magnetic field and it keeps the needle turning to point North. As you rotated, the compass body turned with you and the Earth’s magnetic field rotated the needle.
Why do you find the need to get involved in thought experiments? Look at what the Moon is doing by creating a freebody diagram. Remove it from it’s orbit and replace it linear momentum with a vector pointing tangential to a point in the orbit. Add another vector perpendicular to the momentum vector and pointing toward the Earth.
We can’t work with two dissimilar vectors, so create a force vector to replace the momentum vector by calculating how much force it would take to stop the Moon’s momentum. Then reverse the created force vector. Since that force vector will be much larger than the gravity vector, you’ll have a long vector tangential to the orbit and a smaller vector perpendicular to the orbit. The resultant of those vectors will point instantaneously along the orbital path.
That’s all you need, work with that.
Norman,
Just to be clear:
Lets say your circular pivot was clockwise, and the letter N on your compass started out In alignment with the magnetic needle.
During the course of your pivot, the letter N progressively faced East, South, West, and finally back to North.
The center of this rotation was the center of the compass. not the center of your body.
Right?
Snape
What I would call what you describe is apparent rotation on its axis but not actual rotation on its axis. An illusion created by your rotation.
Consider another apparent motion. When you drive your car down the highway it appears the white painted center lines are moving toward you. That apparent motion is only an illusion created by your car moving. When your car stops moving the apparent motion stops.
To show the difference and why I consider the Moon to still rotate on its axis (not an apparent rotation but a real rotation that is not dependent upon its orbital path or lack of, it would still rotate around on its axis in 27 plus days regardless of its path.
If you are standing on a merry-go-round with one side to the center.
You are quite aware you are not rotating. You are not moving at all. If someone spins the merry-go-round, you have an apparent rotation on your axis but you do not in actual reality. You know that you are not rotating at all on your axis. You could rotate on your axis while the merry-go-round was spinning but you are not currently doing so. As the merry-go-round rotates you maintain in the same position. Basically because you are not rotating. This state is what the non-spinners attribute to the Moon but I feel incorrectly. Now if you walk around the merry-go-round you have the exact same effect. From the center position only one side of you will ever be seen. In the walking case, however, you must rotate on your axis to go around it. If you do not rotate (which you can observe by watching your feet pivot or turn each step)…first the feet rotate then the entire body) you will just walk away in a straight line. The Moon must rotate to keep the same side facing Earth. You can walk around the merry-go-round without rotating (keeping your feet pointing always in the same direction) as you shuffle around. Without rotating as you walk around the merry-go-round you will show all your sides to the center view.
Snape,
Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a large needle on the moon, retaining a fixed orientation in space, on a pivot.
If there was, it would behave as you describe. But there isn’t, so it won’t.
MikeF,
DREMT desperately needs your assistance . Can you help him to solve a problem.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-519767
Your expertise in these matters are legendary.
MikeR is desperate for attention…
Sorry, I lost my train of thought.
The letter N on the compass rotated around the same imaginary axis that your body revolved around.
At the same time, relative to the magnetic needle, the letter N rotated around the center of the compass.
snape…”Sorry, I lost my train of thought”.
Small wonder. First you drill a hole in the train and stick a dowel in it, then you nail the train to the floor.
Better yet, imagine the compass has two, connected, crisscrossing needles, like a plus sign.
One arm of the plus sign is magnetized, keeping the whole configuration in a steady orientation WRT to North.
During the persons circular pivot, the letter N would rotate around the center of the plus sign.
Norman says,
[Consider another apparent motion. When you drive your car down the highway it appears the white painted center lines are moving toward you. That apparent motion is only an illusion created by your car moving. When your car stops moving the apparent motion stops.]
Using the very same logic:
When you stop the car, the white stripes appear to be motionless. This is only an illusion! In reality, they are rotating around Earths axis at around 1000 MPH.
Norman
You gave an example of a person standing still on a moving MGR, the same shoulder always facing the center.
Then you described a person walking around the periphery of a motionless MGR, again, the same shoulder always facing the center.
Both are examples of synchronous rotation, the forces used to maintain this motion are the only things that differ.
Snape
So if you were standing on a rotating MGR you would believe you are rotating on your own axis? Wouldn’t empirical information suggest to you that you are not rotating at all on your own axis. You are rotating around the center but not on your own axis. You are just part of an object that is rotating but you can tell you are not. To make it more clear, say there are hand holds and you are between them. If you hold on to them you will be certain that you are not rotating on your own axis. As a test, if the MGR is stationary start to execute and actual rotation on your own axis. What happens to your arms as you do this? If you do not let go of the handholds you cannot rotate on your axis. When the MGR is spinning you still are not rotating on your own axis. As I stated, if you are certain of your position then support it with some material on rotary motion.
“You are rotating around the center but not on your own axis.”
Exactly. You are rotating about an external axis, i.e “revolving”, or “orbiting”, and not rotating on your own axis.
DREMT
There was a video that was taken down which used computer animation to demonstrate that the Moon rotates on its axis.
Since I can’t show that one to you I will ask you to offer your opinion.
If you have one of those planetary orbital machines…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery
You have a rod that orbits a ball (Moon) around the Earth. But the ball can spin on its own with a motorized mechanism. You can adjust the orbital and rotational speeds.
If you set the ball rotation so that it will spin one time as it orbits how would you describe what you will see.
Is it possible Tesla was wrong in his understanding of the Moon rotation issue. Is it possible you are wrong?
What would be your thought process if this device was built (maybe on exists, I only saw the computer animated version where the ball is spinning and the user is able to grab the spinning ball and move it in an orbit) and it showed you that the spinning ball (which you can clearly see before the orbital motion is started) will keep its same face to the Earth as it orbits? Would you change your view or keep them regardless of what you saw? Would you have another explanation for what you saw? What type of evidence would make you reconsider your position on the issue?
Norman, what has to be done to build a model does not mean Moon does that. What has to be done to model gravity is not waht gravity does.
The easiest-to-understand Moon model is the balll on a string. If you don’t accept that model, you are rejecting reality. The string represents the force of gravity, and the person swinging the ball supplies the tangential force. The orbital path is the result of the two forces.
ClintR
No you are not correct. Gravity does not act similar to a ball on the string. With a ball on the string the ball is not free to rotate as an individual object. It is now just a unit of string and ball. The whole system rotates on the axis, the ball is just part of that rotation.
Why do you think the ball on the string represents how gravity works? If you were correct then no planet could rotate on its own axis because of the force of the Sun’s gravity.
Planets can rotate freely on their axis regardless of gravity. The tidal locking is a very slow process caused by gravitational imbalance from the mass center. You should read up on it.
Wrong again, Norman.
The string is a good model for gravity. Gravity does NOT produce axial rotation. So a ball on a string is a good model for an object orbiting, but not rotating about its axis. Consequently, the ball on a string is a good model for Moon.
You need to stop misrepresenting my comments. That’s just your futile attempt to pervert reality. Perverting reality is what idiots attempt. And that makes them losers, as you know.
“With a ball on the string the ball is not free to rotate as an individual object.”
Well, at least you agree the ball does not rotate on its own axis. That’s a start.
Norman
I messed up here, when I wrote: – Both are examples of synchronous rotation… –
That is only true from an external frame.
******
You are 100% correct that when standing still on a moving MGR, you are not rotating about your own axis…. that is, if the inertial frame of reference is the center of the MGR.
Which frame do you want to use?
******
Please take some time to think about this comment:
[Better yet, imagine the compass has two, connected, crisscrossing needles, like a plus sign.
One arm of the plus sign is magnetized, keeping the whole configuration in a steady orientation WRT to North.
During the persons circular pivot, the letter N would rotate around the center of the plus sign.]
*******
My arguments have been based in large part on deductive reasoning. From Wiki:
Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements to reach a logical conclusion. Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions.
*******
If you can find something in a textbook that shows my reasoning is not sound, please let me know. I am still hoping to hear from Tim, Midas and Bob,
snape…”Which frame do you want to use?”
There’s no need to use frames if you are not analyzing relative motion. People who use frames are generally trying to create a red-herring argument.
No matter which frame you use, or mental perspective, the Moon is not rotating about a local axis. Even with relative motion perspectives it’s not rotating about a local axis.
If you look closely, you’ll find the problem is in your mind’s propensity to create illusions. Think sunrise and sunset. If you see the Sun as rising in the morning and setting in the evening, there’s your first illusion.
Gordon asks,
[Why do you find the need to get involved in thought experiments?]
Followed by,
[Look at what the Moon is doing by creating a freebody diagram. Remove it from its orbit and…..]
*******
Are you really able to remove the Moon from its orbit?
snape…”Are you really able to remove the Moon from its orbit?”
Yes…if you’re an engineer and you want to analyze the forces and kinematics involved. That does not involve thought experiments, it’s all based on real physics.
Snape, you have become a worse bottom feeder than Salvatore.
Can you not find an old laptop and install Linux on it?
Modern devices are incompatible with this site.
Svante,
Ive never installed or even used Linux, but my wife could probably set me up.
I doubt she would help, you said she wanted you to spend less time in this argument clinic.
svante…”I doubt she would help, you said she wanted you to spend less time in this argument clinic”.
You do mean ‘climate-alarmist-in-training’ clinic.
Because you don’t learn?
snape …re Linux.
The GUI version of Linux was pretty good last time I looked but the power of Linux is under the hood with it’s DOS equivalent, Unix. I found that to be a horror show and it’s what turned me off Linux.
You can do a lot with Linux that you can’t do with DOS/Windows, like compiling a new kernel. However, I have recently noticed Windows XP users do exactly that. I am watching XP being built from the ground up using code from Windows 8.
The scary part of Linux Unix is the seriously old apps they use in Unix mode. Some of them date back to the 1970s era. The other thing I don’t like is their paranoid permissions and the fact they don’t use file extensions. It’s crazy to run a system with file extensnions like exe, txt, pdf, etc.
You don’t like “the fact they don’t use file extensions”?
And “It’s crazy to run a system with file extensnions”???
snape…you’re right, thanks…should have read…
Its crazy to run a system without file extensions???
sorry…reply was meant for svante.
@Svante
[I doubt she would help, you said she wanted you to spend less time in this argument clinic.]
She wants me to see a therapist.
@Gordon
[Think sunrise and sunset. If you see the Sun as rising in the morning and setting in the evening, theres your first illusion.]
If you believe your sofa is not moving, theres your first illusion. Same logic.
Our wifes don’t understand us.
snape…”If you believe your sofa is not moving, theres your first illusion. Same logic”.
Not the same logic. The Sun is not rotating about the Earth, it’s an illusion that the Sun rises and sets. The truth is that the Earth’s eastern horizon moves below the Sun in the morning and the western horizon rises above it at night.
Meantime, the sofa at my latitude is rotating at about 800 mph around the Earth’s centre and about 30 km/sec or 66,000 mph around the Sun. Not an illusion.
The good news is that I am moving at exactly the same speed vis a vis rotation and revolution and so is the atmosphere. Otherwise I’d be facing an 800 mph hour wind every time I stepped outside, provided the house survived winds of that speed.
Now there’s relativity for you without messing with Einstein’s messy theory about relativity producing time dilation and the shortening of lengths.
Likewise, the truth is that the moon’s horizon moves below the Sun in the morning and the other horizon rises above it at night. Moon is spinning on its own axis once per rev. just like the Earth is spinning on its own axis multiple times per rev.
ball4…”Likewise, the truth is that the moons horizon moves below the Sun in the morning and the other horizon rises above it at night”.
Problem is, the Moon is orbiting the Earth, not the Sun. We see the same illusion with the Moon as the Sun. The Earth rotates 28 times per lunar revolution so the rotation of the Earth makes the Moon (and the stars) appear to move East to West across the sky.
However, the Moon keeps the same face towards the Earth, proving it is not rotating about a local axis.
Gordon,
Does it go from day-time to night-time on the Moon.
The answer is yes, because the Moon is rotating.
It goes from day-time to night-time because the moon is orbiting.
Problem is Gordon, the Moon is orbiting both the Earth and the Sun.
Earth illuminates only one hemisphere of the moon in synchronous rotation but the sun illuminates all hemispheres of the moon which go from day-time to night-time proving the moon must be rotating on its own axis in the universe.
DREMPTY,
Your guy says
“Orbit is the motion of one object around another.”
which has nothing to do with which way the objects are pointing.
Which guy?
Svante
Hey, do you have any advise on how to post an image taken from an IPhone anonymously?
I am pretty much the opposite of a techie, so it needs to be as simple as possible. I would like to draw some easy-to-understand diagrams instead of trying to describe things with words.
svante…”do you have any advise on how to post an image taken from an IPhone anonymously?”
There should be an app somewhere to download the photos from the iPhone to a computer in jpeg format using a USB cable. I have such an app for my Sony digital camera and I have one for my Samsung flip phone.
Once you get the jpegs onto the computer they will be too big to work with for posting, about 4 megabytes. My Sony app allows me to downside them into 1024 x 768 pixels, or equivalent, which is a standard size that can be posted. There are many free apps like Irfanview and GIMP that can do that.
sorry my last post was for snape.
I’ve never done that, but MikeR and ClintR use https://postimages.org/.
You should probably remove meta-data from your image first, ask MikeR.
Thanks Svante. I have checked my images using Photoshop and have not found any metadata, such as EXiF data attached. I am using an alias for my Postimg account. Am I missing something?
miker…”2. The Ball Rotating on a String Argument.
i) the ball is connected to the string and revolves at the same rate as the string rotates .
ii) As a consequence there is no mismatch between the two angular velocities and the string does not wrap around the ball.
iii) From the perspective of an external observer following the ball around on its orbit, the ball is rotating on its axis”.
***
There is little point in leading off with an ad hom about about Dremt and Clint then following it up with a complete misunderstanding of basic physics.
1)Of course the ball rotates at the same rate as the string, it is ATTACHED to the string and the string is providing the centripetal force to accelerate the ball in the first place.
When the ball is hanging loosely at the end of the string and you pull on the string, the ball cannot go immediately into orbit. It has to be accelerate to the end of the string where the string hold it in place as the ball’s momentum carries it around your head.
If you simply allow the ball’s momentum to keep it in orbit, air resistance will reduce the momentum to zero and the ball will fall. While you are turning the ball you have to apply a centripetal force on the string to keep the ball in orbit.
Once in motion, the ball has momentum, like the Moon, and the string replaces the effect of Earth’s gravity on the Moon’s natural momentum to guide it into an orbit.
ii) Of course there is no mismatch between the two angular velocities since the ball is ATTACHED to the string and the string is controlling the motion of the ball. The ball must have the same angular velocity as the string.
iii)from any perspective, the ball is not rotating on a local axis because it is ATTACHED to the string. The string is preventing the ball from rotating about a local axis since it is applying a centripetal force to the ball at the ball’s near side. In order for the ball to rotate about its COG, it must break free from the string, or wind itself up in the string.
iv)there is no torque on the ball, or angular momentum about a local axis, therefore the ball cannot turn about a local axis. Although the motion you describe can be called rotation about your hand as you hold the string that motion is normally called revolution or orbiting. You are confusing rotation about a local axis with rotation about an external axis.
Gordon more closely observe the relevant videos: The string is preventing the ball from rotating about ball’s own axis more or less than once per rev. since it is applying a centripetal force to the ball at the ball’s near side through the cg. In order for the ball to rotate about its COG more or less than once per rev., it must break free from the string, or wind itself up in the string.
“The string is preventing the ball from rotating about ball’s own axis…”
The string is a good model for gravity. Gravity “holds” Moon, but does not produce axial rotation. Since Moon always has the same side facing Earth, we know it is not rotating about its axis.
Since Moon always has the same side facing Earth, we observe it is not rotating about its axis more or less than once per rev.
The truth is that the moon’s horizon moves below the Sun in the morning and the other horizon rises above it at night. Moon is spinning on its own axis once per rev. just like the Earth is spinning on its own axis multiple times per rev.
Ball4 has used the phrase “once per rev.” about sixty times in this thread.
…and they call me repetitive.
Ball4 displays several known personality disorders.
And probably some that haven’t even been named yet….
Ok Gordon, it is time for you to do the quiz that stumped DREMT. Hopefully you are up to it.
List the rotational kinetic energy of the three dumbbells (about the axis through their respective centres of mass) that are depicted below, in order (from smallest to largest). They are labelled A,B and C.
Here it is.
https://i.postimg.cc/m4pX0W1b/Guess-Which-One-is-Rotating.gif
You may be able to solve this by visual inspection but if you need to do a calculation, assume the relevant moments of inertia of the dumbbells are the same.
There will be a follow-up question and discussion. I await your response with bated breath.
miker…”List the rotational kinetic energy of the three dumbbells …”
Statement makes no sense.
Really Gordon! I will give you a hand. From any Engineering or Physics text book you have handy or alternatively
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy
K.E. = 1/2 I w^2 where I is the moment of inertia around an axis through the centre of mass and w is the angular velocity of rotation about the axis.
Does that help?
Is Gordon unable to perform the calculation himself? Very presumptuous of you.
It would appear to be A, then B, then C, but appearances can be deceptive.
That is the order largest to smallest.
Very good DREM. As the energy of rotation is a real measurable quantity and can be used to do useful things like performing work, then you now understand there is a reality where the dumbbell is actually rotating on its axis (such as A and B).
If you still want to argue the point, then please avoid going anywhere near a rotating band saw. The reality will definitely not be deceiving. The missing digits on your hand will be very real.
I am sure you now where this is going. It has been well telegraphed and it is abundantly clear why you have, until now, have avoided answering this penultimate question.
So as rotation on its axis for case B is real and not a figment of any ones imagination, then let us proceed onto the final destination of our journey . Before doing so I must remind you of the many times that we both agreed that motion, in general, can include both revolution of the object around an external point and rotation of the same object around an internal axis*
Final destinatiion.
Here we have the rotation of the dumbbell on its axis through its centre of mass PLUS revolution of the centre of mass about an external point.
For case B the situation corresponds to the tidal locked rotation of the moon on its axis synchronised to the orbital motion.
https://i.postimg.cc/dq9qwpmm/energy-of-rotation.gif
On you point about how looks can be deceiving I totally agree. It appears to be counter-intuitive that an object that is rigidly attached to “something else” can rotate on its axis. However if this “something else” is also rotating then this apparent paradox is resolved, see –
https://postimg.cc/9D97nd3y
Finally, I am glad that after almost 3 years the argument has been resolved. Let’s try and end our flame war, so I am proposing a permanent cessation of hostilities , not just a truce and I hope you can agree. It would be a great pity if you didn’t.
* https://classnotes.org.in/class-6/science/motion-and-measurement-of-distances/types-of-motion/
So, it turned out that appearances can indeed be deceptive.
A is rotating on its own axis, once (clockwise), per clockwise orbit. B is not rotating on its own axis. C is rotating on its own axis, once (counter-clockwise), per clockwise orbit.
So B, in fact, has no rotational kinetic energy (about its own axis). Despite how it appeared, from the inertial reference frame. It is not until you “zoom out” the inertial reference frame to include the orbital motion, that you can separate “orbiting” and “axial rotation” correctly.
DREM,
Your intuitive grasp of physics never ceases to amaze me.
The energy of rotation of my rotating band saw running at 5000 rpm will cease if I put it on a platform running at the same rpm (in the same direction)!!!
I am glad you are unlikely to ever be anywhere near my workshop. I would have to upgrade my insurance cover to include acts of stupidity. Very expensive.
My last remark is somewhat vexatious but justified. It sounds like you have implicitly rejected my offer of a cessation of hostilities.
It is clear that there is no way you will admit that you may possibly be mistaken , nor any evidence that you will listen to reason.
Despite this, I will make my conciliatory offer one last time. Let’s kiss and make up.
I was not aware of much in the way of hostility from me to you.
Yes DREM your memory may be failing you (or perhaps experiencing convenient lapses) . However i can cofirm that have been remarkably restrained recently. No tantrums of P.S.T. .thank goodness. Only 17 this month.
It must be just a figment of my imagination that recalls your past behaviours. You are now a reformed individual , a paragon of restraint, and at worst can only be accused of being passive aggressive with your repetive hash numbered comments.
Ok then we are good. Finally.
Exasperated sigh.
Yes, not much in the way of hostility from me to you. However, I have received a relentless torrent of hostility from yourself from the moment you began commenting. Strange that. I have no idea what I did to upset you…oh well, doesn’t bother me. I’m content to be the better man.
Look DREM I am not upset in any way, just bemused. Accordingly my comments are often intended to be taken in a humorous vein. It can of course, be difficult to be the butt of the humour but others, at least according to my twitter feed are enjoying it.
So your sense of grievance is probably justified and that’s why i am offering to lay off on you. Hope you accept the peace offering, otherwise its back to 20 paces (and don’t forget to rotate on your axis before firing).
Like I said, it doesn’t bother me. If, however, you want to stop acting like a fool because it would make you feel better, then knock yourself out. It really has nothing to do with me.
It’s very reassuring that my comments aren’t bothering you.
So summing up the sitation, it’s seems it’s simply a case of mind over matter.
I definitely don’t mind and you certainly don’t matter.
So au revoir, mon petit enfant.
OK, MikeR.
norman…”From the center position only one side of you will ever be seen. In the walking case, however, you must rotate on your axis to go around it. If you do not rotate (which you can observe by watching your feet pivot or turn each step)…first the feet rotate then the entire body) you will just walk away in a straight line”.
You are confusing translation with rotation. If you walk in a straight line, every particle in your body is moving parallel to the path. That is translation. If the path begins to curve, the same is true unless you impart a turning motion to your body to rotate about your COG.
It’s easier to visualize with an ice skater skating straight ahead then leaping in the air to do a 360 degree spin. In order to accomplish the spin, the skater has to torque up first then release the torque to create a spin.
We would also use it in soccer. We would run straight ahead during the exercise period while twisting our bodies to the left and to the right. You cannot do it with a normal jogging motion, you have to deliberately use a form of dance move in which you place your feet while in motion to enable a turn so you are momentarily looking right or left. Afterall there is a different gait during turning and moving forward that there is while jogging straight ahead.
Sometimes we’d turn right around so we were running backwards, then complete the rotation to run forward again.
That is translation with rotation. If you are doing it on a track and you reach a curved portion of the track you carry on exactly as you do on the strait portion. However, if you jog the track, you convert from rectilinear translation on the straight portion seemlessly to curvilinear translation on the curved portion WITHOUT rotating the body as I described with the soccer exercises.
During such motion there is no need to alter your body to face in a different direction. A track surface is designed so you won’t slip, if you tried it on an ice oval without skates you go all over the place. So it’s the resistance against your feet that allows you to move around a curve, not a torquing motion produced by your body.
When you walk around the MGR, you are translating, not rotating about your COG. It’s the translation that allows you to face in different directions not rotation about your COG. If someone or something applied a torque to produce a rotation about your COG as you walked, you’d lose your balance and stumble, likely falling down or maybe even falling off the MGR.
Gordon Robertson
I will disagree with you as I have actually done a walking test you describe and you are not correct. If you walk a track and reach a curve you actually do pivot your feet and rotate your body on its axis. Walk in a circle and you can see for yourself. You cannot walk in a circle with rotating your feet and then when planted, the rest of your body.
I will totally disagree with your understanding and I suggest you do a simple test yourself and walk in a circle and look at what your feet are doing to accomplish this. They are turning (rotating). You cannot walk in a circle without rotation of your body.
Norman, your feet are supplying the turning effect of gravity. Your keep one side of your body facing the center of the orbit, just as gravity keeps one side of Moon facing Earth. If Moon were actually rotating on its axis, we would see more than just one side of it.
If Moon were actually rotating on its own axis more or less than once per rev., we would see more than just one side of it.
ClintR,
Oh so now it’s just gravity keeping the Moon facing the Earth.
I thought you said there was another force?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-520825
ClintR,
Wrong bob. Go back to my comment and memorize it. If you still can’t understand then see if you can come up with an intelligent question.
Misrepresenting me just shows again what an idiot you are.
This comment?
“MikeR, i said 3rd Law.”
or this one?
“The reason the astronaut’s released ball is rotating on its axis is due to Newton’s 3rd Law.”
This one?
“bob, no one expected you to understand Newton’s 3rd Law.”
No, your are incorrect in specifying the third law is what should be applied to this problem when it is the first law, since no forces are acting on the ball when the astronaut released it. No equal and opposite forces in play, just first law, the ball continues to do what it was doing before the astronaut releases it, after he releases it. It was spinning before and it contunues to spin after, in accordance with Newton’s first law.
It is obvious you never studied physics because you keep getting it wrong.
Very good bob, you found my exact quote: “The reason the astronaut’s released ball is rotating on its axis is due to Newton’s 3rd Law.”
That is, of course, correct. Say it 500 times. Maybe it will sink in.
Don’t think so ClintR
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-520076
Did you say it 500 times, bob?
Some idiots are so slow they have to recite it 1000 times….
I think ClintR, has got his laws a bit confused.
Newtons 3rd law explains the apparent “centrifugal force” which is equal and opposite to the real centripetal force towards the centre of revolution .
Newton’s first law explains why the axial rotational persists after the ball is no longer constrained by the string. The conservation of angular momentum is a consequence of the first law.
Newton’s second law (F =m.a. or a = F /m ) explains why the ball revolves around the person holding the string.
I don’t expect ClintR to understand the relevance of this law to rotational motion because it requires vectors as well as scalars to explain the difference between speed and velocity.
As he has had enough problems already understanding the concepts so far, this could be a bridge too far.
In the end, this whole silly businesses comes down to frames ov reference as has been explained ad infinitum. The inability of the twins to grasp this is really the fundamental problem ( maybe remove the “funda” part).
ClintR,
With pleasure, I can say it 1000 times, you know with cut and paste it will only take 10 operations.
ClintR never studied physics and doesn’t know the difference between Newton’s first and third laws.
ClintR never studied physics and doesn’t know the difference between Newton’s first and third laws.
ClintR never studied physics and doesn’t know the difference between Newton’s first and third laws.
ClintR never studied physics and doesn’t know the difference between Newton’s first and third laws.
I’ll stop at two.
And anyway, if the string did put torque on the ball to change its speed of rotation, it would slow it down instead of speeding it up.
Two of our funniest idiots are MikeR and bobdroege. They have no understanding of physics, yet believe they are experts. Here, they demonstate they can’t understand Newton’s 3rd Law. They can’t understand how the released string can result in a force acting on the ball.
An easy test is to have one of the idiots stand at the roof edge of a tall building. The idiot is pulling on one end of a rope. I am pulling on the other end, while standing at the center of the building. We are both pulling as hard as we can. But, we both have equal strength and cannot move the other.
Suddenly, I let go of the rope. The idiot immediately learns about Newton’s 3rd Law.
Which one of you idiots wants to go first?
ClintR,
As you have a flair for experimental design I will be happy to leave you to do the tug of war experiment. This is indeed an experimental verification of Newton’s 3rd law, at least until some one lets go.
https://www.scienceworld.ca/resource/tug-o-war/
Not that relevant to a rotating object being released on a tangent, but who cares?
MikeR found a link that proves his physics was wrong. The released string is defiinitely 3rd Law! So then he goes off on another tangent, again trying to pervert reality.
It’s like they can’t wait to prove themselves idiots, over and over and over.
ClintR doesn’t know the difference between can and does.
The ball is rotating before he lets go, still rotates after he lets go because of Newton’s first law.
ClintR doesn’t understand because he never took any physics.
The ball was NOT rotating about its axis before release. It could not rotate, as that action would wrap the string.
Upon release the tension in the string provided enough torque to cause axial rotation.
bob, do the tall-building-roof experiment. If you make a video of the event, you will probably get a “Darwin Award”.
ClintR,
How about we go up on a roof with a rope, we each hold an end of it and pull while moving in a circle so we are both orbiting the center of the rope.
Then we let go and see how good our footwork is, or whether or not we are spinning as we go over the edge.
I’ll supply the Cloud-9.
Or get your boyfriend, hold hands and spin around each other and let go and see if you are spinning.
bob, I see you have nothing left but your 12-year-old antics. That means you know you have lost.
I accept your concession.
miker…”n the end, this whole silly businesses comes down to frames ov reference as has been explained ad infinitum. ”
You are using frames of reference incorrectly as a red-herring argument. It does not matter which frame of reference is applied, the Moon does not rotate about a local axis in any reference frame.
You are experiencing an illusion of local rotation mainly because you don’t understand what rotation about a local axis means. You also don’t understand the difference between local rotation and the natural change of direction of the Moon as it translates around its orbital path.
miker…”This is indeed an experimental verification of Newtons 3rd law, at least until some one lets go”.
If you are inferring that a ball on a string is an example of Newton III you are wrong. There is only one force along the string, a centripetal force pulling in on the ball. There is no equal and opposite force toward the ball during rotation about the external axis.
The ball has only angular momentum, like the Moon. If the string was cut during rotation the ball would not move in the direction opposite to the tension from the string, it would move tangentially to the string. On the other hand, if you had two equal and opposite forces acting on the string, and it was cut, Newton III would apply.
“There is only one force along the string, a centripetal force pulling in on the ball.”
More than one force Gordon, when the taut string in the video is cut you see there is a shear force along the taut string which was previously holding the ball to one rotation on its axis per orbit of the center pivot; dramatized when the string is cut by the knife.
That knife applied opposite shear force adds an opposite torque that just about cancels all the ball rotational inertia when string hits knife blade as seen after cut before ball hits floor.
“which was previously holding the ball to one rotation on its axis per orbit of the center pivot”
…zero rotations on its axis per orbit of the center pivot.
Gordon,
As an engineer you must realise that what is important are tangible measurable things such as linear and rotational energy, momentum etc..
That is why you can ascertain whether something is rotating on its axis, or not, is from its rotational energy due to this form of rotation.
It can also have orbital energy due to rotation about an external axis but we can easily deal with that complication later, as it is separable.
It looks like I might have to take you on the same journey that I escorted DREM on (don’t worry I won’t charge a commission as the agenda has already been sorted out).
First part of course, is my favourite destination which is reached via the Socratic method (you could look at DREM’s travel diary but it is always best to experience things first hand) . This is
https://i.postimg.cc/m4pX0W1b/Guess-Which-One-is-Rotating.gif
So Gordon which one of the three, A,B or C is not rotating on its axis? Which ones are? If you cannot answer that by inspection then you can determine the answer by considering the rotational energy aspects i.e. if these were propeller blades, which is the one you would prefer to have a physical interaction with, and correspondingly the least preferred?
Once you have worked that out then we can proceed on to the final destination.
So Gordon , pack your bags. You don’t need your passport but as we are going in a TurboProp you will need a boarding pass with your answers attached. It will save time with the safety instructions.
Gordon,
You seem to have gone missing with that calculation of kinetic energies of rotation. Has your slide rule seized up?
That’s the problem with modern technology. Too complex and prone to such glitches, I will send you an abacus to allow computations to continue at your usual pace.
Meanwhile I hope you haven’t missed the boat to your final destination. If so, you may have to make do with Dremt’s travel diaries.
Unfortunately DREMT may have succumbed to a bout of distemper, so his entries have been rather terse recently. Don’t fret unduly. I am sure he will recover and soldier on. Stubborn stoicism in the face of disaster is his standard operating procedure.
I seem to vaguely recall that you are a fellow affficionado of the contemporary music of the 70s. While your are busy I can send you my vinyl copy of “Dark Side of the Moon” to accompany your ruminations (unfortunately scratched by overuse).
Despite the name of the album, Roger Waters doesn’t directly address the rotation of the moon question. However he was prescient to anticipate the emergence of the current idiocracysouth of your border.
When he wrote the 9th piece on the album “Brain Damage” which contains the lyric “the lunatic is in my head” . Rather than the commonly assumed Syd Barrett , he may have been referring,in anticipation, to either DREMT or Clint or just a reference to their cohabitation .
Gordon do you have an opinion on the matter?
ClintR,
Prove that you have taken a physics course and I will say you are correct once.
You know you haven’t taken any physics courses.
bob, how many times have I proved you wrong?
You keep denying reality. That’s why you’re an idiot.
Twice,
but who’s counting.
I have proved you wrong on the green plate, the Moon and the second law of thermodynamics for a start.
So you admit you never took physics.
We knew that.
You’re falsifying the record, bob. Denying reality. Then you make false accusations.
Again, your tactics indicate you know you’ve lost.
I accept your concession.
ClintR,
According to you, the green plate knows the temperature of the object sending radiation towards it, and either reflects or absorbs the radiation based on that knowledge.
Reminds me of a Patsy Cline song.
norman..”I will disagree with you as I have actually done a walking test you describe and you are not correct. If you walk a track and reach a curve you actually do pivot your feet and rotate your body on its axis”.
Your motive power while walking straight is a push against the ground to move you straight ahead. If you’re on a quarter mile track nothing changes on the curved portion, you simply keep pushing off the track surface without twisting your body. On a track with a smaller diameter, you might reposition your feet slightly to enable straight ahead motion but at no time is your body rotating about its COG.
A curve is actually a series of straight line tangent lines where the angle of the tangents changes continuously. All you are doing on the curve is changing from one straight-line tangential path to the next.
If your body was rotating about its COG at the same time, you would gradually turn to face into the track or away from it and you’d have to change your gait to enable running sideways.
Gordon Robertson
Have you actually walked in a circle and looked at what your feet have to do to accomplish this? Your body has to rotate around a COG if your feet are or you become twisted.
Again walk in a circle and look at your feet to see what they do before you keep posting things. It would help your credibility. I have already done it and you are just wrong. Now you need to do it.
“Orbiting” is NOT “rotating about an axis”, Norman. Go back and read the definitions given my the ISS Flight Director, that you provided back in May, but couldn’t understand.
ClintR,
DREMPTY says orbiting is rotating on an axis external to the body.
One or both of you are wrong.
No, blob, this professor of physics and astronomy says orbiting is rotating about an axis external to the body:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
ClintR was merely pointing out that Norman was not correctly separating “revolution” from “axial rotation”.
bob has to misrepresent others. Such antics are all the idiots have.
ClintR and DREMPTY,
It’s too simple, you have to keep them separated.
Two quotes from the astronomer you picked
“Rotation usually refers to something rotating on its axis.”
“Revolution usually refers to something orbiting something else (like Earth around the Sun).”
Where you guys go wrong is trying to say the Moon is only doing one thing when it is actually doing both.
Another quote
“When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin, like that top mentioned above, on the point of the axis. ”
See the Moon is turning or spinning, just like your astronomer said.
Which means it doesn’t keep the same face pointed in the same direction.
DUH
You have to separate the two motions correctly. You do not.
The Earth is doing both motions.
The moon is just revolving.
norman…”Have you actually walked in a circle and looked at what your feet have to do to accomplish this? Your body has to rotate around a COG if your feet are or you become twisted”.
There is no rotation about your COG while walking in a circle. That’s because there are no forces operating on your body laterally to force you to rotate about it. The only force is from your pushing foot and that is straight ahead. As you walk in a circle, you position your pushing put to push along the tangent of the circle.
The only way you could become twisted is if you tried to turn about your COG while walking.
bobd…”Where you guys go wrong is trying to say the Moon is only doing one thing when it is actually doing both”.
You have not proved the Moon is doing both but we have proved it is not. So did Tesla.
“There is no rotation about your COG while walking in a circle.”
Only if you keep head straight ahead and stare at the same wall while walking in a circle. Otherwise, naturally you keep looking forward like a baseball player navigating to the next base while turning 360 on the player’s own axis orbiting the mound. 2 DOF.
Clearly neither DREM or Gordon can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am glad I am unlikely to ever going orienteering with either of these guys. They would refuse to rotate in the preferred direction at each way stop. Where they would end up, not even god knows.
They could get home if they used the stars as a guide but we know that they are not into using these as reference points.
Gordon,
You have only proved you can’t tell the difference between rotation, curvilinear translation and rectumlinear translation.
Also you can’t chew gum and fart at the same time.
Tesla only proved he couldn’t pay rent and knew where the pidgeons were.
ball4…”Otherwise, naturally you keep looking forward like a baseball player navigating to the next base while turning 360 on the player’s own axis orbiting the mound”.
Now you are moving the goalposts. You are claiming that a ball player traversing the bases is the same as a walker walking in a circle.
Suppose you had the Moon turning in a square orbit. It starts at position 1 and goes north. Something has to turn it to face wast so it can move to the next point of the square. Then something has to turn it face south, etc. That’s your ball player analogy wrt Moon.
Supposing a ball player is walked. He moves with rectilinear translation to 1st base. The rules say he has to turn to get to 2nd base and he is restricted to a certain laneway to get there. Suppose he’s on 1st and the next batter is walked as well. The 1st runner has to turn himself toward 2nd base and walk there. Suppose the 3rd batter is walked, before they remove the pitcher. The 1st runner has to turn himself toward 3rd and walk there. In essence, with all walks, he is completing 4 rectilinear translation in a square.
None of that is going on with the Moon. It is moving in a straight line with rectilinear translation while being affected by the Earth’s gravitational field. It is nudged slowly into a curved, closed path. There is never a need for it to turn on its own axis since the mechanics of the orbit does it naturally.
Same if you walk in a circle. There’s no need to turn your body through 360 degrees since the path does it for you. Set up a circle on the x-y plane, centred on 0,0 with a radial line (radius) intercepting the circumference at x = 5. Now draw a line tangent (perpendicular) to the radial line at that point.
You could do this with a metal radial rod with another rod welded to the radial rod to represent the tangent. The assembly is able to rotate about 0,0. Suppose north is in the direction of +y. You start the assembly turning and the tangential piece will point in every direction of the compass while completing one revolution.
Please note…the tangent piece is welded to the radial rod and cannot rotate about its axis where it meets the radial rod, yet through one revolution it points in every direction on the compass. That is curvilinear translation without rotation about a local axis.
bobd…”Tesla only proved he couldnt pay rent and knew where the pidgeons were”.
And all you’re proving is that you get sarcastic when you are cornered with a rebuttal based on real physics.
Besides, Tesla proved himself a genius through being the first to develop 3-phase systems for power distribution as well as 3-phase motors and transformers. He also proved that high frequency, high voltage, alternating current could turn on a fluorescent light held in one hand while a person touched the source with the other.
The Tesla Coil.
It is unfortunate that Gordon with his North American baseball expertise may have missed these.
https://i.postimg.cc/kJbFJNKs/Baseball3.gif
and
https://i.postimg.cc/KZ3GcVCM/Orbital-Polygons.gif
I often leave these depictions uncommented in detail as I have believed (possibly mistakenly) that anyone intellectually competent could make the necessary inferences.
Gordon do I need to go into details or can you work it out for yourself?
Clintr,
I have made a peace offer to DREMT here –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-521131
Irrespective of his response, do you want to be part of it or do you want to battle on? Your choice.
It’s late here so I am retiring for the night, so you have plenty of time to think about it.
DREMT caught on to your attempted deception, MikeR. A graphical presentation does not reflect reality. A computer is merely a tool. Just as you can draw with a pencil something that defies the laws of physics, you can program something that also defies the laws of physics.
I don’t consider you much of a “battle”. You’re more like a whiny brat that somehow learned to type.
ClintR, I gather you are also rejecting my peace offer.
I do agree a graphical representation does not necessarily accurately represent reality. For that you often need a direct interaction with reality.
On second thoughts my comments regarding rotary saws here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-521297
and propellers here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-521324
should not be taken literally but are meant to be the basis of perverse “gedanken” experiments,
p.s. You cast doubts on my software, I can send you a link to the code in my software repository. How’s your C ? I also have some MATLAB code that I can access when I am allowed to get back to work. Do you happen to have a copy of MATLAB ?Preferably legal.
Your comment regarding your rotary saw was such an obvious straw man that I did not even bother responding to it. Was I meant to take it seriously!?
MikeR, bob found the series of 5 videos proving Moon does not rotate about its axis. The guy is extremely wordy, like you, but he gets the physics correct, unlike you.
All you really need to watch is the second video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw&feature=youtu.be
Your idiot nonsense is debunked, but you remain an idiot.
DREM, you clearly missed the point re the saw. It was just a slightly oblique reference to your inability to deal with reality.
This the reality, that you can determine whether something is rotating on its axis, or not, by means of something tangible and measurable such as rotational energy rather than “appearances” .
If you really don’t follow this, then there’s not much point. That’s why I thought I was being generous in offering you a number of exit ramps but you have chosen not to avail yourself of these opportunities.
Oh well what else can one do, other than admire the dogged persistence in the face of adversary, that is DREM’s new hallmark.
A straw man is a straw man, MikeR.
Yes Clintr, isn’t the internet wonderful. That sequence of videos is particularly wonderful. I needed cheering up as the news lately has been so depressing.
In these videos I can see Spike Milligan’s heritage at work. He would have loved it. Whoever is responsible for this could do a Bollywood version of “I’m Walking Backwards Across the Irish Sea for Christmas (While not Rotating)”.
See
http://www.thegoonshow.net/songs/im_walking_backwards_for_christmas.asp
Trying to take this seriously for a moment, 7 lakhs is a bucket load of money ( according to Google about 10K $US). I should have something ready by tomorrow if I can find an hour or so. Stay tuned.
I am envisaging something along the lines of my trusty old turntable (that is now an Internet Influencer), cut out pictures of the moon glued to the turntable, with a video camera directly above the turntable (sidereal view) and then zooming in on a moon cutout close to the spindle (and most importantly a reference moon directly over the spindle).
If someone steals the idea and gets in first, I want my share of the loot ( maybe a lakh or two) .
Actually I expect it is actually a scam, probably run out of a coffee shop in Lagos. I think it so easy to disprove their thesis, that they may have already been flooded. It is probably the “just send me your bank details” or “we will pay you 7 lakhs but you must send 20 lakhs to cover the transfer and currency conversion fees” type of scam.
The other thing that could be involved, with their requirement to send them a working example is that they are collecting turntables and reselling them. Mine is on its last legs (as was evident from the “wow and flutter” on my gyroscope recordings) but it is the only one I have got, so they will have to do with a video. They can get their own turntable.
Actually it might even be easier to send them an old mobile phone with a gyroscope App already loaded, or an Arduino with one of these.
https://www.auselectronicsdirect.com.au/mpu-6050-3-axis-gyroscope-and-accelerometer-sensor?
If they can get either of them to work, I can imagine the cognitive dissonance would be immense. It would be like attending a meeting of the flat earth society on the ISS.
MikeR, have you ever noticed that no matter how much garbage you type out, it’s still garbage?
ClintR,
The notion of garbage, is in the eye (and nose) of the beholder. One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure.
You have your own judgement of my contributions and mine of yours.
Your latest comment reminds me that I need to change the kitty litter.
Exactly MikeR, and that comment was about YOUR garbage.
Actually I have take back my criticism above.
These guys have made a very effective demonstration that the moon rotates on it axis without realising it!
In the second video the hand rotated moon demonstration illustrates this beautifully.
If you take South as being the bottom of the screen then the mark on the moon points south 3 times, once at the beginning, secondly at 180 degrees in orbit and again at the end. In other word it has rotated through two rotations .
For the case when the motor is not turning at all, the mark points South at the beginning and again at the end (i.e. one rotation)
Note, the N.S.W.E. axes are always the same irrespective of the orbital position of the moon, which is patently obvious. You could superimpose those axes on the moon for every position . A task which I might attempt to program when I have some time up my sleeve.
It is amazing that the authors aren’t capable of standing back and contemplating their own video.
Of course this is another example of the importance of reference frames. Ignore them at your own peril!
MikeR still can’t separate orbital motion from axial rotation correctly, even when it is explained and demonstrated to him clearly and simply.
Just MikeR’s usual nonsense. Like several other idiots, he believes if he types enough he will eventually say something intelligent.
Probability is not on his side.
DREM,
Your time could be better spent elsewhere. A good place to start woukd be the Khan Academy courses on rotational mechanics, orbital dynamics and YouTube videos on non inertial rotating frames of reference.
I am being generous in spirit so likewise can you give me something that would assist my education on these matters.
Have you got anything at all?
The videos above by the Indian gentleman are not something suitable as these are liable to leave you with a mental impairment. Fortunately i have managed to cope but it depends what your starting point is. DREMT did you actually sit through these?
To test your level of impairment can you answer many times did the red mark in the moon point South per orbit in the first part of the video 2? If you can answer this then the second test will involve repeating 5 consecutive words by rote memory. If you can manage to successfully perform this last task then you are at, a bare minimum, Presidential material.
Finally I must return and ask. What else have you got to support your whack job ideas?
“Like several other idiots, he believes if he types enough he will eventually say something intelligent.”
He does go on, doesn’t he.
ClintR,
Probability may be not on my side.
However in your case probability is not an issue.
Winston Churchill’s quote is particularly appropriate with regard to your utterances.
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and toremove all doubt. It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it andremove all doubt.”
The quote also covers the contributions of DREM, of course.
On and on and on…
Yes you just inspire me to go on and on, and around and around we go. Just like this old ditty which has some salutary lessons for you guys.
https://tinyurl.com/y2la6rgu
OK, MikeR.
All good then? Rhetorical question only.
Yes (rhetorical answer).
DREMT, You do know that only a fool responds to a rhetorical question?
p.s. This is another rhetorical question.
Only a fool asks rhetorical questions of somebody who gives rhetorical answers.
(Another rhetorical answer).
Yes DREM you are quite right for me to foolishly prolong these exchanges.
Einstein reputedly defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”?
On that note I think I will try to resist your lures and once again leave the field of insanity to the experts. On that note your compulsory treatment order is in the mail.
I am not luring you to respond.
Clearly you are not conscious of it. I just tend to respond badly to comments that are egregiously stupid. If you said something sensible, I would be supportive, of course.
Don’t take it personally, I am for equal opportunity when dealing with nonsense irrespective of its source. It is just that you are responsible, along with your chief accomplice for the majority. Sorry DREM to give you such a poor performance review.
You really have no need to keep responding.
Excellent news and it’s good night from me.
Good night.
Glad to hear we can be done with this nonsense. Lets all vow to never speak of it again!
#2
Good night.
@Gordon,
Thanks for the tech advice. Moving on……
[Meantime, the sofa at my latitude is rotating at about 800 mph around the Earths centre and about 30 km/sec or 66,000 mph around the Sun. Not an illusion]
Idiot! The illusion is that the sofa appears to be motionless.
snape…”Idiot! The illusion is that the sofa appears to be motionless”.
1)That will be Mr. Idiot to you.
2)You are motionless relative to the sofa, but both of you are still moving at the given velocities through space.
The point being, if you decide that the suns apparent motion across the sky is just an illusion, then, by the same logic, a sofa that appears to be resting motionless in your living room is also just an illusion.
snape…”The point being, if you decide that the suns apparent motion across the sky is just an illusion, then, by the same logic, a sofa that appears to be resting motionless in your living room is also just an illusion”.
Do you really believe the Sun moves across the sky?
The concepts of relative motion, or relative location, or relative distance, etc., are intuitively obvious to everyone, even Gordon, even if they are not consciously obvious.
For example, if I said a pot of gold was buried four miles to the north, two miles to the west, even a child would notice something is missing. The statement is only meaningful relative to a stated point of reference. The child understands this intuitively, and asks, north of where?
No need to invoke the works of Einstein.
snape…”No need to invoke the works of Einstein”.
I have not invoked relativity, Einstein’s or Newton’s. I have simply pointed out that the Sun does not rise in the morning nor does it set at night. The Sun is not moving relative to the Earth, it is the human mind that creates the illusion that the Sun is moving across the sky.
The sofa to which you refer is actually moving through space with you at very high speed.
That same mind has created the illusion that the Moon rotates about a local axis every 28 days. People who believe that are caught in the illusion and they will never be able to move beyond the illusion till they shut off the garbage creating the illusion and LOOK!!!
Same with catastrophic global warming.
Gordon has always worked on the philosophy,
“I cannot understand it, it therefore does not exist”.
As ignorance is bliss, Gordon is always a very happy fellow.
Question for Bob or Clint
The astronaut was holding a ball attached to a rope. and was swinging the ball around his head. Then he let go of the rope, but the rope and ball stayed connected.
Is that right? If so, I have a few thoughts.
I didn’t save the link.
But as I remember he let go of the string.
There are other videos where the string gets cut.
They show rotation, what are your thoughts?
bobd…”There are other videos where the string gets cut.
They show rotation, what are your thoughts?”
If you don’t let go of the string, or cut it, exactly at the right moment, the string will give a slight tug on the ball causing it to spin. It would be very difficult to eyeball the release point to let the string go when the ball was moving tangentially.
Also, as I pointed out a while back with the ball and chain a guy was throwing (form of hammer throw), when the ball and chain is released, the ball need to move tangentially to go directly down the path, where the throw length will be measured. As the ball moves tangentially, the chain is still in the hand of the thrower, being released.
As the chain is released, the ball begins to pull it from behind, but the chain must move from a perpendicular direction to get in behind the ball. As it approaches the in-behind position, it has momentum that carries it past the straight-behind position and the chain starts the ball rotating.
Even though the string is a lot lighter, it could produce the same effect on the ball, causing it to rotate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WooCZNY6pE
The point is that the ball is already rotating.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-520742
DREMPTY,
Non-sequitur and rubbish besides.
Ball4 brings up the disintegrating record just a few comments below. Hardly a non-sequitur, blob.
DREMPTY,
So each piece of the record has angular momentum before the break, so they have angular momentum after the break so they spin to conserve angular momentum.
That’s one of the laws of physics that doesn’t work in your world.
The law of conservation of angular momentum.
The “pieces” have orbital angular momentum before the break and the pieces have rotational angular momentum after the break. No problem with conservation of angular momentum.
The “pieces” have orbital angular momentum before the break and the pieces have rotational angular momentum after the break. BIG problem with conservation of angular momentum.
The orbital radius is piece cg to record center while the rotational radius is cg to piece edge. Sorry, DREMT your imagination fails 2 conservation principles. Each piece always has 2 DOF as shown by the transmographer.
Piece cg to edge angular & linear momentum is conserved after breakup, 2DOF.
“The orbital radius is piece cg to record center while the rotational radius is cg to piece edge.”
Yes, and?
BIG problem with conservation of angular momentum.
Why? Only the total angular momentum needs to be conserved.
Translational momentum is also conserved DREMT, 2DOF as correctly shown by the transmographer translating the object cg as well as rotation about object cg.
The “pieces” have no rotational angular momentum before the break, just orbital angular momentum. After the break there is rotational angular momentum and linear momentum.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-521314
Incorrect, as explained.
The string near the astronauts hand would be moving slower than the ball. The different velocities, one end to the other, would cause the string/ball to rotate about a common axis as soon as he lets go,
After that, Earths gravity would make sure the string/ball path is curved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iginxrFn3jg&t=2m11s
Good grief, children. The Moon is falling towards the Earth. It is not rotating as it falls. Just like any sphere dropped from a height. It has no force pushing it along a curved track.
The revolution we see in the hammer throw video has a simple explanation (same as explained regarding the astronaut video: one end was traveling at a different speed than the other at the moment of release.
Snape, the shear force rotating the ball once per rev. is removed at hammer release, string cut, and string wrist snap in the videos. After that happens then air, wrist snap, and the appendages apply different rotational forces. Different motions after release will occur depending on initial rotational inertia of whiffle ball in air vs. steel ball in air & gravity, and some ball material in gravity in between.
Probably the best example to see the initial rotation on own axis maintained after release is the record break video in gravity due the air resistance being negligible, no appendages, and no wrist snap over the small time steps.
Gordon,
[You are motionless relative to the sofa, but both of you are still moving at the given velocities through space.]
Right, motion is relative. You and the sofa are motionless relative to each other, but neither are motionless relative to inertial space.
Svante
Thanks for sharing the video. I wish the string wasnt so thin – not even visible. My thinking is not enough mass to exert a meaningful influence on the ball.
Ball4
Im pretty sure my comments about the ball moving faster than the grip in the hammer throw, at moment of release, is just a different way of describing what we both agreed with earlier ,ie, the axial rotation of the train.
In Svantes video, we see the ball is rotating after release. It follows an ongoing force is involved, per Newtons first law of motion.
It should be perfectly obvious for anyone with a feel for physics, intuitive or educated, that the ball would continue to rotate on its own axis when the string is released.
How ClintR/DREMT/bill hunter/Gordon/Swenson and gbaikie can think that it would depart without rotation is baroque.
Tim Peake has a nice smile for them.
Like Norman, I am only arguing that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis before it is released. It is just revolving. The string being attached to the ball prevents it from rotating on its own axis, you see.
In much the same way that all parts of the record, before it disintegrates, are just revolving about its center. If you were to draw a small circle towards the outside edge of the record, that circle and its contents are not rotating about an axis in the center of the circle, just because the record is turning. The circle, and all its contents, would instead be rotating about an axis in the center of the record.
The string being attached to the ball forces the ball to be rotating on its own axis just once per rev. is what you see. When the record disintegrates the translational motion of each piece while continuing to rotate on its own axis is evident; two degrees of freedom just like the transmographer shows, not one DOF.
Incorrect, as explained.
+1
@DREMT
[The ultimate demonstration for this argument you are trying to make was the video bdgwx found of the record being spun around so fast that the vinyl disintegrated into dozens of pieces, which flew off at tangents whilst rotating on their own axes. According to you, that meant that the pieces must have been rotating on their own axes before disintegration in other words, before they were actually pieces! Before it was physically possible for them to rotate on their own axes.]
Every little piece WAS rotating around its own axis prior to disintegration. Nice to have visual confirmation (empirical evidence).
Not physically possible. Hence the record had to disintegrate in order for the pieces to be physically able to rotate on their own axes.
The linear momentum translation of the pieces is created by the spin of the intact record about its center but according to DREMT the second DOF spin angular momentum about each piece’s own axis OBSERVED is created BOOM! out of nothing.
DREMT’s imagination creates angular momentum without any reaction. That goes against a certain Newton Law (ask ClintR which one – an expert on Newton), 2 principles of conservation, and entropy production at least & maybe more.
The “pieces” have orbital angular momentum before the break and the pieces have rotational angular momentum after the break. No problem with conservation of angular momentum.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-521304
The “pieces” have no rotational angular momentum before the break, just orbital angular momentum. After the break there is rotational angular momentum and linear momentum.
Piece cg to edge angular & linear momentum is conserved after breakup, 2DOF.
Incorrect, as explained.
Snape
Here is a plausible (maybe not correct) explanation of why the ball on the string is seen rotating after release and the record pieces show rotational motion after the record flies apart.
I still have to agree with DREMT on his points about no possible individual rotation for a part of an object.
When you rotate the record, the outer part is moving faster than the inner part. It is covering more distance per time than inner parts. This will create a torque on the record pieces when they fly apart. The outer part of the piece is moving faster than the inner part so it will create the rotational motion after breakup. I believe that is why the ball starts to rotate on release. The outer part of the ball is moving faster than the inner part. On release then their is a torque that causes the axial rotation you see.
That would not mean that the record pieces are all rotating on some axis while part of the record.
Again I could be wrong but it seems logical for what is happening.
Ball4 nails it,
[The string being attached to the ball forces the ball to be rotating on its own axis just once per rev. is what you see. When the record disintegrates the translational motion of each piece while continuing to rotate on its own axis is evident; two degrees of freedom just like the transmographer shows, not one DOF.]
Incorrect, as explained.
As mentioned, the concept is counterintuitive.
Shocking you still dont get it (sarc).
What is physically impossible, is physically impossible.
DREMT,
This pinpoints our point of contention, right?
[If you were to draw a small circle towards the outside edge of the record, that circle and its contents are not rotating about an axis in the center of the circle, just because the record is turning.]
But every explanation/example for why you think that, is based on an internal, inertial frame of reference. Like someone nailing a sofa to the floor to *prove* the sofa is not racing around Earths axis.
You are stuck in one POV, and prove it over and over.
It has nothing to do with reference frames. It is just a circle you have drawn onto a record, and thus it cannot rotate on its own axis.
1) Stop the record turning.
2) Can the circle rotate on its own axis? No. Of course not. It is just a circle you have drawn onto a record.
3) Start the record turning.
4) Can the circle rotate on its own axis? No. Of course not. It is just a circle you have drawn onto a record.
Was there anything about reference frames in my 1) – 4)? No.
1) You stop the record turning by climbing onto the record from the floor, standing over the center, now the room is turning and the record is not turning, like the moon.
2) …neither is the circle turning you have drawn onto the record.
3) Start the record turning by jumping off and standing on the floor again.
4) Now the circle is also turning on its axis once per revolution of the record.
Was there anything about reference frames in my 1) 4)? No.
You can only stop and start the record turning by using the appropriate button.
I stopped record without pushing any buttons! Even if there is a button, I won’t push it and I can still stop the record from turning. Was there anything about reference frames? No.
Yes, Ball4, you can attack a straw man if you like.
“It is just a circle you have drawn onto a record, and thus it cannot rotate on its own axis.”
This is where the analogy breaks down. The moon is not “drawn onto” some solid disk. The moon is not “attached” to a giant merry-go-round. Gravity does not “bolt” the moon to some fixed orientation relative to the orbit around the orbital motion like a horse bolted to a merry-go-round.
Gravity is the ultimate “low-friction bearing”, providing a centripetal force, but providing no torque. (well a very tiny torque on non-uniform spheres, but this torque can be ignored for the discussion here.)
So rather than “circle drawn on the record”, the circle should be mounted on a zero-friction axle. Begin with the ‘record’ stationary and the circle on the axle stationary (ie neither rotating with respect to the ‘fixed stars’.).
3) Start the record turning.
4) Can the circle rotate on its own axis? No — it remains not rotating with respect to the ‘fixed stars’. Whichever part of the circle is toward the north will remain to the north throughout the entire revolution of the record.
(Eventually the small friction of the bearings will get the circles turning with the record. But then if you stop the record, the circle will continue to spin on its own axis until some time in he distant future when the circle will finally coast to a stop.)
Tim, the simple examples are so idiots have a chance of understanding. By trying to confuse the issue you merely indicate you have no interest in reality.
And, gravity does NOT induce a torque on Moon. Not even your imaginary “very tiny torque”.
Quit trying to pervert reality.
“And, gravity does NOT induce a torque on Moon.”
Sure it does. Google “tidal locking” to see a myriad of explanations for why this should happen. The fact that many moons keep one face to their planet is ample evidence that it does happen. For further evidence, the Earth’s rotation is slowing and days are getting longer due to torque from the moon.
But yeah, try to argue yet one more time that you alone are correct, and 1000’s of experts are wrong.
Tim you may believe that wikipedia is a credible source for physics, but that just means you reject reality.
A bunch of moons that are not rotating on their axes means there are a bunch of moon not rotating on their axes. 1000s of “experts” trying to make up things is NOT science.
You idiots need to study Newton’s work related to gravity, and how gravity acts on a body. Gravity can NOT supply a torque to a moon. Gravity can NOT slow the rotation of an orbitng body.
Tim Folkerts says:
“(well a very tiny torque on non-uniform spheres, but this torque can be ignored for the discussion here.)”
In the absence of tidal friction, this will not lock the rotation. It will just make the rotation uneven, right?
Wrong Svante. There is no such thing as “tidal locking”. That’s just more nonsense. Gravity cannot induce a torque on Moon. Gravity could not stop Moon rotating, if it were ever rotating.
Don’t miss the video bob found. It clearly proves Moon is not rotating about its axis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw&feature=youtu.be
Yes, for various values of clearly.
Like clearly not.
Like you missed his statement “this is because its rotational direction is diametrically opposed to its orbital direction”
When the model moon is rotating counterclockwise while also orbiting counterclockwise.
You can add him to your clown car.
You missed his concluding statement: “All these experiments prove beyond any doubt that the real moon also orbits the earth without rotating by even a single degree.”
(Bold is my emphasis.)
ClintR,
Since he screwed the pooch from the start, his conclusion is not supported by his arguments.
Yep, he clearly proved you idiots wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw&feature=youtu.be
Ha Ha Ha and a rotflmao!
Yes, Tim, you are just trying to confuse the issue. At this stage all I need you to admit is that the circle cannot, and so does not, rotate on its own axis. If you make it so that it can rotate on its own axis, you have completely missed the point. You can move onto more complex examples later.
The Moon falls toward the Earth. It never reaches it. Newton. Why would it need to turn? Magic?
Moon needs to turn to keep same face to earth as it orbits; no moon turn, no same face to earth as it falls.
Moon’s somewhat circular orbit is caused by gravity and Moon’s tangential force. The tangential force results from F = d(mv)/dt (Newton’s 2nd Law).
Both gravity and the tangential force are required to maintain orbit. Without gravity, Moon would fly off into space. Without the tangential force, Moon would “fall” to Earth.
CLintR,
You are busted for using equations you don’t understand.
Since the mass of the Moon is constant, your equation F = d(mv)/dt reduces to F = m (dv)/dt, which is of course just F = m*a, which is the force due to gravity.
I told you there was only one force acting on the Moon.
The speed of the Moon is what keeps it in orbit.
There is no tangential force pushing it along.
bob, I’ve already accepted your concession. You don’t have to keep showing what an idiot you are.
ClintR,
I didn’t give you a concussion, you have only proved you don’t do math or physics, so keep driving the clown car if DREMPTY will let you.
Tell us some more about how Moon gets its tangential speed from gravity. That was really the funny part. (Although you not recognizing “mv” for what it is was also funny.)
CLintR,
I never said the Moon gets its tangential speed from gravity.
Stop misrepresenting what I say, I get you continually misunderstand what I say but that’s because you never studied physics.
So mv doesn’t mean mass times velocity or momentum?
Could have fooled me.
But the Moons mass is constant with respect to time so you can pull it out from the time derivative, or did you never take Calculus either?
Still in the clown car, buckle your seat belt, sharp acceleration due to spinning is ahead.
bob, if you want to back away from your own words, I don’t mind.
“The speed of the Moon is what keeps it in orbit.”
Your statements are funny. And you having to back up is also funny. You idiots are all the same. The more you type the funnier you get.
ClintR,
Yeah, the speed of the Moon is what keeps it in orbit.
That counters the pull of gravity from the Earth.
And you think that’s funny.
I think your understanding of physics is funny.
bob, you’ve finally come around to agree me:
Moon’s somewhat circular orbit is caused by gravity and Moon’s tangential force. The tangential force results from F = d(mv)/dt (Newton’s 2nd Law).
Both gravity and the tangential force are required to maintain orbit. Without gravity, Moon would fly off into space. Without the tangential force, Moon would “fall” to Earth.
ClintR,
You are still wrong, because you still call the force due to gravity a tangential force.
There is no force in the tangential direction of the Moons motion.
Tangential force
a force which acts on a moving body in the direction of a tangent to the path of the body, its effect being to increase or diminish the velocity; – distinguished from a normal force, which acts at right angles to the tangent and changes the direction of the motion without changing the velocity.
The tangential force results from F = d(mv)/dt (Newton’s 2nd Law).
The moon has tangential rocket engines?
If that helps you to understand, Svante. As long as you end up with a tangential “mv”.
[It has nothing to do with reference frames.]
Said the guy who nailed the sofa to the floor.
The circle is rotating about an axis in the center of the record, not on its own axis.
Just as the sofa is not moving across the floor, but it is moving around Earth’s axis as the Earth rotates.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-521314
You have completely lost it, Ball4.
“Doris” was unable to fit in so she changed to “Snape”. She’s so incompetent she can’t even place her comments correctly. Yet she believes she understands physics!
Doris/Snape demonstrates her incompetence:
“After that, Earths gravity would make sure the string/ball path is curved.”
“I wish the string wasnt so thin — not even visible. My thinking is not enough mass to exert a meaningful influence on the ball.”
“In Svantes video, we see the ball is rotating after release. It follows an ongoing force is involved, per Newtons first law of motion.”
The idiots are getting even dumber!
@ClintR
Why do you think those comments demonstrate incompetence? Care to share?
*******
Aaron S
September 4, 2020
JPD,
1. Sorry my replies drop to bottom.
******
Maybe Doris changed her name to Aaron, ever think of that? The problem is not unique.
Here you guys can admit you are wrong and win 10,000 dollars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1cziZt92BQ&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdFPty67D-4&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBTWcBCgjV4&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1uLyWr-XDU&feature=youtu.be
He went to a lot of work to prove what a ball on a string proves, but at least he got the correct answer.
He didn’t have enough motors to properly model the Moons motion even allowing that the orbit is not circular.
He needs one to model the Moon revolving around the earth.
He needs one motor to rotate clockwise under the Moon, so that a motor mounted on top of that motor can be tilted to match the Moon obliquity can rotate counter clockwise to match the Moons spin.
Sorry ClintR, your ball and string model is deficient, and doesn’t prove anything.
If your model doesn’t match observations then it’s back to the drawing board.
“He needs one motor to rotate clockwise under the Moon, so that a motor mounted on top of that motor can be tilted to match the Moon obliquity can rotate counter clockwise to match the Moons spin.”
In other words, the “Moon’s spin” is non-existent. The two opposing motors cancel each other out.
DREMPTY,
You don’t understand, one is tilted and going counter clockwise, the other is not tilted and going clockwise.
So they don’t cancel out, but they would exhibit obliquity, which would be a requirement to model the Moons motion, since the Moon exhibits obliquity.
Which a ball on a string or your my little ponies do not.
They cancel out, blob.
DREMPTY,
They can’t cancel out, because they are on different axes.
Have some popcorn, back in the clown car.
As far as the orientation of the moon is concerned, the two motors cancel out. One is turning the moon clockwise, and one is turning it counter-clockwise, at the same rate. Leaving only the third motor, which is controlling the moon’s revolution, to affect the moon’s orientation. You will note that even with that one motor revolving the moon, the same face of the moon remains oriented towards the Earth at all times.
DREMPTY,
Pretty good really,
Except for a couple facts, the two motors I suggested do not spin on the same axis, so they don’t cancel, you keep ignoring that fact.
And the second fact, is actually the Moon doesn’t face the Earth, it faces above or below the Earth, except at the exact half moon point, when it does it for just a moment.
You see what I am trying to say, is that you do not have a very good model of the Moon, so your theory that is does not rotate does not match observations, or as ClintR would say “reality.”
Be sure to take good care of the clown car, you are going to be in it for a long time.
Not much to say except to repeat my previous comment.
DREMPTY,
That you can’t figure out that they don’t cancel because they have different axes is funny.
Say it again and you are a liar.
Pants on fire.
OK, blob.
I’m guessing bob originally thought the videos proved Moon was rotating about its axis. Then, after my comment, he realized he had made another mistake. Now, he must try to discredit the videos he found!
He always loses.
Then you didn’t understand the sentence I wrote before the links, look for the word “wrong.”
Yes, in your own words. You thought the videos would make us wrong.
Idiots often get tangled up in their own words. We see it here a lot.
And, they never learn. Makes for great entertainment.
ClintR,
No I didn’t, I knew you and the videos agree. That’s why I said admit you are wrong and win 10K.
I know you are both wrong.
Back to the clown car.
Regardless, the second video is quite helpful. Thanks for linking to it.
Wrong bob, the requirement is to disprove reality. It can’t be done. That’s why he’s safe in making the offer.
Keep digging that hole.
Imagine the clown car running around a circular track, do the clowns get dizzy?
Or were they dizzy before they got into the clown car?
Is the clown car rotating as it turns around the track.
You know in racing, that’s why they call them turns, so the clowns know the difference between straightaways and turns, and know to lean into the turn so they don’t go flying out of the clown car and bump their heads.
bob, that’s a little more desperate than original. I liked the one with Moon having two different centers of gravity. Now, that’s funny.
Now Funny Bunny ClintR,
You know I did’t say two centers of gravity, so you are misrepresent what I said, or how we say in my state, you are lying.
Again
One might wonder why you have to lie to try an win an argument you are totally losing, loser.
Center of Mass, Center of gravity, maybe you can figure out why they are different.
That is, if you understood enough physics to figure it out.
Not a chance there.
I am laughing at you.
bob, I’m not misrepresenting you. It’s just that you argue with yourself so much it’s hard to keep up with your changing opinions.
CLintR,
You better use your lapel flower to put your pants out, they’re on fire.
Liar, Liar.
You know I never said the Moon had two different centers of gravity.
“I liked the one with Moon having two different centers of gravity.”
“The torque created by gravity acting on the difference between the Moons center of gravity and its center of mass is what causes the Moon to turn, or rotate”
Actually I take back my criticism that I have made elsewhere!
These guys have made a very effective demonstration that the moon rotates on it axis without realising it!
In the second video the hand rotated moon demonstration illustrates this beautifully.
If you take South as being the bottom of the screen then the mark on the moon points south 3 times, once at the beginning, secondly at 180 degrees in orbit and again at the end. In other word it has rotated through two rotations .
For the case when the motor is not turning at all, the mark points South at the beginning and again at the end (i.e. one rotation)
Note, the N.S.W.E. axes are always the same irrespective of the orbital position of the moon , which is patently obvious. You could superimpose those axes on the moon for every position . A task which I might attempt to program when I have some time up my sleeve.
It is amazing that the authors aren’t capable of standing back and contemplating their own video.
MikeR still can’t separate orbital motion from axial rotation correctly, even when it is explained and demonstrated to him clearly and simply.
Another painstaking and detailed, point by point, rebuttal of my comments by DREM.
DREM, you only missed a couple of points. For example, did you count how many times the red arrow in the moon points South per orbit in the first part of the video 2? If you can’t count at least guess.
Hint: think of an integer, any integer between 2 and 4, but not including 2 and 4. Subtract 1 from your guess and that will be the number of rotations the moon made on its axis.
Try the same for rhe moon in the case when it is tidally locked. Report back with your conclusion.
MikeR, in the first part of video 2 he is demonstrating what it looks like when the moon is rotating on its own axis, once, counter-clockwise, per counter-clockwise orbit. You mistake the change in orientation of the arrow due to the moon’s orbital motion for an additional axial rotation.
Yes in full agreement with you. In his arrangement you get case A.
https://i.postimg.cc/dq9qwpmm/energy-of-rotation.gif
Orbital motion of the centre of mass plus two rotations per orbit around an axis through the centre of mass.
Yes, like case A, where the dumbbell is rotating on its own axis once, clockwise, per clockwise orbit.
If you keep watching video 2 he goes through B and C, as well.
No DREM,
Keep your eye on the main game. The rotation about the centre of mass is depicted on the left in the grsphics
Don’t be distracted by the orbital motion as shown immediately to the right.
Likewise you can only tell how many rotations are being undertaken in the video is with reference to the fixed external view (i. e, N.S.W.E defined by the fixed horizontal and vertical axes of the screen ).
However if you are rotating your monitor screen or tablet by hand (with auto rotate off) , then your results may differ but knlywith respect to your room.
As I need to repeat yet again, ignoring frames of reference is at your own peril. Particularly non inertial rotating frames.
Therein lies your madness.
It has nothing to do with reference frames. It is simply a question of how you define the motion “orbiting without rotating on its own axis”.
Ok DREM,
You’re welcome to your own definition.
Reality begs to differ. See my comments about rotational energy.
I have seen them, and I have responded to them.
Ok DREM, then that’s it.
I Would pursue your fascinating theory that the energy of rotation only appears to be present (“looks can be deceiving “) but we may be stuck repeating our exchanges indefinitely.
Rather than wasting everyone’s time (or just the time of those who by misfortune have stumbled upon these exchanges) with your evasions, it is best to move the needle to some other track.
Maybe you could advance another theory regarding the moon. The green cheese one hasn’t had a run recently and you need a new challenge. I am sure you and Clint could make a convincing case and Gordon and MikeF are likely to be supportive.
Why not? Nothing is too outlandish for you guys.
OK, MikeR. You are rambling again.
Yes I have been somewhat. Just an occupational hazard when dealing with trolls.
Good night from down under.
Yes, good night, MikeR.
ball4…”Moon needs to turn to keep same face to earth as it orbits; no moon turn, no same face to earth as it falls”.
Nope. The motion of the Moon is due to its linear momentum. Earth’s gravitational field cannot produce a torque on the Moon to turn it. There are no forces acting to make the Moon rotate.
The phenomenon of the Moon always showing one side to the Earth is due to the interaction of its linear momentum and the perpendicular force due to Earth’s gravity. The resultant of these two effects causes the Moon’s near face to always point in.
What about the difference between the Moons center of mass and its center of gravity.
They are not the same point, but they are aligned with the force of gravity pulling the Moon towards the Earth.
The linear momentum of the Moon causes the two points, the center of gravity and the center of mass of the Moon to come out of alignment and the force of gravity then puts a torque on the Moon causing it to turn, to keep the center of gravity and the center of mass aligned.
That’s very imaginative, bob.
Nonsense, but imaginative.
ClintR,
You only say that because you can’t do the math.
There is no “math” involved, idiot. Gravity acts instantaneously.
Keep trying to perert reality. It makes for great entertainment.
ClintR,
Ha Ha Ha, you are too funny, here off to the wikipedia I send you. You can buy a more advance text if you like, but this one is free.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass
“However, for satellites in orbit around a planet, in the absence of other torques being applied to a satellite, the slight variation (gradient) in gravitational field between closer-to (stronger) and further-from (weaker) the planet can lead to a torque that will tend to align the satellite such that its long axis is vertical. In such a case, it is important to make the distinction between the center-of-gravity and the mass-center. Any horizontal offset between the two will result in an applied torque.”
Keep on keepin on
Yes bob, we know how confusing wikipedia can be to you idiots.
This has no relevance for Moon. We all know about “barycenter”. It changes nothing. Moon does NOT rotate about its axis.
(I am glad you have withdrawn your concession. The more idiots, the better.)
CLintR,
Just repeating something doesn’t make it true, now you are starting to sound like someone from One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest.
The torque created by gravity acting on the difference between the Moons center of gravity and its center of mass is what causes the Moon to turn, or rotate, that’s reality.
bob, I don’t know which is funnier–your desperate Internet search where you find things you can’t understand, or your feeble attempts at physics.
But, when you put them both together, it’s a laugh riot.
Great job.
Only two things are certain ClintR,
I know more physics than you,
And
I am laughing harder than you.
Now you’re pretending again, bob.
So where did you study physics ClintR?
ROTFLMAO
Sorry bob, that’s already on the list.
Hi Norman,
I learned a whole lot from your earlier comment about the car on the highway, even though I only half agree. Probably spent 24 hours total obsessing over it. OCD?
I like this one too!
[The outer part of the ball is moving faster than the inner part. On release then their is a torque that causes the axial rotation you see.]
Not good for my condition.
*****
That said, when the record player is turned on, every little piece of the record starts to rotate about its own, unique axis. Turn it off, and the rotations stop.
Likewise, when a ball is being swung by a string, the ball begins to rotate about its own, unique axis. The rotation stops when the ball comes to rest.
******
For me anyway, your comment changes the discussion to something I was already struggling with: why does the ball continue to rotate after release?
The obvious and almost certainly correct answer is Newtons first law of motion, meaning it was stupid to suggest otherwise.
Getting stuff wrong, though, then figuring out on my own WHY I was wrong, is something I enjoy.
IOW, I like to approach a science question like a brain-teaser, and pull my hair out, rather than like a student who studies information passed down from others.
“That said, when the record player is turned on, every little piece of the record starts to rotate about its own, unique axis. Turn it off, and the rotations stop.”
Ridiculous.
“Likewise, when a ball is being swung by a string, the ball begins to rotate about its own, unique axis. The rotation stops when the ball comes to rest.”
No, you would have to assume that every little piece of the ball starts to rotate about its own, unique axis, if you are going to continue your “logic” from the record. No reason not to sub-divide the ball, if you are going to sub-divide the record, right?
snape…”I like this one too!
[The outer part of the ball is moving faster than the inner part. On release then their is a torque that causes the axial rotation you see.]”
Wrong. The outer part of the ball is moving faster because it needs to keep up with the radial line represented by the string. In a rigid body, the velocity of the outer part versus the inner part is irrelevant, the significant factor is the angular velocity of a radial line from the body to its external axis.
If the ball is released cleanly, without a reaction from the string being cut, it will fly off in a tangential direction with the outer edge moving parallel to the core. Releasing it cleanly is a major problem.
Consider yourself standing on a rotating platform on it’s edge while looking in a tangential direction. We could either stop the platform instantly or allow it to drop out from under you. Either way, you will move straight ahead without rotating about your COG.
Norman,
More clearly, it was stupid of ME to suggest otherwise.
DREMT
[No, you would have to assume that every little piece of the ball starts to rotate about its own, unique axis, if you are going to continue your logic from the record. No reason not to sub-divide the ball, if you are going to sub-divide the record, right?]
Right. Good catch.
I should remind you, though, that from your POV, where the center of orbit is the inertial frame of reference, what I wrote really is ridiculous. This is something we agree on.
Just like I would agree with the sofa guy – the bed is not moving WRT the floor. Ridiculous to think otherwise.
So all the individual atoms comprising the ball and the record are all rotating on their own axes, are they, Snape?
Well yes DREMPTY,
“Elementary particles have a property called spin that can be thought of as rotation around their axes. … Just like electrons, the atoms in the gas are fermions, particles that cannot share the same quantum state; as a consequence, each atom has to have a different combination of spin and velocity.”
That’s from MIT
And over your head.
bob now gets confused over quantum numbers.
And, check it out — “That’s from MIT”!
(What an idiot.)
bobd…”Elementary particles have a property called spin that can be thought of as rotation around their axes…”
Spin can be though of that way but that’s not what it is. Spin with electrons is marked as +1/2 or -1/2. What kind of rotation about an axis has those values?
The reason spin came into existence with electrons was to account for variations in the Bohr model which applied only to hydrogen with one proton and one electron. As things got more complex with atoms having more protons and electrons, values had to be created to explain the more complex motion of multiple electrons/protons. Ergo, spin is an imaginary value that has no meaning wrt rotation.
Each orbital energy level is described by four values and the spin number is one of them. They are all adjustments to the Bohr model and Schrodinger’s equations to fine tune each atom to account for discrepancies in the Bohr model.
You can never take quantum theory seriously in a physical sense. It does not correspond to our physical world as we understand it. Feynman once said that quantum theory works but no one knows why.
David Bohm, an expert with quantum theory once stated that quantum mechanics and Newtonian mechanics have reached the ends of their respective roads and something new has to be discovered/invented. He suggested we need to get rid of time as a parameter and find something that better relates phenomena such a force and mass.
Quantum theory, with its reliance on math and statistics, creates an aura of mystery and obfuscation that has so-called experts making rash claims, like action at a distance.
In essence, we really have no idea what goes on in physics at the atomic level.
Gordon,
You are alive and well as of less than an hour ago. Thank goodness.
In the meantime do you want to have a go at responding to the comments below that have been addressed to you?
You can take it slowly, but at least have a go. Pleading the 5th is never a good look.
https://tinyurl.com/yxk2jcp2
https://tinyurl.com/y4x8n2lm
https://tinyurl.com/yxcxeovv
https://tinyurl.com/yxv23eeg
DREMT
Not sure about atoms, but in the spirit of what youre asking, from your POV that would indeed be nutty.
From an external, inertial frame; then yes.
From an external frame, the atoms are rotating about an axis in the center of the record, and not on their own axes. Are you aware that rotation can occur about an external axis?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.“
So the axis the atoms of the record are rotating about is in the center of the record. Not their own axes. Every particle in the record is moving in a circle about that single line, the central axis. The radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time.
The axis the atoms of the ball are rotating about is in the center of the orbital path produced by the ball. Not their own axes. Every particle in the ball is moving in a circle about that single line, the central, external (to the ball) axis. The radius vectors from the axis to all particles of the ball undergo the same angular displacement at the same time.
DREMPTY,
You forgot to consider this part
“Any displacement of a rigid body may be arrived at by first subjecting the body to a displacement followed by a rotation, or conversely, to a rotation followed by a displacement.”
For the Moon, that means two things are happening at the same time, rotation and revolving.
According to those videos you linked to, the moon is just revolving.
Yeah, I linked to them because they offer a fraudulent offer to disprove that the Moon is just revolving.
I thought the clown car would like a shot.
Why don’t you give it a shot?
Because it requires spending money and they are frauds.
Well, you’ve got to speculate to accumulate.
bobd…”For the Moon, that means two things are happening at the same time, rotation and revolving”.
I don’t understand why you cannot see the problem there. If the Moon is both rotating and revolving we would see every side of the Moon since we rotate 28 times for every lunar orbit.
Try, using whatever means, to get the Moon to rotate once on its axis while still keeping the same side pointed toward the Earth. It’s not possible.
DREMT
Now, you dont seem to understand the difference between an internal and external axis!! Hopefully you can prove me wrong.
If we draw an axis through Earths Poles, this is an example of an internal axis, right? Goes right through Earths center.
The Wiki definition of pure rotation checks our too, after all, every particle in Earths body is moving in a circle about the line we just drew.
********
Can you find an example of an external axis about which every particle in Earths body is moving in a circle?
For the case of the record, the axis is internal, obviously. The record is simply rotating on its own axis. It should go without saying that the atoms comprising the record are merely rotating about the same axis. All parts of the record are rotating about that axis, not on their own axes.
For the ball on a string, the axis is external to the ball. So that is an example of an external axis.
For the moon, the external axis is the Earth/moon barycenter. Every particle in the moon’s body is moving in concentric circles about the barycenter.
Well, except that the Moon is moving in an ellipse.
Concentric ellipses, if you insist, pedant.
DREMPT
You are 100% correct of course, and I realize now I need to re-evaluate at least PART of my argument.
Maybe things will clear up after coffee, who knows? In any case, this is an example of my modus operandi (see my reply to Norman):
[Getting stuff wrong, though, then figuring out on my own WHY I was wrong, is something I enjoy.]
That is not to say I like to operate in a vacuum. You have helped out a lot.
Got it!
If I drop a vertical line threw a smily face drawn on the record, then:
a) it is not an external axis.
b} the record wont spin.
The argument seems to have failed.
There is a silver lining, though, because something I read yesterday that at the time made little sense, is now clear!
Tim Folkerts
September 8, 2020
It is just a circle you have drawn onto a record, and thus it cannot rotate on its own axis.
This is where the analogy breaks down. The moon is not drawn onto some solid disk. The moon is not attached to a giant merry-go-round. Gravity does not bolt the moon to some fixed orientation relative to the orbit around the orbital motion like a horse bolted to a merry-go-round.
Gravity is the ultimate low-friction bearing, providing a centripetal force, but providing no torque. (well a very tiny torque on non-uniform spheres, but this torque can be ignored for the discussion here.)
So rather than circle drawn on the record, the circle should be mounted on a zero-friction axle. Begin with the record stationary and the circle on the axle stationary (ie neither rotating with respect to the fixed stars.).
3) Start the record turning.
4) Can the circle rotate on its own axis? No it remains not rotating with respect to the fixed stars. Whichever part of the circle is toward the north will remain to the north throughout the entire revolution of the record.
(Eventually the small friction of the bearings will get the circles turning with the record. But then if you stop the record, the circle will continue to spin on its own axis until some time in he distant future when the circle will finally coast to a stop.)
(Tim, sorry about the messed up punctuation.)
Nobody is arguing that the moon is drawn onto a solid disk, or attached to a giant merry-go-round. Think of these analogies as a Step 1. Once you understand that the smiley face on the record, the chalk circle on the merry-go-round, the wooden horse on the merry-go-round, and the ball on the string are all not rotating on their own axes (regardless of reference frame) then you are at Point Norman.
You should be able to see here that objects which are incapable of rotating on their own axes move a certain way. With the same face always oriented towards the center of the orbit. Where you go from there is up to you. Personally I spend so much time on here arguing against people who insist that the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis (Ball4, bobdroege, etc etc), that anybody getting to Point Norman is good enough for me.
“Think of these analogies as a Step 1.”
The problem is that these analogies (merry-go rounds, trains on tracks, etc) are indeed Step 1, but heading in the wrong direction.
What is Step 2? Realizing that its not actually a disk rotating a some fixed speed, but a series of concentric rings with the inner rings turning faster (27 days out near the moon, but 90 min near the earth)? And Step 3 might be to add epicycles to deal with elliptical orbits. And then we have stepped BACKWARDS to the time of Ptolemy. And what about 1-shot, hyperbolic orbits? And what about retrograde orbits? Is there another set of disks rotating the other way to ‘carry’ other moons?
No, an orbit is simply the path traced by a point. That path is calculated from gravity & intial velocity, not ordained by some disk turning at just the right speed to correspond to a perfect circular orbit.
Well, Tim, we can get onto Step 2 (which is not as you describe) when you have finally achieved Step 1.
You could always just answer the question I asked you, below:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-521872
Tim, DREMT misses that the outer radius of any circle drawn on the spinning record has a larger radial velocity than the inner radius radial velocity. No matter the diameter of the circle all the way down to atomic size thus any circle drawn or piece are all rotating on their own axes while the record is spinning.
This is why the record fractures into pieces that have initial spin about their own axes & a ball on string keeps spinning unless other forces interfere after string is cut or released. DREMT has been mistaken about this for years and lost the case at the get go. DREMT has not yet found a correct argument or definition to reopen the case on appeal despite repeated failed attempts.
I asked Tim, not you.
I was responding to Tim, not DREMT.
OK, Ball4. I will ignore your comment here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-522072
because it is just more of your usual contradiction.
Good move, I was responding for Tim there also.
Oh, responding for him now, are we!?
No. I was responding for Tim’s comment not Tim.
Tim’s comment asked you to respond on its behalf?
Comments can’t do that DREMT unless you define so, just like the moon can’t stop rotating on its own axis once per orbit of earth.
I was just teasing you, Ball4. I know English is not your first language.
Apologies for my intercession here.
DREM. Your language skills don’t appear to be particularly impressive.
One can only guess what your first language was, but currently it appears to be a primitive version of Jabberwocky that relies on repetition.
OK, MikeR.
Tim attempts to pervert reality: “The problem is that these analogies (merry-go rounds, trains on tracks, etc) are indeed Step 1, but heading in the wrong direction.”
The purpose of the “analogies” is to demonstrate to idiots that just because something might appear to be rotating about its axis, it may not be actually rotating about its axis.
Of course any attempt to teach reality to idiots will fail, as has been well exhited here.
Yes ClintR,
As has been explained, you need to get close up and personal to know whether an object is rotating on its axis, hence the discussion about the energy of rotation.
On that note, I suggest you have your argument regarding the nature of reality with the blades of a propellor or rotary saw.
The argument coukd be very lopsided and as a result you may become very asymmetric around your vertical axis.
It is a self evident oxymoron (emphasis on thhe last two syllables) to juxtapose ClintR with the word “thought experiment” but this a case where discretion is better than valour.
OK, OK…you cannot separate orbital motion from axial rotation correctly, MikeR. We get it.
And we also get that you cannot stop interceding on behalf of your accomplice.
I know “a lawyer who defends himself has an idiot for a client” is a basic legal tenet, but hiring you makes matters doubly worse.
Particularly as you endlessly repeat yourself (maybe because you think the judge will fall asleep at the bench).
You guys should have gone with an insanity plea from the beginning. Removes the requirement to introduce evidence and at least it doesn’t take years to resolve.
Unfortunately, when you repeat yourself as much as you guys do, you don’t leave me with a lot of choice. It’s either repeat myself too, or ignore you.
Ignore is the much better option DREMT.
I would go with ignore as we are all sick of your repetition.
I am going to try and adopt this policy myself, but will I be able to exercise enough restraint in the face of egregious nonense? Time will tell.
No, I’m good thanks.
Yes, DREMT’s good egregious nonsense. DREMT did manage to convince ClintR and Gordon though for couple wins with such good egregious nonsense.
Try again, in English?
@Tim Folkerts
Everything you wrote makes sense to me except thIs last part:
[Can the circle rotate on its own axis? No it remains not rotating with respect to the fixed stars.]
Followed by,
[But then if you stop the record, the circle will continue to spin on its own axis….. ]
Snape, Those two comments included the small-but-real frictional torque (either from the bearings of the axle, or from gravity acting on a distorted moon).
Before starting. everything non-rotating and ‘fixed’ with respect to the stars. 0 rmp for both.
Shortly after starting the ‘disk’ will be spinning at some fixed rate — say 4 rpm. With perfect bearings the ‘circle’ will still be spinning at 0 rpm. (In the DREMT etc view, they would have to say the circle started spinning backwards at 4 rpm when the disk started spinning forward at 4 rpm.) With real bearings, it might be spinning 0.1 RPM. Eventually, after many revolutions and many minutes, the ‘circle’ will spin up to 4 rpm due to friction. (Or you could just give it a push to make it spin 4 rpm.)
So we now have the disk and the circle spinning at 4 rpm relative to the ‘fixed stars’. Now stop the disk (0 rmp). The ‘circle’ will still spin @ 4 rpm. With perfect bearings, the circle would continue to spin at 4 rpm forever. The circle is rotating about its own axis at 4 rpm. (With real bearings, it will slow down and eventually stop.)
You can do that experiment with a large bowl filled with water. Let smaller bowls float in the periphery, preferably add some weight. Then turn the the big bowl and see the small bowls keep their orientation.
You have to be a bit careful, DREMT splashed the water all over.
bill hunter said the Coriolis effect provided a strong torque.
I’m skeptical.
Tim, if the circle is just drawn onto the record, does it rotate on its own axis?
The correct answer is “no”, but interested to see if you can admit that.
A: Once per revolution of the record.
I asked Tim, not you.
“Tim, if the circle is just drawn onto the record, does it rotate on its own axis?
The correct answer is “no”, but interested to see if you can admit that.”
The correct answer is “it depends”.
And measure of rotation (or translation) requires a reference frame. A familiar example is that I can say I am sitting still. Or moving eastward at ~ 1000 km/hr. Or moving around the sun at ~100,000 km/hr. Each is a ‘correct’ answer for my speed, depending on the reference frame that is chosen. Different frames give different answer.
Similarly, rotation must be measured relative to a reference frame. Different frames give different answers.
Lets define a z-axis upward through the center of the chalk circle. The x & y axes could chosen to be connected to the platform — for example, x-pointing radially outward and y pointing tangentially forward. IN this frame, your answer is correct. The chalk circle is NOT rotating about this axis.
Alternatively, the x & y axes could chosen to be connected to the ground — for example, x-east and y pointing north. In this frame, your answer is wrong. The chalk circle IS rotating about this axis.
No, Tim…connect your x & y axes to the ground if you wish, x-east and y pointing north. In this frame, the chalk circle is still rotating about the center of the record, and not on its own axis. It may appear to be rotating on its own axis, but it isn’t. It physically cannot rotate on its own axis.
You can’t seem to get it through your heads that rotation is always about some axis. If the chalk circle is rotating about the center of the record, that’s that. It’s not also rotating on its own axis – for that to be the case, the paths of the particles making up the contents of the chalk circle would have to be criss-crossing, as the record rotates.
They are not criss-crossing, they are all moving in concentric circles about the center of the record. So the chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis. Regardless of reference frame!
They are not criss-crossing because of rotation once per record revolution so they are all moving in concentric circles about the center of the record. So the chalk circle has to be rotating on its own axis once each rev., no more no less or the result is criss-crossing. Regardless of reference frame!
Tim: “The chalk circle is NOT rotating about this axis.”
Because you apparently fixed the x,y to the chalk circle, so this non-inertial reference frame is now constrained to be rotating once per rev. of the center, no more, no less than once.
“If the chalk circle is rotating about the center of the record, that’s that. It’s not also rotating on its own axis”
Try this, DREMT. I have an old-fashioned portable turntable (record player) that is set to spin at a steady 15 rpm clockwise (once every 4 seconds). For the sake of discussion I will always hold the base in the same orientation (horizontally, with the same part of the case pointing north).
1) If I hold the turntable still, how fast is the record turning “on its own axis”? a steady 15 RPM?
2) if I carry the turntable north at constant speed, how fast is the record turning “on its own axis”? a steady 15 RPM?
3) If I carry the turntable slowing in some random, zig-zagging motion, how fast is the record turning “on its own axis”? a steady 15 RPM?
4) if I carry the turntable slowly clockwise around a 1 m radius circle in say 1 min, how fast is the record turning “on its own axis”? a steady 15 RPM?
5) if I carry the turntable clockwise around a 1 m radius circle a bit faster — say in 15 sec, how fast is the record turning “on its own axis”? a steady 15 RPM?
6) if I carry the turntable clockwise around a 1 m radius circle a bit faster yet — say in 4 sec, how fast is the record turning “on its own axis”? a steady 15 RPM?
I think everyone will say the record always spins at 15 rpm “on its own axis”, because that is what the motor is set to do. Carrying the turntable in various directions doesn’t change the rate of rotation
But here is the point. Example (6) is indistinguishable from a record sitting 1 m from the center of a platform spinning at 15 rpm. In both cases.
* The center of the record is 1 m from the center.
* the center moves around a circle in 4 seconds.
* One point on the record is always facing toward the center.
Did the record stop turning “on its own axis”???
In one case the record is rotating on its own axis, in the other case the platform is rotating on its own axis and the record is not.
But why try so hard to complicate things?
“But why try so hard to complicate things?”
Its not complicated! Both motions are absolutely identical! The record follows exactly the same path whether …
a) the record is turning on its own axis on a turntable, and the turntable itself is moving in a circle at the same rate, or
b) the record is sitting off-center on a larger turntable.
The record doesn’t know or care which physical action is causing the motion. BOTH descriptions accurately describe the motion of the record in this case.
And let’s follow up on this: “In one case the record is rotating on its own axis”
So the distinction between the two cases (in your mind) has nothing to do with the actual motion. The distinction is whether or not the record is sitting off-center on a large rotating platform.
tim…”And measure of rotation (or translation) requires a reference frame”.
Only if you are an egghead intellectual mathematician who cannot think in terms of physical reality. Or if you have an issue with complex relative motion.
Neither applies here. A circle drawn on a revolving record is drawn on the atoms making up the record material. They are bonded together and cannot move relative to each other, that is, they are rotating about the spindle as a mass. Ergo, the drawn circle cannot rotate any differently than the entire mass of the record revolving around the spindle.
tim…”Each is a correct answer for my speed, depending on the reference frame that is chosen. Different frames give different answer”.
Tim…you need to look more closely. Reference frames are created for humans for the benefit of the human mind. They don’t exist in physical reality. Only the human mind with its eccentricities and distortions could look at motion from different perspectives (frames of reference) and create different explanations for the same motion.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the need of the human mind to define reference frames so they can apply mathematical equation in lieu of observation. With more complex situations it becomes a necessary evil. However, in doing so, you lose contact with the real, physical world. Although quantum theory is worshipped by many, it makes no sense whatsoever in a physical sense and people using it must be extremely careful to verify their facts.
That was Einstein’s problem with relativity. He was trying to observe, in his mind, an imaginary concept and he inferred nonsense by claiming that time and distance can change with velocity. Ironically, that’s exactly what he criticized Bohr for doing with quantum theory, failing to base his observation in a real, physical world.
Einstein went so far, without proof, to create a multiplier for time based on the ratio of a velocity to the speed of light. He had a real fetish for the speed of light as an ultimate constant upon which the universe is dependent.
He failed to understand that time was invented by humans and is based on the rate at which the Earth rotates, which is a constant, for all intents and purposes. In one of his papers on relativity he defined time as ‘the hands on a clock’. That definition has to stand as one of the most stupid statements ever made by a scientists at his level.
Ask yourself, where did you get this information about reference frames, from an Einsteinian hero worshipper? Just as you have to be very careful with statistics, you have to be very careful with the inferences of reference frames.
“They are bonded together and cannot move relative to each other”
They do move relative to each other but that’s another story. They rotate on their own axis in the room which contains the record player.
Time existed before humans and is not based on the rate the earth rotates.
Actually, Tim did pretty much answer this question before:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-477438
““The merry-go-round is rotating. The chalk circle drawn at the edge of it is not rotating on its own axis, though.”
I get it. You picture some cosmic merry-go-round to which the moon is attached. A platform on which you can draw chalk circles or weld merry-go-round horses or place bowls of water. From this perspective, the moon does not have an extra, independent rotation. Fair enough.“
I will take it that his answer to the question is the correct “no”, unless he tells me otherwise.
@Tim Folkerts,
You wrote,
[So rather than circle drawn on the record, the circle should be mounted on a zero-friction axle. Begin with the record stationary and the circle on the axle stationary (ie neither rotating with respect to the fixed stars.).
3) Start the record turning.
4) Can the circle rotate on its own axis? No it remains not rotating with respect to the fixed stars. Whichever part of the circle is toward the north will remain to the north throughout the entire revolution of the record.]
*******
I had a similar idea, but instead of mounting the circle on a zero-friction axle, you could glue a disk to the record.
Then, on top of the disk, mount a north facing pointer on a zero-friction axle.
In other words, the disk is a compass.
@Tim Folkerts
Sorry, I should have read more carefully. Great post.
We had the same basic idea for how to demonstrate something thats counterintuitive to a lot of people.
@Tim Folkerts
Hey,
I wanted to share my thinking on the astronaut/ball video.
The question is, did the spinning ball keep spinning in accordance with NFLOM, or was something acting on it? Going with the latter.
**********
[When an object moves in a circle, you can think of its instantaneous velocity (the velocity at a given point in time) at any particular point on the circle as an arrow drawn from that point and directed in the tangential direction. For this reason, this velocity is called the tangential velocity. The magnitude of the tangential velocity is the tangential speed, which is simply the speed of an object moving in a circle.]
https://tinyurl.com/yyy48rta
[Newton’s first law of motion is often stated as:
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.]
***********
At the instant the ball was released, every point belonging to the ball was moving in a straight line.
So they should continued to move in a straight line.
But that doesnt happen. It follows, then, that per NFLOM, an unbalanced force was involved. something outSide the scope of the law.
******
Each point belonging to the ball is attached by a force. Glue, a stitch, a molecular bond, whatever. We saw what happened to the record when this force failed: the record disintegrated.
*******
So the new question is, what caused the ball to keep spinning?
snape…”For this reason, this velocity is called the tangential velocity. The magnitude of the tangential velocity is the tangential speed, which is simply the speed of an object moving in a circle”.
Velocity is the instantaneous change of position wrt time at any point on a circle. The derivative expressing that is dv/dt which is the 1st derivative of the circle’s equation and the slope of the tangent line at that point.
Thanks, Isaac.
Speed is a non-vector quantity which is a slang for velocity, which is a vector quantity. So the velocity vector at any point on a circle must point in the tangential direction and works only if the velocity is constant.
The tangential velocity is an instantaneous quantity and does not apply in general to the average velocity around the entire circle since you’d need a whole bunch of vectors at different angles to describe it.
I am only claiming that it is not quite as simple as it appears. On the other hand, it might be if the velocity is constant.
Unfortunately, the Moon’s velocity is not constant since as Tim pointed out, the orbit is slightly elliptical. Therefore it is better to pick a point on a circle and work with the instantaneous (tangential) velocity.
snape…”So they should continued to move in a straight line.
But that doesnt happen. It follows, then, that per NFLOM, an unbalanced force was involved. something outSide the scope of the law”.
Bridges have balanced forces in their structural members. That’s is, they don’t move, in general. They flex a bit.
An unbalanced force means there is no equal and opposite force to balance the force. With your ball on a string, there is one force on the ball, from the string, and a force from the air molecules which tend to resist the momentum of the ball.
If you suddenly release the ball, by cutting the string, you have to ensure that the cutting action does not bend the string and pull on the ball, causing a torque. If the string is simply released from the hand, the weight of the string will likely skew the path of the ball by applying a slight torque as it drags behind. Also, the string is likely to be stretched slightly and when released it will rebound, possibly allowing the ball to change direction.
It’s not just a matter of unbalanced forces, there are other mechanics involved.
snape…”So the new question is, what caused the ball to keep spinning?”
A better question is this. When the ball is released 1000 times, what is it’s action during each release. Does it ever move without rotating and which direction does the rotation take?
Okay, the second after hitting the submit button…..
I realized that although all the points were moving in a straight line, they pointed to every direction. Meaning the forces were balanced, not unbalanced.
NFLOM applies.
*The math argument for using inertial frames of reference is explained by what happens if we dont.*
Non inertial:
– Floor is circling Earths axis CCW: Velocity = 800 MPH
– man, standing on floor, Is circling Earths axis
CCW: Velocity = 800 MPH
– The man begins to walk CW
– but the faster he walks, the slower his velocity!
.*******
So, for the math to make sense, we have to pretend that the floor is at rest.
Hat tip to Tim Folkerts
Step 1: Understand that the smiley face on the record, the chalk circle on the merry-go-round, the wooden horse on the merry-go-round, and the ball on the string are all not rotating about their own centers of mass (regardless of reference frame).
Step 2: Realize that an object that is rotating about an external axis (like the ball on a string) without axial rotation, always keeps the same face pointed towards that external axis whilst it moves. That is simply what ‘rotating about an external axis’ is.
Step 3: Realize that revolution (orbital motion) is just another word for rotation about an external axis. Hence ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is a movement in which the same face is pointed towards the center of the orbit throughout. Axial rotation is then separate and independent of this motion.
Step 4: Understand that there will be complications with ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’. Nobody is expecting the orbit to be perfectly circular, without libration, and everything else. None of these considerations are any reason to reject the basic understanding given in Steps 1-3.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
You make my head spin. Solve those complications with Kepler’s elliptical orbit and a steady rotation.
Svante makes a Step 4 error without having ever proved he has even made it to Step 1.
Is the wooden horse rotating on its own axis? Yes or no?
I never get a straight answer from you.
I said I don’t mind if you think of your wooden horse and platform as a single motion. It fails when you apply it to the moon.
You obviously do mind, because you think the ball on a string is rotating on its own axis. You are not at Step 1. Try listening to your pal Norman.
svante…”Solve those complications with Keplers elliptical orbit and a steady rotation”.
All Kepler did was synthesize the data acquired by Tycho Brahe and derived equations that explained the interactions of the planets with the Sun. Heady stuff but it was Newton who explained the physics underlying the equations.
We don’t need Newton or Kepler to understand dremt’s point that no matter what the circumstances you cannot get around the physics of a body rotating on its axis. There are rules for rotation about a local axis, or an external axis, and the Moon does not meet the requirements for rotation about a local axis.
All the reference frames in the universe cannot get around that simple fact.
The moon’s rotation and orbit do not progress in lock step.
The rotational speed is steady but the orbital speed varies along the ellipse.
They are therefore two different things.
DRE
I think my mistake was using the terms:
External frame of reference
Internal frame of reference
Should have been:
Inertial frame versus non-inertial frame
Which, as far as I can tell, are similar to the concepts of Left versus Right, or Up versus Down.
Each term is meaningless by itself.
You are in your car, driving down the highway at 30 MPH
If the road and landscape around you is the inertial frame, then the stripes on the road, appearing to move backwards, create an illusion.
If the car is the inertial frame, then those stripes really are moving backwards.
snape…”If the road and landscape around you is the inertial frame, then the stripes on the road, appearing to move backwards, create an illusion”.
The illusion is created by the human mind which cannot deal with relative motion to any degree. Yet, Einstein et al have done exactly that. They have used an organ, prone to illusion, as an observer and concluded that the time noted by that organ can change.
D-u-u-h!!! That organ created time and based it on the rotation of the Earth, which is a constant. Time does not exist in reality yet it is claimed to change interval length with velocity.
Double d-u-u-h!!! Now we have raving idiots with Ph.Ds who want to redefine gravity based on space and time, both illusions created by the human mind. Not saying space does not exist, that is space between solid objects in the universe, but our definition of it based on human-created coordinate systems and reference frames does not exist.
Having a degree in physics does not remove you from the stupidity of illusions. At a university level, you are discouraged from asking uncomfortable questions and urged to memorize what you are told. Many physicists and scientists excel at doing what they are told, incapable of questioning.
When you dabble with thought-experiments you are dabbling with illusion. You have to be mighty careful.
You could turn in circles while holding a compass flat in your palm.
If the compass body is the inertial frame, then the magnetic needle is rotating around the center of the compass.
If the magnetic needle is the inertial frame, then the compass body is rotating around the center of the compass.
snape…”If the magnetic needle is the inertial frame, then the compass body is rotating around the center of the compass”.
Look at the real physical phenomena and never mind the frames. The needle is turning toward North on its own axis. It’s motion has nothing to do with you and your reference frames. Only a human mind could be concerned with turning reality ass over tea kettle.
A wolf observing you would go…WTF?
Place a compass on a record and turn on the player. We know two things for certain:
1) If the magnetic needle is the inertial frame of reference, then the compass body is rotating around the center of the compass.
2) If the compass body is the inertial frame of reference, then the magnetic needle is rotating around the center of the compass.
No need to overthink it.
Snape, you need to drop the word “inertial” from (2). A rotating frame is never an inertial frame. (and you could drop it from (1) as well just to be more symmetric.)
Tim,
Both are true statements. It doesnt make sense to say one is more true than the other.
Tim,
Lets say your normal walking pace is 2 mph
Now, imagine you are on top of a train car, walking south at your normal pace.
The train car is moving North at 2 mph
******
What is your true velocity?
a) 2 mph
b) 0 mph
True velocity? Relative to what? Galactic center?
Ball4 has the right idea. There is no “true velocity”, only velocity relative to some reference frame. Einstein came up with a little theory that addresses this issue.
snape…”What is your true velocity?”
Relative to the train or relative to the side of the track?
My point is that if the train is said to be the inertial frame, then his velocity is 2 mph.
If the surrounding landscape is said to be the inertial frame, his velocity is 0 mph
From a different inertial frame, you could say that both man and train are moving at about 800 mph,
All claims are equally true.
The train is moving on a rotating object, it cannot be the inertial frame. “True velocity” is relative to the inertial frame. At 5:21pm you could ask what is relative velocity to train, or to landscape.
This might help (maybe).
The chalk circle does not rotate “about its own axes”.
The merry-go-round horse does not rotate “about its own axes”.
The merry-go-round itself does not rotate “about its own axes”.
In fact, nothing in the universe rotates “about its own axes”
And nothing in the universe translates “about its own axes”.
By definition, an object’s “own axes” are fixed with that object. For example, the merry-go-round horse’s axes might have their origin at the center of mass, the x-axis toward the nose, the y-axis outward, and the z-axis upward. How matter how that horse moves, relative to the rest of the world, it is completely stationary and non-rotating relative to its own axes. (Check out this cool video of a sword based on “its own axes”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaEZZ43WrTQ)
Saying something is “not rotating relative to its own axes” is completely true and completely uninformative! The interesting and useful question is “how does an object’s own axes move relative to some other germane axes?” (For instance “do the horse’s axes rotate relative to the merry-go-round’s axes?” or “do the moons axes rotate relative to the ‘fixed stars’?” Those are useful and interesting questions!)
The chalk circle does not rotate “about its own axis”.
The merry-go-round horse does not rotate “about its own axis”.
The merry-go-round itself does rotate “about its own axis”.
In fact, many objects in the universe rotate “about their own axes”.
Just not the chalk circle, wooden horse, ball on a string, or moon.
DREMT, you are missing a subtle but important point — singular “axis” vs plural “axes”.
The earth has one axis through its poles — lets call this the z-axis. If you want to determine if the earth is rotating about this z-axis, you need to specify “relative to what.” A single axis is a 1D line, with no definable orientations perpendicular to the axis. You need some point OFF the axis to use as a reference for rotation. This extra point defines a second axis — we could call this the x-axis, and then the y-axis is perpendicular to both of these. Now we have three axes and a way to tell if the object is rotating around the z-axis relative to the chosen x-axis.
* if you use a point attached to the earth (eg where the prime meridian crosses the equator, eg the earth’s own axes), then, by definition, the earth is not rotating around the z-axis relative to that point.
* if you use the sun as that point. then the earth rotates around the z-axis once every 24 hr.
* if you use a star as that point, then the earth rotates once every 23hr, 56min.
Similarly a merry-go-round has one axis through its center … You need some point OFF the axis to use as a reference … we have three axes and a way to tell if the MGR is rotating around the z-axis relative to the chosen x-axis.
* if you use a point attached to the MGR (eg some mark painted on the MGR), then, by definition, the MGR is not rotating relative to that point.
* if you use a point attached to the ground, then the MGR rotates.
* if you use a point attached to a distant star, then the MGR rotates.
Similarly a moon has one axis through its poles …
* if you use a point attached to the moon then, by definition, the MGR is not rotating relative to that point.
* if you use a point attached to the center of the earth, then the moon has no average rotation (but rotates slightly forward and back because the same point on the moon does not always face exactly toward the center of the earth.
* if you use a point attached to a distant star, then the moon rotates every ~ 27.3 days.
* if you use a point attached to the sun, then the moon rotates every ~ 29.5 days.
When you say
“The merry-go-round horse does not rotate “about its own axis”.
The merry-go-round itself does rotate “about its own axis”.
you are CHOOSING to measure the MGR relative to the ground, but measure the horse relative to the MGR.
This is certainly one option, but certainly not the only option. And not even a self-consistent option. It would be akin to saying ‘my car is moving at 60 mph, but the coffee cup in my hand is not moving because it is stationary relative to the car’.
Physicists CHOOSE to use a distant star (ie a non-rotating reference frame) as the extra point for all orbits and all rotations. This is self-consistent. This makes calculations self-consistent and easier.
“When you say
“The merry-go-round horse does not rotate “about its own axis”.
The merry-go-round itself does rotate “about its own axis”.
you are CHOOSING to measure the MGR relative to the ground, but measure the horse relative to the MGR.”
Wrong. They are statements of absolute truth, regardless of reference frame. The horse is not rotating on its own axis, even when measured relative to the ground. It is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, relative to the ground. By the same token, the merry-go-round is rotating on its own axis.
The merry-go-round is either rotating on its own axis, or it is stationary. The wooden horse is either rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round, or it is stationary. It is not physically possible for it to rotate on its own axis, or be stationary whilst the rest of the merry-go-round rotates.
It is not physically possible for horse to rotate on its own axis more or less than once per orbit since it is bolted down, or be stationary whilst the rest of the merry-go-round rotates.
The horse can be made to stare at the same wall and not be rotating on its own axis at all with gearing but the horse would still to be translating back and forth in the room with the mgr rotating. These 2DOF are what the transmographer is trying to show DREMT but DREMT fails to understand that there really are 2DOFs for the bolted down horse.
The wooden horse cannot physically rotate on its own axis. It is constrained to rotate only about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. Same as every other part of the merry-go-round. The transmographer proves me right, as I explained earlier.
If the horse wasn’t rotating on its own axis DREMT, the rider would only see the one wall going left-right, back and forth. But the rider sees all four walls each orbit on the mgr as the transmographer demonstrates for (nearly) everyone else but DREMT.
The rider sees all four walls because the horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
With the mgr rotating, the horse can be made to stare at the same wall and not be rotating on its own axis at all with gearing but the horse would still to be translating back and forth in the room. When the horse is bolted down, it rotates on its own axis AND translates just like the transmographer shows.
The wooden horse physically cannot rotate on its own axis. It is constrained to rotate only about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. Same as every other part of the merry-go-round. The transmographer proves me right, as I explained earlier.
In reality. the horse is constrained to rotate only about its own axis once as its rider sees all 4 walls of the mgr room & translate about the axis in the center of the merry-go-round as the transmographer steps and motion prove. If the rider sees only one wall THEN the horse is constrained to be not rotating on its axis.
DREMT lives in a dream world where inverse kinematics is the rule so the universe & sun rotate about the non-rotating on its own axis moon illuminating all moon hemispheres, same as the room rotating around the non-rotating horse so the rider sees all 4 walls per orbit.
#2
The rider sees all four walls because the horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
Only in DREMT’s inverted dream team world where the room is spinning around to display all four walls to the non-rotating on own axis horse rider, not in the real world where the non-rotating on own axis horse rider stares at the same wall.
The rider sees all four walls because the horse is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.
Revolution (without axial rotation) is a motion that involves a change in orientation of the object. It will face through e.g. N, W, S and E whilst it revolves.
“Revolution (without axial rotation) is a motion that involves a change in orientation of the object.”
Only in DREMT’s inverse dream team world where the room spins around the non-rotating on own axis object; a world where the sun spins around the non-rotating on own axis moon illuminating all hemispheres of the moon.
Please do attack those straw men, Ball4. Let it all out.
No straw man DREMT, that description IS the dream team inverse world where the walls spin & not the horse.
So you are now telling me what I am arguing!?
Tim, of course. You are the only one using the words in quotes though.
Tim, to quote Bindidon:
Das war ja echt Spitze, vraiment magnifique.
tim…”In fact, nothing in the universe rotates about its own axes
And nothing in the universe translates about its own axes.”
I’ll give you this, Tim, you are good at red herring arguments. Having said that, I’d hate to be in your body experiencing your mind. Been there, done that.
I was cured while attending an awareness seminar. I was debating the seminar leader about truth, arguing as you are now that anything is possible depending on one’s frame of reference. At one point he got frustrated and pounded on a brick wall, asking me if I could walk through the wall. I immediately went into a spiel I now regard as absolute bs about me possibly being able to fit the molecules in my body between the atoms in the wall.
That’s how I used to think. On my way home from the seminar I suddenly got it that I lived in a world of bs. No, I could not walk through the wall, that wall represented a reality to me with which I was unable to reconcile with my illusions about the real world.
You are complicating this far too much based on a philosophical argument and unnecessarily so. Can you not climb down from your philosophical platform and concede that the driven wheel on a car rotates about its axle in a CW direction to move the car forward? That it’s not the universe turning about the car?
Never mind the universe, reference frames, and relativity. Look at the problem. You have a planet hurtling through space with a Moon revolving around it. The velocity of the system is irrelevant since it has no bearing on the Moon’s orbit. We have one reference frame, a plane if you will, on which the Moon orbits. Yes, it’s an imaginary plane for the purposes of visualization.
As the Moon moves along that orbital path, it keeps the same face pointed toward the Earth. That can mean only one thing, that every particle making up the rigid body of the Moon is moving in concentric circles/ellipses making it impossible to rotate about anything local.
It is totally obvious Tim, no matter how much anyone obfuscates the problem using relative motion and reference frames. It is absurd to consider any other kind of motion that makes it appear as if the universe is rotating about the Moon.
There comes a time when you have to call bull**** based on the physical reality. As astronomer Wal Thornhill put it wrt to spacetime, it’s absurd to add a 4th dimension of time to a 3-D system and claim it as a system. It’s especially absurd when there is no such thing as time.
I have argued with physicists who claim time does exist yet they become very frustrated when urged to prove it by providing tangible evidence. The only physicist who agreed was one of my university physics profs. In a rare moment of diplomacy, when I hinted that time might not exist, he immediately claimed it does not, that we humans invented it to keep tract of change.
A good ROT is to believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see.
GORDON: “arguing as you are now that anything is possible depending on one’s frame of reference.”
One of your big shortcomings is that you filter everything through your (limit) perspective. I do NOT think anything is possible, depending on your reference frame, but you project such thoughts onto me and other. As such, you create frequent strawman arguments.
I am saying that how you view things depends on your frame of reference. A ball might fall straight down or forward in a parabola depending on your reference frame. In a rotating frame of reference, there is an outward ‘centrifugal’ force that does not exist in a non-rotating frame.
GORDON: “… concede that the driven wheel on a car rotates about its axle in a CW direction to move the car forward? That it’s not the universe turning about the car?”
OK, let’s run with this idea. Let’s talk about a spinning wheel on an axle.
I’ll put a car wheel on the end of an axle and hold it vertically. Let’s imagine I give the wheel a spin — say 60 RPM. Let’s also imagine the bearings are frictionless so the wheel keeps spinning. (Or maybe give it a nudge occasionally to keep a steady speed).
I’ll concede that this wheel is spinning about its axis at a constant 60 RPM, and the universe is not spinning. Will you concede this as well?
If I walk north with the axle in my hands, I’ll likewise concede that this wheel is spinning about its axis at a constant 60 RPM, and the universe is not spinning. The wheel does not spin above the same point on the ground, but I think you will concede that the wheel is spinning on its axis.
If I walk around a square in say 1 minute, I’ll likewise concede that this wheel is spinning about its axis at a constant 60 RPM, and the universe is not spinning.
If I walk around a circle in say 1 minute, I’ll likewise concede that this wheel is spinning about its axis at a constant 60 RPM, and the universe is not spinning.
If I walk around a circle in 1 minute and I had spun the wheel at 1 RPM, I’ll likewise concede that this wheel is spinning about its axis at 1 RPM, and the universe is not spinning.
And … we have now conceded that the tire is moving in a circle, it is keeping the same face toward the center, and it is spinning on its axis once each time it moves around the circle.
THAT is what I am saying. So either state what you specifically think is wrong about my actual points about this car wheel carried in a circle, or agree that this is one legitimate way to describe an orbit. Or quietly think about it.
Yes, you think the moon’s motion is a translation plus an axial rotation. We have understood that since the very beginning. Nothing new.
Not think but know moon’s motion is a translation plus an axial rotation as shown in the transmographer readout.
Ball4 sees messages from the transmographer that are not there.
Invert that DREMT comment too. Works.
As can be seen by the transmographer displaying cg translation coordinates under the rotate command. Pretty easy except for DREMT.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Which leads to the question, is one inertial frame more true than another?
The answer is. of course not, all are equally valid.
Only (at least) one truly absolute inertial frame exists Snape. You can however define anything a universe to itself as is frequently done in thermodynamics with perfect insulation.
For Newton, absolute space was the implicit reference frame for writing laws of motion, the frame was the standard one of astronomy: the fixed stars.
snape…”The answer is. of course not, all are equally valid”.
None are valid, Snape, old chap. All frames are imaginary.
Ball4
[The train is moving on a rotating object, it cannot be the inertial frame.]
If people are walking and running around inside the train car, all in different directions, what inertial frame would you propose using to determine their various velocities??
Ball4
[For Newton, absolute space was the implicit reference frame for writing laws of motion, the frame was the standard one of astronomy: the fixed stars.]
Newton would have agreed with me, that the stars are not the proper inertial frame for determining how fast the people inside the the train are moving.
The reduction to Newtonian absolute space is not necessary for a frame to be useful Snape, since a reference frame is just as relatively determined as in any other case. Close the windows of your train car moving N at 2mph. Newton could also allow an arbitrary origin and uniform translation of this new closed system without losing its usefulness.
This is essentially how Einstein placed the concept of the inertial frame on a new footing: spaces that are accelerating (Einstein used a rocket ship and/or elevator) yet can be treated, for practical purposes, as if they were at rest or in uniform motion.
snape…”Newton would have agreed with me, that the stars are not the proper inertial frame for determining how fast the people inside the the train are moving”.
Newton would have asked, “What’s a train”?
Tim Folkerts
[Saying something is not rotating relative to its own axes is completely true and completely uninformative!]
Exactly. Well put.
*******
[Ball4 has the right idea. There is no true velocity, only velocity relative to some reference frame. Einstein came up with a little theory that addresses this issue.]
That is the point I was trying to make when I gave you the choice, 2 mph or 0 mph. It was meant as a rhetorical question, because it is clearly nonsensical to favor one answer over the other.
snape…”[Ball4 has the right idea. There is no true velocity, only velocity relative to some reference frame. Einstein came up with a little theory that addresses this issue.]”
So, if I am driving in the opposite direction to the Earth’s rotation, and a cop pulls me over for speeding, I could argue that I was actually moving at a negative velocity relative to the Earth’s rotation at about -750 mph.
I prefer to look at it from a local perspective simply because it works for me. I live on a tangential plane which is not really tangential since it slopes in different directions, has hills and flat spots, and even mountains. However, the average is a plane perpendicular to a radial line projected from the Earth’s centre.
In my locale, there are no reference frames because we don’t need them. If I am clocked by radar doing 50 kph, that is my velocity and I don’t give a hoot to what it is relative.
On the other hand, if I am doing an engineering physics problem and it specifies a reference frame then I need to make my velocities relative to that reference frame.
No reference frame is required with the Moon rotation problem because it is understood that the Moon, as a rigid body, has an angular momentum relative to a radial line through the Earth. Any rotation of the Moon about a local axis is also specified by that radial line. There is no rotation about the line therefore no rotation about a local axis.
It’s not really that difficult, unless you are losing an argument and need to move the goalposts.
@Ball4
You have not answered the question,
[If people are walking and running around inside the train car, all in different directions, what inertial frame would you propose using to determine their various velocities??]
Or, for that matter, what inertial frame would Newton have used?
None. The inertial frame is not as useful inside the uniformly moving train car on earth. Use the arbitrary local frame origin inside the car since you are only interested in velocities inside the car. All your velocities are then relative to the train car.
As Einstein pointed out, with the windows closed the occupants can’t tell if they are in a 1g gravity field or accelerating at 1g. A local frame is easy, as useful as any other for your purposes of finding inside velocities relative to the train car.
If you want to launch a probe to Pluto though, you are better off with the standard inertial ref. frame ignoring the one star that moved.
ball4…”As Einstein pointed out, with the windows closed the occupants cant tell if they are in a 1g gravity field or accelerating at 1g”.
I could never understand why Einstein was applying a kinematics solution to a problem that required an examination of the relationship between force and mass. I think he confused the issue because he did not have an understanding of the mechanics of physics deep enough to disregard the kinematics and examine what was really going on.
As a result, dealing with a time-based parameter like acceleration he arrived at the wrong conclusion about time and space. As someone who dabbled in thought-experiments, he never explained what a human was doing in a box wherein he could not figure out if he was being affected by a gravitational field or being hoisted by a sky hook. Who cares?
Reducing the entire universe to a problem of time-based accelerations was plain stupid IMHO. The inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen agreed. He went so far as to claim Einstein’s theory of relativity is not even a theory but a series of conjectures. He also claimed Einstein did not understand measurement.
“I could never understand why Einstein was …”
Pretty much any sentence that start this way indicates a lack of understanding on the part of the person making the statement, not a lack of understanding on the part of Einstein.
I ask because you claimed,
[The train is moving on a rotating object, it cannot be the inertial frame.]
So again, if you think the train cannot be the inertial frame, which inertial frame would you propose using?
None.
If we agree that even the stars are moving WRT one another, then it follows that an inertial frame is just a premise.
Most stars are so far away as to be fixed for our use. There is a picture from New Horizons showing only 1 star moved from the same view from earth.
Ball4,
[Most stars are so far away as to be fixed for our use.]
Right.
The stars are accelerating WRT each other, and therefore do not meet the definition of an inertial frame.
Doesnt matter, we call them an inertial frame because it serves as a useful premise.
*******
Same idea with the train car – fixed relative to the people inside.
We call them “inertial frames” because the laws of inertia apply (objects at rest stay at rest; objects in motion keep moving with constant speed and direction). It is not just a “convenience”.
For an old-school introduction, try this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJMYoj4hHqU
…and they do not settle the moon rotation issue. But please do continue to discuss them if you wish.
The moon rotation issue was settled long ago, DREMT was proven wrong. Case is long closed unless DREMT somehow has come up with something new to argue, but DREMT won’t.
Why do you keep commenting, then? If the matter is settled, you can just move on.
To show your appeals to reopen the case are incorrect therefore dismissed.
You haven’t shown anything is incorrect. You just say “once per rev.” a lot.
The transmographer has shown DREMT incorrect, along with astronomical observations of the moon rotating once per orbit of earth, and also orbiting the sun for day night on each hemisphere. It’s really easy to observe all that, except for DREMT (and a few others).
The transmographer proves you wrong.
As I wrote, it’s really easy to observe all that solar system motion on the transmographer using the steps I published, except for DREMT (and a few others). In fact the moon was known to be rotating on its own axis in 200BC as mechanically shown by the 2000 year old Greek hand-powered analogue computer.
#2
The transmographer proves you wrong.
Only in DREMT’s inverse dream team world. In real world, the transmographer gets kinematics correct, not DREMT. Next case.
#3
The transmographer proves you wrong.
Despite the reams of overwhelming evidence, I think the icing on the cake was the videos from the Indian gentleman. Particularly the one (video 2) where he rotates a moon by hand (one revolution with respect to a line between the earth and moon) and demonstrates it goes through two rotations with respect to the screen.
However it would have been even more impressive if he had followed through with his threat (video 1) and actually shown it motorised, using both motors. One to drive a turntable and the other, attached to the surface of the turntable, to drive the moon rotationally in the same direction .
Not only could he have used this to make his claim re non rotation but also proved the thesis 1+ 1 = 2 ( which clearly needed experimental verification).
Yes, MikeR…you have thoroughly established the fact that you cannot correctly separate orbital motion from axial rotation. You don’t need to keep proving that over and over again.
That’s because MikeR lives in the real world, not the inverse dream team world where the sun spins about the non-rotating on own axis moon.
I am not arguing that the sun spins around the moon.
Are you feeling OK, Ball4?
Then the moon rotates on its own axis DREMT! Welcome to the real world.
False dichotomy.
Just repetiton is all that DREM has got left in his armoury.
I think the man needs a good slap to snap out of delusions.
Something along these lines –
https://youtu.be/hLxQQW-rtDY
By the way, who has missed out on slapping DREM down?
The nun’s role has been taken, but there’s the guy with baseball bat. It could be another valuable lesson for DREM about the reality of rotational energy.
What weapon would you suggest using against somebody as repetitive as Ball4?
Maybe try logic for a change?
A proper experiment works fine.
Doesn’t work on Ball4. Or you.
Really DREM? Is this just another evidence free assertion?
DREM there is no need to answer. Your logic has got you into enough trouble already.
p.s. I gather the comments section can now go on forever, maybe. DREM’s nightmare continues apace.
What nightmare?
dremt…”Why do you [Ball4] keep commenting, then? If the matter is settled, you can just move on”.
You are dealing with a guy who thinks heat does not exist and now he claims there is no such thing as velocity.
DREM, your nightmare is just a recurrent dream where you are pursued down your rabbit holes by a range of “cunning foxes”, some armed with baseball bats and some armed with physics tomes.
One of them always gets you in the end. That’s probably why you are getting night sweats.
Gordon,
I see upstream, or maybe downstream ( relative to where you are currently positioned) that you claim that time doesn’t exist.
I know this makes sense to you, as your knowledge of physics and astronomy has stood stll, and is somewhere between the pre Copernican era and the late 19th century prior to the invention of quantum mechanics.
Your stationary time hypothesis might explain, the interval of time between my request to you to respond to a small series of questions , such as
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-521324
and
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-521344
and the absence of such responses from yourself. Either that or you don’t have a clue as to how to how to respond.
I have my idea as to why Gordon doesn’t respond but will leave it to others to arrive at their own conclusions.
“You are dealing with a guy who thinks heat does not exist and now he claims there is no such thing as velocity.”
True. We shouldn’t take these people too seriously.
Tim Folkerts
[We call them inertial frames because the laws of inertia apply (objects at rest stay at rest; objects in motion keep moving with constant speed and direction). It is not just a convenience]
Yes. Thanks for correcting.
DREMT, thanks for seeing the light! “In one case the record is rotating on its own axis”.
And what was that case? In that case, a record was centered on a spinning turntable (‘rotating on its own axis’). Then the entire case of the turntable started moving in a circle (‘orbiting the center of the circle’) with the same period (with the case always maintaining the same orientation). This resulted in one side of the record always facing toward the center of the circle (the center of the orbit).
Let me repeat — DREMT agreed that the record was rotating on its own axis AND that one side was always facing the center.
Furthermore, if we stopped the record from turning on its axis (ie turned off the record player) while continuing to move the case around the orbit, the record would NOT always face the center.
Tim, that’s correct. DREMT will have to invert your kinematics somehow.
Wow, Tim. I didn’t realize you were this desperate.
I am so desperate that I actually agreed with what you wrote.
Now, if only you had a point…
tim…”DREMT, thanks for seeing the light! In one case the record is rotating on its own axis.”
Tim, you lost this argument a long time ago and since, you have been trying to save face by introducing red herring arguments. Your schtick here about the record and the platform is total and irrelevant bs.
And merry-go-rounds and trains *are* somehow are relevant? I introduce new ideas because the moon is NOT attached to a platform. The moon does NOT move in a perfect circle. The moon turns around the earth at a variable rate , turns around its own axis at a constant rate. merry-go-round analogies are incapable of addressing these issue.
I ‘lost the argument’ when I engaged with you all. This discussion has been worked out since the time of Newton. Everyone who actually works with this stuff knows the correct answer. It is an interesting intellectual exercise to try to bring others up to speed, but people who don’t want to learn never will.
“A circle drawn on a revolving record is drawn on the atoms making up the record material. They are bonded together and cannot move relative to each other, that is, they are rotating about the spindle as a mass. Ergo, the drawn circle cannot rotate any differently than the entire mass of the record revolving around the spindle.”
Well put, Gordon. Any normal, rational human being would agree.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-522573
I said “normal, rational human being”.
Yes, when DREMT comment is inverted back into the real world.
In the real world, a circle drawn onto a record is not physically capable of rotating on its own axis.
Sure, unless the chalk circle is drawn on an LP record doing 33 1/3 rpm.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-522582
The deciding issue remains: Does something that cannot rotate on its axis, then be rotating on its axis?
The idiots claim something that is not happening, is happening.
That’s why they’re idiots.
As we are hopefully in the final straight the lunacy debate needs a summary before we proceed onto the more rational green cheese theory. (DREM will be arguing for the affirmative assisted by his wise counsels).
I must preface with the following.
These discussions are usually so depressingly tedious and just variations upon the “he said, she said” format with neither parties willing to yield ground, irrespective of the relative merits of their arguments.
As some may have noticed, I like to lighten things with a touch of frivolity while trying to make a point or two , as a pitch to the undecided (because some people, not naming them, are clearly not amenable to reason) . Anyway that’s my justification. Accordingly the following needs to be received in that light.
I must acknowledge the roles of both DREMT and ClintR as they take turns as being my resident muse. They are winds which breaketh beneath my wings.
They have inspired me to write the script to a Downfall parody. Protaganists, in either role, are played by my muses.
Scene 1.
Hitler embarks on a delusional rant , screaming “You Schweinhund disbelieve me that the moon does not rotate !!! German dignity demands a response. We are not called the Axis powers for nothing!!! Get my last remaining scientific advisor, Sergeant Schultz. He will explain everything.”
Sergeant Shultz. – “Colonel Clink has explained much of the details which concurs with Aryan Physics. He says rumours to the opposite are just decadent perverted Physics”
Hitler -” Well I am going to clear out all the potential traitors and disbelievers. Give me a machine gun mounted on a motorised turntable (an idea he got from watching his favourite Bollywood YouTube videos and the final episode of Breaking Bad )”.
He leaps on the turntable, switches on the motor and pulls the trigger while going repetively through arcs of 360 degrees. He has cleared the room with the exception of Seargent Schultz who, in a remarkable act of foresight ( contrary to his “I see nothing” persona) has leaped on the platform and stood directly behind Hitler.
He knew he had to clear up the mess in the end and he never believed Colonel Clink anyway.
The End.
As a prelude DREM could practice his role as the main protagonist in the following video.
https://youtu.be/S1wfyo40ABI
p.s. If an understudy is needed then Gordon could fill the role.
Just more garbage from MikeR to avoid reading.
ClintR,
Something more to avoid reading (other than then the entire canon of physics literature).
I seem to detect, almost subliminally, that you seem slightly more agitated than normal . Despite your claim to not having read the piece above, perhaps you may have identified with one of the cast of characters.
Fortunately Sergeant Schultz was relatively benign .
As some powerful individual (let’s call him individual 1 for convenience) once said . “There were many very fine people on both on both sides”.
It might have been about some other conflict but individual 1’s historical perspective could easily have to self identify with one of the protagonists. Fortunately the current incumbent has an accompanying cast of Colonel Clinks (the Vindemans have been evicted) and Sergeant Schultzes (I yearn for the good old days of George ) that his worst tendencies have been curbed, at least to a certain extent.
However if, via luck, connivance or the imperial power of his foreign best friend who dictates these thing, he returns for the verson 2.0 of Dystopia (sequels are always worse than the original) we will see more remarkable scenes. Here are two that immediately come to mind.
The Supreme Court, after suitable replacements are found, will convene on the set of Fox and Friends as this will minimise travel times.
Emulating the sybaritic behaviour of anotherEmporer ( who also used to put on a good show at the the Colosseum at Caeser’s Palace ),when Moscow Mitch needs replacing, then we might find the new Senator for Kentucky might also have wonthe local Derby (as per the local custom for selecting the candidates to high office),
Sorry I am rambling again.
Like Gordon, I have lost track of time and space and I need to return to home base via a less circuitous route. Thank goodness for inertial guidance.
On that at basis Clint , I am very glad you didn’t read the above piece.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
As per usual, DREM’s comments match his stature and his intellect.
Short, repetively boring and devoid of content.
Just more empty trash talk.
Another contribution to add to his compendium. At least it isn’t another p.s.t.. Oops! I am probably tempting fate. Silly me.
However the next in his sequence could be just another repetition. The man’s repertoire is limited.
He just goes on and on and on…
and around and around we go…
…and on and on and on…
..in and out goes the prick of steel (aka DREM)…
Oo-er.
Sounds orgasmic.
OK, MikeR.
“The deciding issue remains: Does something that cannot rotate on its axis, then be rotating on its axis?”
No. Just “no”.
The discussion is about objects in orbits. The deciding issue has always ultimately been “What hypothesis best explains the motion of actual objects in actual orbits?” Analogies can be useful , but anyone who thinks the analogy itself is the ‘deciding issue’ is on completely the wrong track!
The hypothesis should explain (among other things):
1) a moon in a circular orbit with one face always (mostly) facing the planet (kinda like our moon).
2) a moon in a slightly elliptical orbit with one face always (mostly) facing the planet (much more like like our moon).
3) a moon in an orbit with arbitrary eccentricity with one face always (mostly) facing the planet (a more general case).
4) a moon in an orbit or arbitrary eccentricity and arbitrary rotation about its own axis (the most general case).
Lots of hypotheses can work for (1) (and lots of analogies as well). But if you can’t extend your hypothesis (or analogy) to naturally include 2-4, your hypothesis is useless.
Tim, you say a lot without ever really saying anything. Have you ever wondered – maybe it is as simple as, “orbital motion without axial rotation” = motion in which the same side of the object always faces towards the center of the orbit? Because, after all, that is what “rotation about an external axis” is? And “revolution” is just another word for “rotation about an external axis”?
Maybe you’re right…or maybe you’re wrong. You spend a lot of time here commenting on the subject…so I don’t think you are quite as certain about this topic as you make out. I think you have doubts. Which is why you’re here.
Tim has indicated, more than once, that he doesn’t understand orbital motion. That’s why his ongoing efforts with the extraneous, convoluted meanderings.
He hasn’t a clue, but just wants to support his false religion.
Notice how, when presented with the crux of the issue by Tim, that the Moon does not move like the TEAMS model, no easy answers for this are EVER forthcoming, then the issue is simply ignored.
Then add in some:
“object always faces towards the center of the orbit? Because, after all, that is what ‘rotation about an external axis’ is?
”
For the 47th time, FALSE.
All parts of the Moon do no not move in concentric circles around any external axis. Hence the MOONs orbit is not ‘rotation about an external axis’
No matter, the TEAM feels no compulsion to tell the truth.
Correct Nate. Just invert the dream team’s comments for observed reality.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
tim…”The hypothesis should explain (among other things):”
I have already covered your elliptical orbits in detail (1 – 3). point 4 doesn’t make sense to me.
In a circular orbit, a radial line from the Earth’s centre through the orbiting Moon reveals the solution, which you have not refuted. Each point on that line through the Moon, including the near face, axis, and far side, must turn in concentric circles around the base of the radial line at Earth’s centre, since the near face is always pointed in. That means those points on the radial line cannot rotate about the Moon’s axis.
For an elliptical orbit with a slight ellipse, the radial line is no longer centred at the Earth’s centre. To find the radial line it is necessary to draw lines from each focal point to the Moon, and bisect the angle formed. Of course, the Earth is at one focal point. This has the effect of the near face pointing slightly away from its position with a circular orbit and explains the libration effect of being able to see more around the edge of the Moon.
Please note that the Moon has not rotated on its axis even though it no longer points toward the Earth’s centre. It simply has its near face pointing slightly away from that position. The Moon does not have to rotate to cause this action, it is caused by the Moon’s momentum and a sine or cosine component of the original circular radial line which represent gravitational force.
What you have with eccentricity is a slight change in centripetal force, the sine or cosine component. The Moon is not required to rotate, it simply has a bit less gravitational force on it allowing the Moon’s momentum to have more effect than the gravitational force. That allows greater eccentricity in the orbit.
I have no idea what would happen with an extreme eccentricity nor does it interest me. It should be noted, however, that any eccentricity is a resultant path due to the Moon’s momentum and the gravitational force redirecting it from its linear path.
“which you have not refuted.”
Gordon just doesn’t understand the many refutations. Each point on Gordon’s radial line intersecting the moon draws one concentric circle per orbit of earth meaning the moon turns one 360 on its axis per orbit of earth.
“Each point on Gordon’s radial line intersecting the moon draws one concentric circle per orbit of earth…”
…meaning the moon is simply rotating about an external axis (revolving), and not rotating on its own axis.
Only in DREMT’s inverted world. The real world observes moon rotates once on its axis per revolution of earth.
Only in Ball4’s inverted world. The real world observes moon does not rotate on its axis whilst revolving around earth.
In the real world the stars do not rotate around the moon like in DREMT’s inverted universe where the moon doesn’t spin on its own axis.
In the real world the stars do not rotate around the moon like in Ball4’s straw man.
That’s correct in the real world, the moon spins not the stars, welcome home DREMT.
In the real world, the moon rotates around the Earth, not on its own axis.
Which means the stars rotate around the moon, inverted from reality. Sorry DREMT your universe remains inverted as long as you write the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
No, it does not mean the stars rotate around the moon. You just don’t understand rotation about an external axis.
The local star illuminates all moon hemispheres, so either the moon spins on its own axis (real) or the star spins about the moon (inverted DREMT universe).
You just don’t understand rotation about an external axis.
Which means I do once inverted from DREMT statements.
Grow up, Ball4.
Which means I am grown up. Inversion of DREMT is fun and rewarding.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Yep unclear why DREM team keeps promoting the boneheaded lie that the Moon’s parts move in concentric circles around an external axis, when they know perfectly well that they dont.
Dont see why anyone would take these 47 time losers seriously.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
tim…” lost the argument when I engaged with you all. This discussion has been worked out since the time of Newton. Everyone who actually works with this stuff knows the correct answer. It is an interesting intellectual exercise to try to bring others up to speed, but people who dont want to learn never will”.
If it has been worked out that long then why can’t you understand the basic physics that proves the Moon is not rotating about a local axis? Newton did fantastically well considering his lack of ability to observe the Moon as we can. He had no courses on orbital mechanics to help out. Still, if you read what he really said about the Moon’s rotation it is not at all clear what he meant by rotation. It appears he was referring to revolution or orbiting as rotation.
Here’s the basic physics for a circular orbit related to the Earth-Moon. The orbit is defined by a rotating radial line with its axis at Earth’s centre. The radial line passes through the Moon’s centre, penetrating the near face first. It them extends through the Moon’s centre and out the back of the far face.
It is blatantly obvious from that description, which cannot be refuted if the near face always points toward the Earth, that every point on the Moon is orbiting the Earth in concentric orbits (circles). Under those conditions it is impossible for the Moon to rotate about its centre, which is on one of those concentric circles.
You have tried to get around that truth using obfuscation. You have introduced reference frames, redefined rotation, and various eccentricities in orbits to bypass the truth. It does not matter what you introduce, every particle on the Moon is still turning in concentric orbits about the Earth’s centre. That fact rules out any kind of local rotation.
The truth is the truth because there are only two parameters involved: a gravitational, centripetal force and the Moon’s linear momentum. There are no forces or momenta acting to rotate the Moon about its axis. Therefore the Moon follows a resultant path, its orbit, and that fully explains how it keeps the same face pointed toward the Earth while facing in different directions in space.
Your refutation is easy Gordon, there are different concentric circles drawn about the earth center and the moon center at the same time since the moon rotates once on its axis per orbit. If the moon rotated more than once or not at all the concentric circles are lost about the earth except for one at the cg of the moon. If the moon is rotating at all the concentric circles exist about the moon cg. If the frame of ref. is fixed to the moon then the frame itself is drawing concentric circles about the moon cg in inertial space.
More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.
DREMT runs away as usual.
Ball4 runs away as usual.
Yep DREMT inverts world as always.
Yep Ball4 inverts world as always.
Nope, in my world the moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit of earth, no inversion to not rotate on moon’s own axis.
The moon rotates around Earth, not on its own axis.
Thus in the DREMT inverted universe the stars rotate around the non-spinning moon.
No, it does not mean the stars rotate around the moon. You just don’t understand rotation about an external axis.
Which upon inverting becomes yes, it (DREMT’s inverted world) does mean the stars rotate around the moon. You (Ball4) do understand rotation about an external axis.
Most readers just invert DREMT’s comments to get observed reality.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
– Place a small MGR, rotating CW at 1 rev/minute, on top of a larger MGR, rotating CCW at 1 rev/minute.
– you could take a seat on the smaller one, and continuously face north without moving a muscle.
Question: If someone had drawn a smiley face on the larger MGR, what would its motion be relative to you?
Answer:
1) Both you and the smiley face are orbiting the center of the large MGR, CCW at 1 rev/minute, so the the location of the smiley face, in relation to you, would remain unchanged.
2) Because you are always facing north, while the smiley face is turning towards all four directions, you would see the smiley face spinning like a top, 1 rev/minute.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-521606
If the smiley face could see the man, the man would appear to be spinning.
Each POV is true and valid.
The smiley face is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an axis in the center of the larger MGR. It physically cannot rotate on its own axis.
…more or less than once per orbit of the mgr center
Wrong.
Which means right once inverted from DREMT comment.
Grow up, Ball4.
Just invert that DREMT comment too.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT runs away again; DREMT knows there is no defense for DREMT position.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Tim, Nate, Ball4, and newcomer Doris/Snape appear to be the only idiots left.
Like the fanatical cultists they are, they all claim the ball on a string is rotating about its axis. They must adhere to such nonsense to protect their false religion.
Reality is never kind to false religions.
…claim the ball on a string is rotating about its own axis exactly once per orbit of the central axis.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT, please stop running away and face the facts.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
ball4…”Your refutation is easy Gordon, there are different concentric circles drawn about the earth center and the moon center at the same time since the moon rotates once on its axis per orbit”.
Funny, The concentric circle for the near face is constant. If it rotated, it would turn away from the Earth.
You are lost in analytical thoughts, you need to turn them off long enough to observe. If you do, you’ll find that heat is real and that it’s not physically possible for the near face to be facing the Earth and still rotate over 28 days.
“..heat is real..”
If heat is real as Gordon writes, where can I get some? How much does a pint of heat go for on Amazon? Maybe a pint of heat is available used on eBay? Post up a link Gordon, I’d like to get some heat with which to experiment; to observe heat’s color, texture, odor, mass, density, state at STP. I’d really like to know how much the mass of a steel bar increases when heat is added to that bar.
If the moon rotated more or less than once on its axis per orbit, THEN that entire hemisphere would turn away from the Earth.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT, please stop running away and face the facts.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
ball4…”If heat is real as Gordon writes, where can I get some?”
It’s very easy. Here are two ways:
1)fill a kettle with water and put it on the stove till it boils. The water will then contain heat. If you don’t think so, heat up a pot of water till it boils and stick your hand in it.
2)apply an acetylene torch to a bar of iron. Eventually, the iron will start to glow and it will be damned hot.
You see, heat is the kinetic energy of the molecules in water and the iron atoms in the iron rod. Of course, you are confused between kinetic energy and heat. You don’t get it that the kinetic energy representing atoms in motion is heat.
“The water will then contain heat.”
How much more will the kettle water weigh after it contains that heat?
How much more will the damned hot bar weigh after it is glowing than when the bar is not glowing.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Clint and DREM,
Having taken a break for a day or two, my thoughts have crystallised regarding the relationship between the moon’s tidally locked orbital dynamics and a simple rotating solid, particularly after playing around with some new simple simulations.
“Rotating on its axis” is probably where the confusion started , at least for me. For any part of a rigid body rotating about an axis, either internal or external , the term “on its axis” can have different connotations as we can see from these long running arguments. It can be interpreted in two ways
1. Referring to a mechanical rotation around a local centre of mass for any point in, or on, the body. This only makes sense if the point is free to rotate and clearly this is not possible for a rigid body.
For the moon this is clearly not relevant, as has pointed out on numerous occasions by many, because there are no mechanical constraints to stop it freely rotating. In the absence of Tidal Locking the orbiting moon would be free to rotate at any speed or in either direction ( the commonality of CCW rotations are related to the origin of the solar system) .
2. Alternatively the axis represents a reference point for direction. This a more universal definition in that it covers both the rigid body case and the moon case. If we use this concept, then any point on , or in, the surface rotates with respect to this axis. This axis is local in one sense because it is associated with the point in question but general, in another sense, because every point has the same set of axes.
Putting it in words, as above, is long winded and confusing so better to diplay it pictorially, such as
https://i.postimg.cc/7qPK6zTp/Pizza-Gate.gif
This depiction above is a common object (olive and anchovy pizza) rotating in a microwave. Irrespective of the particular olive or anchovy* randomly selected , each will rotate around a locally defined axis defined by direction.
This can be further extended to cover DREM’s favourite fantasy, Tesla’s moon with spokes. Again parts of the contraption that are randomly selected all rotate around an axis that is directionally defined . See –
https://i.postimg.cc/PfG6rFm4/Tesla3.gif
The Tesla example is functionally equivalent to the ball on a string. If needed I can to generate a depiction and will be happy to do so.
Thirdly we come to the tidally locked moon,
https://i.postimg.cc/YrJFWvqN/Moon-Earth.gif
selecting it demonstrates that, like the pizza topping , it rotates about an axis ( if you select the entire moon it rotates around the centre of mass) . Note , for simplicity I have the earth rotating at the same rate, rather than 27 times faster.
In these depictions , I have depicted the directional axes moving along with the object. I would have thought this should be intuitively obvious.
However, if it’s not obvious, then I guess it should be pointed out that navigating by directions via fixed references has been an age old method. For example, in the northern hemisphere the North Pole star is within 1 degree of true North, while the inhabitants of the southern hemisphere there are ways of using the Southern Cross and Pointers to determine true South. At the equinoxes the sun rises and sets due East and West respectively, absolutely everywhere on earth.
These directional reference points “move” with you irrespective of where you are on earth.
Likewise cartography would be impossible. If rather than one directional compass rose there would have to one for every point on the map, so this “movement” is implicitly obvious.
Finally I hope with the above that I have contributed, in some small way, to the final demise and obliteration of this nonsense.
As I am an eternal optimist, I hope to get a coherent reasoned response from the members of the DREM gang to these depictions that demonstrate axial rotation, other than the usual “see he still doesn’t understand the ……”. b.s..
The comments should make sense. I am anticipating a claim that the olives are just orbiting around the centre of the microwave but not rotating with respect to direction, but that is clearly nonsense.
Gordon, as a matter of course, will continue his vow of silence.
*via inductive logic , this is universal behaviour for all pizza toppings, including the outrageous abomination – pineapple.
I agree, especially on the last point, and we can appeal to the best authority there is, Francesco da Mosto:
https://youtu.be/F2u1E_G3Eis?t=129
The pizza toppings are rotating about an axis in the center of the pizza, and not on their own axes. Are you aware that rotation can occur about an external axis?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.“
So the axis the olives are rotating about is in the center of the pizza. Not the center of the olives. Every particle in the olive is moving in a circle about that single line, the central, external (to the olive) axis. The axis in the center of the pizza. The radius vectors from the axis to all olive particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time.
In easy observations, the transmographer shows the axis the olives are translating about is in the center of the pizza. The transmographer shows the translating center of the olives. Every particle in the olive is translating in a circle about that single line, the central, external (to the olive) axis. The axis in the center of the pizza. The radius vectors from the axis to all olive particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time by the transmographer which shows the olives rotating about their own cg once per orbit on their own axis, keeping same olive face to center, in addition to translating in a circle about the center axis.
All transmographer results are consistent with MikeR’s explanations.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT, please stop running away and face the facts.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I trolled slightly just now, but I think I got away with it.
It is only ever a polite request.
Yes DREMT,
Thank you for pointing out the relationship between various points in a rigid body under rotation (or translation).
It was oversight of mine possibly because it was so self evident. It is the reason why the olives and anchovies do not usually move relative to each other (unless you have used the wrong cheese and the rigid body has deformed into a gelatinous mess).
I am also in full agreement that rotation can be around an external axis. Did anyone at any time dispute that?
DREM. You have totally ignored the motion of the olives, anchovies, points on the spokes … etc. with respect to the directional axes, which was the major point I was making.
What did you not understand about this? The depictions clearly showed in all cases that there was rotation about these axes.
This proverb sums it up best.
“There are none so blindas those who will not see.” or to put it in other terms “Understanding cannot be forced on someone who chooses to be ignorant”
From
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/there_are_none_so_blind_as_those_who_will_not_see
The olives are rotating about an axis in the center of the pizza, not on their own axes.
The balls on spokes are rotating about the central spindle, not on their own axes.
Rotation of the balls on spokes about their own centers of mass is not possible – the spokes are holding them fixed in place.
For the olives to rotate on their own axes, they would have to show different faces to the center of the pizza. They would have to rotate independently of the pizza.
If you claim you already understood that rotation can be about an external axis, then I do not get the source of your confusion. I guess there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Since DREMT always gets things backwards & will never change, one has to reverse all his statements to understand reality: The olives are not rotating about an axis in the center of the pizza, they are translating in circles as shown by the transmographer, they are also rotating once on their own axis each orbit.
The balls on spokes are not rotating about the central spindle, they are translating in a circle, and rotating once on their own axis as shown in the transmographer.
Rotation of the balls on spokes about their own centers of mass is possible only once per orbit – the spokes are constraining them.
For the olives not to rotate once on their own axes, they would have to show different faces to the center of the pizza. They would have to rotate independently of the pizza more or less than once on their own axes.
If you don’t claim you already understood that rotation can be about an external axis, then I do get the source of your confusion. I guess there are none so blind as those who will not reverse DREMT comments back to observed reality.
Yes, Ball4, you think of every motion as a translation, plus an axial rotation. And you can even use the ‘translate’ and ‘around center’ features of the transmographer to move the objects in the way you describe. But, you can also (using the transmographer) simply rotate objects ‘around a point’, which is one single motion, and get the same result.
One single motion is simpler than two separate motions. The simplest kinematic description of the olives, and the balls on spokes, are that they are rotating about an external axis. One single motion. I know you do not accept that it is one single motion, but kinematics does not really care what you do or do not accept. Not everything is a translation plus a rotation. You do not get to rule pure rotation, one single motion, out of existence.
You are wrong, Ball4. Now, tap out your usual nonsense in response, and I will ask you to please stop trolling.
“Yes, Ball4, you think of every motion as a translation, plus an axial rotation. And you can even use the ‘translate’ and ‘around center’ features of the transmographer to move the objects in the way you describe.”
Welcome back to the observed real world Mr. DREMT. Pretty sure it is only a visit & won’t last long, like a positron and electron meeting up.
I never denied the existence of the ‘translate’ function. My point has always been, all you need to use is the ‘around a point’ rotation function. One single motion. Where you avoid reality is in denying that this function is one single motion. You use it, and claim the transmographer is still translating and axially rotating the object even though there are separate functions to do just that!
Then you claim there is a translation ‘read out’, which is actually nothing of the sort. There is merely the co-ordinates of the center of mass of the object reported on screen at all times. This does not mean translation is occurring when the only button you are using is a rotation function!
You are completely delusional about the transmographer.
“Then you claim there is a translation ‘read out’, which is actually nothing of the sort. There is merely the co-ordinates of the center of mass of the object reported on screen at all times.”
The cg location read outs are different DREMT therefore the object cg has translated & the object rotated on its axis as shown. I suspect, but have no proof, even DREMT could figure out the cg translation distance with some applied work, the degrees of rotation on object’s own axis is easier.
The center of mass co-ordinates are different because the object has moved! Once you rotate the object ‘around a point’, it is now in a different location than previously. So of course the cm co-ordinates will now be different. It does not prove anything about translation! You are pressing a button labelled ‘rotate’, not ‘translate’. No translation is occurring.
‘Around a point’ motion is one single motion. Rotation about an external axis. Pure rotation. You are completely delusional about the transmographer.
…the object has moved! Yes! i.e. the whole object translated. Very good you are catching on to the transmographer. The object was also rotated on its own axis a portion of the 360 it will eventually attain in the orbit to keep staring at the center axis.
No, the whole object rotated. Around a point. Because you used the ‘around a point’ section of the ‘rotate’ function. You pressed a button labelled ‘rotate’. So that’s what the transmographer did. If you pressed a button labelled ‘rotate’, and the transmographer translated something instead, it wouldn’t be a very useful tool.
Testing 1,2,3.. Earth to DREMT,
You seem to have lost contact with us and appear to have gone on to autopilot.
You are repeating yourself and stating things which we totally agree with.
We need to make sure you understand these things are also totally compatible with the idea of rotation with respect to directional axes
So we will repeat our last message.
“You have totally ignored the motion of the olives, anchovies, points on the spokes etc. with respect to the directional axes, which was the major point I was making.
What did you not understand about this? The depictions clearly showed in all cases that there was rotation about these axes”.
We hope you receive this message this time. If not it will be assumed you are out of range or have spun out of control.
Good night DREM,
I hope you have your communications problems sorted out by the morning.
Yes MikeR, the objects all appear to be rotating on their own axes, from the inertial reference frame. We’ve been through this already.
You have added absolutely nothing new to this discussion, at any point. You just seem to be stuck on repeat, like you have gone on autopilot or something.
Hopefully you will have your communications problems sorted out by the morning.
8:49am reversed to observed reality so that DREMT does add clarity: No MikeR, the objects don’t just appear to be rotating on their own axes, they actually are, from the inertial reference frame. We’ve been through this already, and DREMT always had it backwards.
You have added absolutely everything new to this discussion, at all points. You just seem to be unstuck on repeat, like you haven’t gone on autopilot.
Hopefully you will have your communications non-problems continued in the morning.
You don’t get to rule pure rotation out of existence, Ball4. If something is just rotating about an external axis, one single motion, then that object is not also rotating on its own axis, despite how it may appear from the inertial reference frame.
You are wrong, Ball4. Now, tap out your usual nonsense in response, and I will ask you to please stop trolling.
No need to rule pure rotation out of existence, DREMT. Proof: My eyes are rolling.
That is exactly what you do when you argue something that is a pure rotation is actually a translation plus an axial rotation. A ball on a string, for example, is a case of pure rotation. The ball is rotating about an external axis. That’s it! Nothing more to it than that. No axial rotation, no translation.
Yet you claim the ball is translating in a circle whilst rotating on its own axis! You are denying the kinematic description of pure rotation. You are trying to erase it from existence. Just like you try to erase the use of the word ‘heat’ from existence.
My eyes are just rolling DREMT in pure rotation, they are not translating like an eyeball rotating once per orbit on a string.
So where do you draw the line? Because it seems like you are arguing that a solid object, like your eyeball, can move in pure rotation…yet on the other hand you think the pizza topping, which is just effectively a sub-division of the pizza, a solid object, is rotating on its own axis, rather than simply moving in pure rotation about the center of the pizza, along with every other part of the pizza.
You are not logically consistent.
…think the pizza topping (an olive), which is just effectively a sub-division of the pizza, a solid object, is rotating on its own axis once per orbit as shown by the transmographer. Pure rotation plus pure translation combined in the pizza topping (or any atom) motion as shown, 2 kinematic degrees of freedom.
This is because the inner radius of any object defined on the pizza is moving radially slower than the outer radius thus a rotation exists for any subset of the pizza. Any. Subset. Constrained to one 360 per orbit. Like the moon.
So then you could apply that to any subset of your eyeball…for instance, the pupils. So you are not being logically consistent, and you are in fact trying to erase pure rotation from existence.
My eyeball roll is like the record or pizza rotating, pure rotation. My pupils both translate in a circle AND rotate about their own axis like the pepperoni & chalk circle.
The record is rotating. We agree on that.
1) The axis of rotation of the record is in the center of the record.
2) Every part of the record is therefore rotating about that axis.
3) That includes the part of the record within the chalk circle.
4) So the chalk circle is rotating about the axis in the center of the record, and not on its own axis.
4) So the chalk circle is translating in a circle (moving its cg) about the axis in the center of the record (radius R1), and also rotating on its own axis (radius R2 for whatever is the size of the chalk circle) as shown by the transmographer. For the record itself, R1 is zero. I know it is hard for DREMT to understand this as discussions hardly ever if at all specify the two radii for the 2 DOF.
…and boom! There goes pure rotation, re-defined out of existence, once again.
Nope, the record is in pure rotation about its center cg since the record cg is not translating about the room containing the player.
…but at the same time, you think every particle of the record is translating and rotating on its own axis. So you don’t think the record is in pure rotation. Your position is completely self-contradictory and illogical.
Record is cg1, R1=0. Chalk circle is cg2, R2 .ne. 0.
It is DREMT that cant keep track of these things.
Object1, the record, cg1 is not translating in the room as R1=0, object1 only rotating about cg1.
Object2 the chalk circle cg2 is both translating in a circle in the room since R2 .ne. 0 and rotating once on its own axis per orbit of cg1.
The transmographer keeps track of all this for the programmer internally. Obviously DREMT can’t.
Your position is completely self-contradictory and illogical.
Logical for those that can keep track of cg1,R1 and cg2,R2.
You will not convince anybody rational that a circle drawn onto the outside edge of a record is rotating on its own axis.
Once again DREMT needs to be inverted back to reality to add clarity: “You will convince everybody rational that a circle drawn onto the outside edge of a record is rotating on its own axis.” Especially the rational transmographer programmer who got it right, the program showing a circle drawn onto the outside edge of a record is rotating on its own axis & translating per the cg location readout & of course:
“Yes, Ball4, you think of every motion as a translation, plus an axial rotation. And you can even use the ‘translate’ and ‘around center’ features of the transmographer to move the objects in the way you describe.”
But, you can also (using the transmographer) simply rotate objects ‘around a point’, which is one single motion, and get the same result.
Yes we have been through this so many times.
“Yes MikeR, the objects all appear to be rotating on their own axes, from the inertial reference frame. Weve been through this already”
The objects are definitely rotating in reality from the inertial frame of reference. That is why you can measure the rotation using a mobile phone on a rotating turntable and why inertial navigation works!
it also explains the reality of rotational energy and angular momentum.
I was going to send you an orbital sander for Xmas but I can envisage the havoc you could cause. I will instead look for something more age appropriate.
And when you do that the cg location of the object is shown to change indicating translation of the cg2 in addition to rotation about the cg2 on radius r2. 2DOFs are rationally programmed correctly.
The mobile phone mistakes the change in orientation due to orbital motion, for axial rotation. Same as you do.
DREM,
I never realised my smart phone was as stupid as I am.
As for those inertial guidance systems that rely on internal gyroscopes, they must be even stupider.
Much safer to fly by the seat of your pants, which is probably why your comments are so totally misguided.
The situation is not so dire with respect to my mobile phone, it uses the internal gyro to detect changes in orientation of my phone from portrait to landscape mode.
Believe it or not, it can do this while I am stationary or while I am walking around orbiting in circles.
However cartwheels confuses it.
I am not dismissing inertial guidance systems, or your phone. I am just pointing out that your phone mistakes the change in orientation due to orbital motion, for axial rotation. Like you do.
Whatever DREM. If you don’t believe the mobile phone’s gyroscope is not measuring the rotation around internal axes , then why don’t you do the experiments yourself ? F.f.s..
I believe I have provided sufficient experimental evidence that the gyroscopes work the way I describe , along with several references describing how they work.
You beg to differ of course in your interpretation but I think the onus might be on you to prove that the phone is only measuring orbital motion.
Personally I can’t think of an experiment design that can be used to prove this, but you are a very, very clever fellow and you should be able to think of something.
If you wish to refuse to understand, then that is your choice.
No DREM, I would love to understand your profound insights without removing parts of my cerebral cortex,
If you are unable to formulate an experiment then maybe there are alternatives and rather than indulging in your passion for P.S.T. tantrums (i see you had a burst recently) do something useful for once.
Perhaps you could learn to code (there may be job opportunities) and then you could provide something that totally contradicts my depictions of orbital dynamics.
So DREM, you need to lift your game and learn some useful skills. Pronouncements delivered from the safety of your arm chair don’t cut it any more.
As one might gather from my comments, DREM is testing the limits of my patience, and I suspect nearly everybody else’s.
I might turn nasty as a result.
The mobile phone mistakes the change in orientation due to orbital motion, for axial rotation. Same as you do. It couldn’t really function any other way, if you think about it.
Ok DREM, just keep repeating exactly the same nonsense indefinitely. It makes it so much more convincing.
You could at least number them so the repetitions can bemore easily be counted.
I am just stating a fact.
DREMT is stating a mistaken opinion until such time as DREMT comes up with MikeR’s requested experiment.
If that is what you want to believe, then do. You may have the last word.
Experimental evidence is in short supply with DREMT.
All evidence is in short supply for DREM other than that pertaining to his mental state. Here we have loads of evidence (see DSM V).
“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.”
And does the observed motion of the Moon satisfy this definition?
No?
Not even close?
Oh well, then as Feynman says:
‘Then your model for the Moon’s motion is wrong. ‘
nate…”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.
And does the observed motion of the Moon satisfy this definition?”
yes. Every point on the Moon is moving in circles around the external axis at Earth’s centre where the lunar orbital plane intercepts that axis.
Because the near face is moving on the inner circle, the far side on an outer circle, and all points between in intermediate circles, there can be no rotation of the Moon about an axis through the Moon.
…there can be no rotation of the Moon about an axis through the Moon more or less than once per earth orbit.
ball4…”…there can be no rotation of the Moon about an axis through the Moon more or less than once per earth orbit.”
I have proved in detail that is not possible. You have no even attempted to prove it is true.
My proof, Gordon, is by observation.
“yes. Every point on the Moon is moving in circles around the external axis at Earths centre where the lunar orbital plane intercepts that axis.”
FALSE. The Moon’s orbit is quite elliptical. It is not a circle.
This Model fails for the Moon and most other orbiting plantes or Moons.
And furthermore, if we track the Moon’s parts, they are wiggling around this elliptical path to produce the observed libration.
Oh well, waddya gonna do? Change reality?
…and here is a link to the transmographer if anyone reading would like to try it for themselves…
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
Notice that this professor of physics and astronomy still defines an orbit as a rotation about an external axis, despite being aware that orbits are generally elliptical and not circular.
The King (or Queen- hard to tell gender from his moniker) of misinformation strikes again ,
Celestial bodies in elliptical orbits revolve at non uniform rates around an axis defined by one of the foci of the ellipse.
Yet another swing and a miss from DREM.
p.s. I thought you only had 3 strikes before you were banished, but DREM, has now struck out at least 100 times in this thread alone.
It was a quote from a professor of physics and astronomy.
DREM, I have no objection to the Professor’s quote.
It is your unnecessary addition regarding elliptical orbits that raised my concerns but I may have misinterpreted your intent, in which case I apologise. I have been a bit testy lately.
I note,with some amazement, note that you are now reading physics and astronomical material online which is a very positive development. It is never too late,
By the way, have you encountered any reference at all, from reputable sources in these fields, that directly state that the tidally locked moon, or in fact any other heavenly body, does not rotate on its axis (i.e. exactly zero angular velocity)?
DREM, bring forth this evidence or forever hold your peace.
This is another challenge for you, made doubly difficult, by my requirement for reputable sources only (which means no obscure Serbians, NASA moon landing conspiracy merchants, flat earther’s and other assorted crazies).
I await your evidence with much anticipation.
Weird way to apologize, but OK, MikeR.
No evidence? Maybe a lit search is required.
Anyway, apology accepted.
DREM, I am glad that I haven’t offended you.
However I note that you have not been able to come up with even a scintilla of supporting evidence for your assertion.
I am off to sleep now and I hope to see some scrap of supporting evidence when I awake, otherwise I am calling it b.s. and consigning it to the dustbin of history.
You should have at least 9 hours to do your literary search so, if something exists, it should have turned up by then.
DREM, good luck for your search. I suspect you will need it.
I am not going to do as you ask. Feel free to be as upset as you wish.
DREM yet again fails to rise to another challenge. Is anyone surprised?
What could be the reason for this failure? Hard to know for sure but the total absence of such material anywhere in the known universe may have played some part.
Alternatively pig headedness may have played a part with a pinch of stupidity thrown in for good measure. Who knows what goes in the mind of DREM? Not a lot I suspect.
Poor MikeR. Nobody can be bothered to play his games any more.
☹️
By the way DREM, the garbage bin has rejected your b.s. as being way too ridiculous, so it might have to be interred somewhere where it will never see the light of day.
If archaeologists in the future want to study lunatic ravings of the mid to early 21st century then they could use their b.s. detectors to stumble upon your writings.
If they still have trouble they will know that similar garbage is likely to be nearby. Just follow your nose to the green cheese theory and it will be directly adjacent to the flat earth theory. If you end up in Qanon territory you know you have gone too far.
Just more empty trash talk.
Ooh touche DREM, douche!
I am glad you haven’t taken your bat and ball and gone home in a fit of pique. The last trolls still standing , Clint and Gordon are even more boring.
However if , in the off chance you may have found a morsel of evidence for your theory. I am still willing to listen. I am all ears.
You should ask Bindidon, he has found most of the “Non-Spinner” material to date, including Tesla. Not sure if anybody else has bothered looking.
So DREM you haven’t bothered to look for evidence to support your own theory! Why not?. The non existence of such material may have discouraged you but you are so doggedly persistent in the defense of your crazy theory.
Rather than relying on the kindness of strangers, it is time for you to be proactive and bury yourself in research. It will reduce the temptation to launch p.s.t. tantrums when you can’t cope.
That would be a win/win for everybody and on that basis this could be the start of a beautiful friendship.
When people start trolling, I ask them to stop. Ball4 was completely out of control, so he had to be PSTd.
Do your own research.
Troll, heal thyself.
You do not think you are a troll, do you?
Top of the morning DREM. All bright eyed and bushy tailed, ready for another big day of trolling?
As for the accusation of being a troll it is all relative.
You have 753 comments compared to my relative paltry 292 (inclusive of this one).
You have been relatively restrained and only have 33 p.s.t. totals. Well done but don’t blot your copy book.
Of course I have more comments. People always seem to want to talk to me.
Yes there are a lot of people who have been trying to give you advice. Also many have tried to discuss your treatment options.
OK, MikeR.
Again, DREMT cherry picks to his liking. Same source
“Rotation
The strict definition of rotation is ‘the circular movement of an object about a point in space.’ This is used in geometry as well as astronomy and physics.”
“Orbit is the motion of one object around another. Earth orbits the Sun. The Moon orbits Earth.”
miker…”1. Referring to a mechanical rotation around a local centre of mass for any point in, or on, the body. This only makes sense if the point is free to rotate and clearly this is not possible for a rigid body”.
You are confusing the rotation of a point mass about a local axis with a rigid body doing the same. A point mass contained in a rigid body cannot be treated in the same way as a point mass that is free to rotate about a local axis on its own. In the latter case, the point mass is rotation about an external axis, not a local axis within itself.
Rotation for a rigid body is specified differently than for a point mass. With a rigid body rotating around a local axis, like the Earth, with its imaginary N-S axis, the rotation is defined by a radial line perpendicular to the Earth’s axis to any point on the surface.
If the radial line is drawn perpendicular to the N-S axis to the Equator, the point where it intercepts the Equator is moving at about 1000 mph. Where I live in Vancouver, Canada, a similar radial line from the axis to Vancouver is moving at nearly 800 mph where it intercepts Vancouver. Even though those points are moving at different velocities the radial line intercepts must complete one rotation in the same time.
If we select a radial line perpendicular to the axis and extend it through the Greenwich Meridian where it intercept the Equator, the time it takes for that radial line to rotate through a full rotation is defined as one day = 24 hours = 86,400 seconds. BTW, that is also the definition of time and it is why there can be no such thing as time dilation.
The angular velocity of the Earth at the Equator about the N-S axis is then determined by the angular velocity of that radial line turning about the N-S axis. The angular velocity of each point mass making up the Earth is not considered with a rigid body, just the angular velocity of such a radial line. Each point mass MUST complete one rotation in the same average time as all other point masses
Take that setup to the Moon. Now we have a rigid body rotating (revolving, orbiting) about the centre of the Earth as an axis. The radial line extends through the near side of the Moon, through its centre, and out the back of the far side. The angular velocity of the Moon around the Earth is now determined by the angular velocity of that radial line.
But wait. The near side always points toward the Earth in the direction of that radial line (providing the orbit is circular). Therefore a point on the near side is ALWAYS moving tangential to that radial line. A point on the far side must do the same and a point at the Moon’s centre through which the radial line passes must do the same. In fact, every point mass along the portion of the radial line through the Moon in moving tangentially to the radial line.
What does that tell us? Since a tangent line defines a portion of a curve at any point on the curve, this time a circular curve, it means each tangent line is parallel to ever other tangent line. That means each point of the Moon on that radial portion is moving in parallel circles.
Even though I described this to ball4, he returned with a smart ass reply that the Moon is still rotating about its centre. Let’s see if you’re more with it.
This is what Tesla was describing with his spoked wheels although he focused on the kinetic energy. It’s the same thing, KE = 1/2mv^2. I was talking about v = angular velocity (actually they use w = omega in radians/sec). Tesla took it further and calculated the related kinetic energies.
There is no way around this Mike, whether you use pizza’s or Hitler’s storm troopers. It is exactly the same in any frame of reference, no matter how you observe it. The Moon is not rotating about its axis, imaginary or otherwise.
The Moon is observed rotating about its axis once per orbit of earth no matter what Gordon writes.
Gordon,
Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.
However your desire to treat the earth moon system as being one continuous rigid body is not appropriate.
The earth is rotating 27 times faster than the orbital period of the moon. As well as the moon revolving, the earth is rotating around the barycentric point 1700km below the earth’s surface. This is not consistent with a rigid body
For this reason we can dismiss, along with even more obvious and significant fact that there is no phyical links such as spokes to constrain the moon’s rotation.
Lastly do you have any comments regarding the depiction
https://i.postimg.cc/YrJFWvqN/Moon-Earth.gif
Are you in agreement with DREM’s assertion that there does not exist a reference frame in which the moon does not rotate on its axis in reality?
With regard to the ability to distinguish appearances from reality, I have asked you in the recent past to attempt the calculation of rotational energy of a dumbbell around an axis through its centre of mass for 3 separate cases.
As a engineer , who deals in reality, I would hope you understand the relevance of this to the discussion or do I need to elaborate?
p.s. I note that, as you point out , Tesla has done an involved K.E. calculation for his spoke model and has come to the unsurprising conclusion that rotation around an axis for its constituent parts is not needed for a continuous rigid body.
For the many reasons described above, this rigid body analogy for the earth /moon system is not relevant.
miker…”However your desire to treat the earth moon system as being one continuous rigid body is not appropriate.
The earth is rotating 27 times faster than the orbital period of the moon”.
I am not treating the Earth-Moon system as a rigid body, I am treating the Moon as a rigid body and the Earth as a rigid body with the Moon orbiting the Earth as its axis.
The radial line I mentioned from the Earth’s centre through the Moon is to represent the instantaneous gravitation vector acting on the Moon. I extended it through the Moon to demonstrate that the lunar near face cannot turn around that radial line and still remain tangential to the radial line. Also, that radial vector turns with the Moon although the gravitational field is static.
You need to remember that even though the Earth rotates ~28 times per lunar orbit, the gravitational force is a field that is always acting even though the Earth is rotating. Therefore the force on the Moon is constant at all times. As the Moon with its linear momentum moves through the field it’s path is gradually bent into the resultant orbital path.
Note that the Moon’s linear momentum has a greater effect than Earth’s gravity. That gives a resultant between the two at a narrow angle to the tangent line. If the opposite was true, the Moon would spiral into the Earth. If the momentum was a lot greater, the Moon would break orbit and move off on a parabolic path till it was completely free of Earth’s gravity.
Gordon,
Why the hell, wouldn’t you treat the earth in the same manner as the moon?
I must point out the following.
1. They are both rotating around the same barycentre.
2. Additionally without the earth, the moon would definitely not be orbiting.
3. Nikola Tesla’s model includes the moon, spokes and also the earth!
miker…”Why the hell, wouldn’t you treat the earth in the same manner as the moon?”
This is what I wrote:
“I am not treating the Earth-Moon system as a rigid body, I am treating the Moon as a rigid body and the Earth as a rigid body with the Moon orbiting the Earth as its axis”.
Your question does not make sense to me.
I don’t consider the barycentre theory to be a legitimate representation of what is going on. It suggests the Earth is following a looping path as it orbits the Sun which I regard as bs. The basis of the barycentre theory applies to a binary star system where two stars are orbiting each other but neither is orbiting another star.
The Moon does attract the water in the oceans and it causes tidal bulges in the land masses but I think the mass of the Earth is to great for the Moon’s weak gravitational force to move it out of its orbital path. Therefore, the Moon is orbiting the Earth but the Earth is certainly not orbiting the Moon.
Tesla was trying to demonstrate that the kinetic energy required for a lunar rotation about a local axis is not there. He was trying to prove that all the kinetic energy follows tangential paths around the Earth. I am saying the same thing but have stopped at tangential velocities without applying the masses required for kinetic energy.
The fact that the near face of the Moon always points to the Earth proves Tesla’s point. There are no rotational forces tangential to the Moon’s surface that would cause the Moon to turn about its own axis. In fact the only forces involved is the linear momentum of the Moon and the radial gravitational force.
Some argue that momentum is not a force but Newton regarded inertia as a force, so why not momentum? Inertia was regarded as an internal force in a mass that resisted an externally applied force. By the same token, momentum can be regarded as an internal force that resists a reduction of velocity of a mass. In fact, to stop momentum, an external force has to be applied over a specific time period.
A force overcomes inertia to give a mass a constant velocity and momentum. A force has to be applied to stop momentum. Covered by Newton III.
BTW…let’s see someone use quantum theory to explain Newton’s Laws.
miker…”With regard to the ability to distinguish appearances from reality, I have asked you in the recent past to attempt the calculation of rotational energy of a dumbbell around an axis through its centre of mass for 3 separate cases”.
What relevance does that have to the current problem? Read Tesla’s article, he calculates the rotational kinetic energy and proves there is none in a rotational direction about a local axis.
A buddy of mine is an engineer and when I asked him a while back about a rather complicated problem in electrical engineering his response was, “How the heck do you expect me to remember that stuff”? It’s the same with me, I did that kind of engineering physics a long time ago and I don’t care to revisit it unless it’s pertinent.
It has taken me long enough to work through the orbital mechanics related to the Moon’s orbit. I have not tried to quantify it, all I’ve done is apply known principles related to a radial line and a tangent line to define rotational motion.
it is a real pity you haven’t answered the question about rotational energy. Hiwever I will make it extremely simple so you don’t have to do any calculations or ask a friend.
Which of the three dumbbells is not rotating on an axis defined by its centre of mass and which ones are?
https://i.postimg.cc/m4pX0W1b/Guess_Which_One_is_Rotating.gif
Once you have answered I promise I will be able to explain the relationship of your answer to the current moon rotation problem.
As Nate has also pointed out clearly and pertinently re Gordon’s argument.
“Yep unclear why DREM team keeps promoting the boneheaded lie that the Moons parts move in concentric circles around an external axis, when they know perfectly well that they dont.
Dont see why anyone would take these 47 time losers seriously.”
Yep that’s I why I usually don’t take them that seriously.
Maybe after my brief burst of seriousness , it might be time for me to return to ridicule mode.
It can’t be less effective than trying to engage with them on a rational basis. The thickness of their skulls make them impervious to reason.
Concentric ellipses, then, pedant.
DREM, I take it you are referring to the elliptical shape of your skull?
https://www.livescience.com/64296-neanderthal-dna-human-skull-shape.html
OK, MikeR.
I an glad we established that.
I was just acknowledging receipt of your comment.
Duly noted.
OK.
“Concentric ellipses, then, pedant.”‘
We are told we are wrong when we say an orbit is a translation without rotation.
When we say that there is an ACTUAL ROTATION of the Moon(movement in concentric circles around an axis) this axis is the Moon’s C.M., we are told we are wrong.
But when the TEAM throws out the accepted definition of ‘rotation’ to fit their obviously FALSE narrative, that’s somehow perfectly ok?
We are being pedantic?
Why use a model for the Moon’s motion that is not relevant and in fact just plain wrong, and fails to account for the actual observed motions?
nate…”Why use a model for the Moons motion that is not relevant and in fact just plain wrong, and fails to account for the actual observed motions?”
Then you disagree that the Moon is always moving with linear moment along an instantaneous tangent to a curve? It has to be instantaneous because the tangent to any curve varies it’s angle each instant.
Take a circle centred at 0,0 on an x,y plane and draw a radial line along x = 0 to x = 5. Now draw a unit tangent at x = 5 perpendicular to the radial line and now pointing along x = 5 to y = 1. Start the radial line turning CCW and note that at each instant, the unit vector representing the tangent line will change direction each instant.
That is a property of the circle, aka orbit. There is no Moon, required, a vector representing the tangent line will go through a full complement of angles pointing N, S, E and W without any Moon present.
Now add a Moon with the proviso that the near face always points to 0,0. The Moon does a complete rotation under those conditions without rotating about the unit vector.
If you want to connect that motion to gravity, consider the following. If the unit vector at 0,5 was pointing North (+y direction) and you let it run along x = 5, it would follow a straight line. Now consider the radial line from x = 0 -> x = 5 to be the gravitational force. It is just enough to keep bending the unit vector into a circular orbit.
There you have it. The Moon keeps the same face to 0,0 without rotating about the axis between the point of the radial line (vector) and the tail of the tangent unit vector.
“Then you disagree that the Moon is always moving with linear moment along an instantaneous tangent to a curve?”
No. And never said that.
A movement along a curve is a translation not a rotation.
“Maybe after my brief burst of seriousness , it might be time for me to return to ridicule mode.”
You were serious? When was that?
Yes DREM, my comments are punctuated by brief periods of seriousness (see my graphical depictions, YouTube videos etc..which are clearly not to your taste).
The majority of the time I have difficulty restraining myself when encountering risible material which you have an over-abundance of. It is fortunate that you have never experienced shortages and are able to continue to supply it regularly, even in these Covid19 times.
DREM, It must be difficult to always be the fall guy but you show admirable persistence. Keep up the good work.
miker…via Nate…”Yep unclear why DREM team keeps promoting the boneheaded lie that the Moons parts move in concentric circles around an external axis, when they know perfectly well that they dont”.
Simple. The Moon is made of atoms, the appearance as a unitary body being misleading. In fact, all matter is made up of atoms.
Of course, in a rigid body, the atoms are all bonded together. No one has claimed they are moving separately in concentric orbits. Yet, they are all moving parallel in a pretty-well infinite number of parallel orbits.
The breakdown into atomic structure is simply to demonstrate that if all atoms at any instant are moving in a tangential direct to a radial line through the Moon then they cannot be rotating about a local axis.
It’s unclear to me why you spinners cannot begin to see that.
Yes Gordon, what you say makes complete sense, if there was a rigid structure between the centre of the orbit and the moon.
Otherwise not so much.
Actually from the alternative viewpoint of reality, the mooon is rotating on its axis with respect to the stars.
You know those things that appear at night that navigators used to use to locate their positions.
On that note Gordon, a sextant is not, and should not be used, as a marital aid in the conventional manner.
The only time it should be used as an aid, is to find your
intimate partner in the dark. Hope this helps you find marital bliss.
“Yes Gordon, what you say makes complete sense, if there was a rigid structure between the centre of the orbit and the moon.”
So you finally agree that the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. Excellent.
So DREM,
Gordon didn’t refer to a horse bolted to a platform but the moon.
Is there is a physical link between the earth and the moon?
News to me.
Maybe first stop on the Stairway to Heaven?
Sounds like you might have finally made some progress. Not sure, because you are not really saying. Oh well.
DREM
Here is my position statement with regard to wooden horses.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-524809
It’s getting late here so I am signing off. Good night.
So no, you have not made any progress.
Ball on a string, chalk circle or horse nailed to mgr floor, all model orbital motion. It can’t be any easier.
All counter-arguments are merely attempts to pervert reality.
I mentioned it before, but Normans comment about the lines on a highway appearing to move backwards was super helpful. Not an illusion!
– A man is standing on top of the freight car, which is moving north at 2 mph.
– At a given moment, the man will be directly above a particular railroad tie.
– If he starts walking south at 2 mph, he will remain directly above the tie.
How could someone walk, but remain directly above a motionless object?
*******
Obvious to me now – if the train is the inertial frame, the railroad ties really are moving, ie, motion is relative.
ClintR is setting new records in perversity. His index along with his Idiot Index is sky-rocketing.
Fortunately I know him well enough to not have taken a short position on either of these stocks. However I hope I am not going to get arrested for insider trading.
Yes, Clint, their desperation continues.
ClintR,
You certainly have issues dealing with complexity. As they say to a simpleton , everything appears to be simple (and of course easy).
Likewise I could say, to a prevert*(sic) everything appears to be perverse, but that would be nasty, so I will just think it.
*https://youtu.be/DUAK7t3Lf8s
Their desperation continues.
Yes DREM, I am getting quite desperate of having to deal with your combination of brazen displays of apparent stupidity and mule like stubborness.
When a mule colt refuses to move, two bricks applied selectively can do the trick. Maybe this could be my next move, metaphorically speaking, but I will need to watch my thumbs.
In your case DREM, why are you so desperate? What’s your excuse?
Their desperation continues.
Well DREM, where’s your excuse?
Their desperation continues.
DREM, you may not have noticed but your tape is stuck in an endless loop.
#2
Their desperation continues.
You have pressed #2.
Someone from the mental heath team will respond as soon as possible.
Meanwhile to calm yourself you can listen to the Muzak, a hit from the 60s called “They Are Coming to Take Me Away, Ha, Ha. To the Funny Farm, Ha, Ha”
#3
Their desperation continues.
Please hold you are being transferred to our resident psychologist Eliza who will now be in charge of your treatment.
Due to privacy concerns you need to provide your name, address and social security number and bank details.
Someone from our Lagos office will get back to you to discuss further arrangements.
Press #4 to continue.
OK, MikeR (their desperation continues).
DREM,
I am so disappointed! I am desperately unhappy! I had a whole series ready to go.
Oh well, maybe next time.
I guess it had to happen. This is the moment in the movie where the “fall guy” realises he’s the fall guy.
Such an odd fellow (their desperation continues).
Yes my desperation continues unabated.
I know there are many who are also desperate for the final instalment of the movie.
In the final scene, the morbidly obese lady sings. In this role , the certifiably insane DREM ,will repeat himself incessantly (until the credits roll or Dr Roy terminates this thread, which ever comes first).
p,s. The sequel is in post production. Stay tuned.
“Yes my desperation continues unabated.”
I’m glad you admit it.
Recognising sarcasm is obviously not your strong suit!
Sure, you were being sarcastic.
DREM, your sarcasm does not become you.
Is there a point to this exchange?
I am happy to invoke the Mercy Rule on your behalf, so if you are happy, let’s terminate this exchange.
I’ll take that as a “no”.
DREM, you always have had this melancholic negativity. You always want to rain on everybody’s parade.
I must point out that I have plenty of relevant material stored in anticipation of such a rainy day.
Despite this I am hoping that, due to the mutual recognition of the pointlessness of our exchanges, you might consider the option to hang up.
MikeR apparently believes he has some obligation to keep responding.
No, no more. Better things to do with my life. Carry on without me.
Their desperation continues…
“MikeR apparently believes he has some obligation to keep responding”
Hilarious.
MikeR dont make it so hard on DREMT, who is required by law to keep responding.
Their desperation continues….
Snape, with regard to relative motion, some people have clearly never been on a treadmill.
I have. No matter how fast I run I never seem to get anywhere (except when I stop and the belt is still moving..).
Running without moving?
Impossible. Stop trying to pervert reality.
Yeah, cargo cult idiot religion.
So there (with foot stomp).
Keep bashing those straw men.
DREMT
I think your conclusion on Moon axial rotation is based upon your incorrect assumption about what gravity is and does.
I watched the 5 part videos attempting to use an experiment to prove the Moon does not rotate. The problem is they are using your incorrect logic on gravity to prove it. They have the box their paper Moon sits on tethered to the center. What they have shown is that if you stand on a merry-go-round that is rotating and rotate while you are standing on it, you will not face the center even if you rotate a little. It takes a non-rotation on your part (while standing on the MGR) to face the center. I also agree with you on this point. You do not rotate on your own axis while you stand on a MGR that is spinning.
However if your and Tesla’s assumptions on gravity are not correct that means the conclusion you have drawn is incorrect.
I could win the money offered in the video if they were honest. People that offer money NEVER pay out so it is a worthless offer.
I have asked Gordon Robertson to do this but I guess he does not want to. Walk in a circle and watch your feet and answer this question honestly. When you pick your foot up to move in a circle does it rotate on its axis? Yea or Nay?
If you observe and answer it will explain to you why you do not rotate on your axis standing on a MGR to face center but you must rotate on your axis to walk in a circle.
What is gravity doing? Is it acting like a string holding a ball? Or is it something else?
“You do not rotate on your own axis while you stand on a MGR that is spinning.”
Finally, a voice of reason. Ball4 will be along in a minute to “correct” you, I’m sure.
I don’t think walking in a circle captures the force and momentum involved in orbital motion. I think the ball on a string analogy is more apt. Giving the string a “winding in” mechanism which continually attempts to shorten the string, but which can be overcome by the linear momentum of the ball if you set it revolving fast enough, makes it even closer.
Norman is correct, “you” do not cause the rotation of your cg2 about your R2 axis, the cause is mgr spinning with radious R1 about its cg1.
…radius…
Norman does not agree with you, troll.
A better model would be a yo-yo on a string, like one that is free to rotate on its axis, exactly like the Moon.
OK, blob.
DREMT
Ok you do not like the walking in a circle. I have another one for you that will mimic the orbital motion and still be similar to the walking.
First I can tell you gravity does not at all mimic a ball on a string. That is not a useful analogy. If such an analogy were remotely close to the reality of the gravitational pull of the Earth on the Moon, then no planet could rotate on its axis. The only available option for any solar system would be all the planets would face the star they orbit as if they were balls on strings. This obviously does not occur so the ball on the string analogy is not at all correct.
Here is my example. Consider it. A rocket ship is out somewhere away from any significant gravitational fields. Now the rocket has forward propulsion engines and side engines to produce turning of the rocket.
So let us have the rocket just sitting idle in space with no forward motion. Turn on one side rocket and the rocket will then rotate on its axis, do you agree? Now while it is spinning turn on the forward thrust so it starts moving forward (now you have the similar effect as the momentum of the moving Moon). The side rocket will act similar to the orbit, the single fired side rocket will turn the rocket in some direction. The result of both these engines firing will be to make the rocket move around some center in a circle with the same side of the rocket always facing the center. You know it is rotating on its axis with the side engine firing and with the forward engine running you would move straight ahead but will move in a circular path instead.
Maybe MikeR, who does great work with computer simulations, could produce this one for you so you could visually see what is happening.
Probably would not need to keep the forward thrust firing once the rocket has a set speed as there would be no friction and if it kept firing the circle would just get larger as its velocity relative to the rotational speed increased.
Norman’s inablitlty to understand simple models indicates his lack of technical background.
The “ball on a string” is a model of orbiting and NOT rotating on its axis. The “ball on a string” is a model of Moon, ignoring Moon’s slightly elliptical orbit.
Don’t expect any of the idiots to understand.
“If you observe and answer it will explain to you why you do not rotate on your axis standing on a MGR to face center but you must rotate on your axis to walk in a circle.”
I like the feet observation. It is like MikeRs base runner.
As far as the guy on MGR, his motion is the same as the walker. Yes? The only difference is the CAUSE of it.
“That is not a useful analogy. If such an analogy were remotely close to the reality of the gravitational pull of the Earth on the Moon, then no planet could rotate on its axis.”
You are taking the analogy too literally. Nobody is arguing that planets or moons can’t>/b> rotate on their own axes.
This text is bold and this text is italicized
norman…”When you pick your foot up to move in a circle does it rotate on its axis? Yea or Nay?”
Nay. If you rotated on your axis, you’d eventually be walking sideways then backwards. In order to walk a circle and keep looking forward, you must not rotate about your COG.
At right in this depiction below is what happens if you don’t rotate around your centre of mass.
https://i.postimg.cc/TG6BCmHx/Car-Rotation-Center-of-Mass.jpg
In terms of walking Gordon, you are right.
“If you rotated on your axis (w.r.t. to the path to keep the orientation fixed w.r.t to North) , then youd eventually be walking sideways then backwards.” My comments were added in parentheses.
Further information on the relevant physics can be found here
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/what-monty-pythons-ministry-of-silly-walks-can-teach-us-about-peer-review/
p.s. again it all comes down to which reference frame you use. Gordon et al. prefers to use a rotating frame that leads you down the garden path.
Physicists and Engineers tend to prefer inertial reference frames w.r.t to directions. Also people who don’t want to get lost tend to use maps with directional arrows or can navigate by the stars.
The latter inertial frame of reference also is preferred if you want to directly interpret the output of gyroscopes and accelerometers without relying on “fictional forces”.
Gordon,
Just an additional comment. It is getting late where you are. Rather than banging away on the keyboard into all hours of the night, trying to convince others of this dubious theory, maybe you would get more satisfaction by heading off to bed.
Even if you don’t know how to use that sextant of yours, the extent of the sextant may impress your significant other.
However your stars may not be aligned so you may have to do it by dead reckoning. Good luck in your venture.
Again, this has nothing to do with reference frames. It all comes down to, what is “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
“Again, this has nothing to do with reference frames. It all comes down to, what is ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’?”
So now you admit that all this time the argument was pure semantics. Nothing fundamental at all.
Ok then.
Putting it as simply as possible, “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion like the car on the left in MikeR’s “Car Rotation” jpeg. “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion like the car on the right. That’s all there is to it.
“When you pick your foot up to move in a circle does it rotate on its axis? Yea or Nay?
Nay.”
Then I have to question Gordon’s ability to walk.. Or perhaps he is a master of funny walks, like one where his feet never turn to point where hes headed.
“Thats all there is to it.”
Great, then it comes to the TEAM speaks a private version of english in which their definition of the word ‘orbit’ is different from everyone elses, from that of astronomers, physicists, engineers, geometers.
Ok then.
Then all the discussions about gravity’s torque, and Newton’s cannonball, and the hammer throw, and angular momentum, were just red herrings.
Ok then.
DREM,
Does groundhog day occur every day, as per the movie?
I have said on several occasions that because the wooden horse is bolted to the platform it cannot be rotating on its axis WITH RESPECT TO THE PLATFORM (sorry to shout but how many times does one need to repeat this) . This where I agree with Gordon and presumably yourself.
However it is rotating on its axis WITH RESPECT TO A FIXED FRAME OF REFERENCE DEFINED BY DIRECTION.
This is the same situation as for the olives, anchovies and components of the Tesla contraption. Did you not understand this? Do I have to go through it step by step as if I was explaining it to an infant? Maybe I do? So contemplate these again
https://postimg.cc/9DdwrXvR
and
https://postimg.cc/WqdJ3GvT
and for good measure
https://i.postimg.cc/5f177kvJ/Rectangular-plate-pivot.gif
If you still do not understand then there is not much point continuing these exchanges as you are clearly not up to it.
However there is an alternative explanation for your apparent inability to understand any of this . Perhaps you are not quite as dumb as you appear but you just derive satisfaction from being as annoying as possible. Sadly this is the standard operating procedure for a troll.
So realistically DREM you are either one of the following.
A just dumb as your average 2 by 4.
B a troll,
C a dumb troll or
D a misunderstood genius who has insights that no one in the scientific community is capable of understanding .
The balance of probabilities suggest B or C with A a distinct possibility. D might be true in one particular parallel universe, the one where this also occured
http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/index/_/id/7369649
So no progress at all then, from MikeR. Still stuck in reference frames.
MikeR
I think DREMT is correct on his concept of motion. You have to realize the olive on the pizza is an apparent motion of axial rotation not a real one. There is a huge reason to grasp the difference. Physics is not remotely possible if one is unable to distinguish between real and apparent motion.
Consider this. If you are in a spaceship heading to the Sun, if you equate apparent motion with real motion you could conclude you are motionless and it seems the Sun is moving toward you (however other frames do not agree with you on this motion as the Sun is not moving toward them), now you have to equate what is moving the Sun toward you. That requires enormous energy to move such a massive object etc.
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-12038129-car-moving-on-road-passing-over-broken
This video of a moving car and road lines makes it look like the lines are certainly moving, but are they? Real motion would be correct to other views apparent motion only to select views. You may want to believe the lines are the ones moving and you standing still but to someone standing near the road, the lines are definitely NOT moving,
If the olive were actually rotating on its axis in real motion, it would not stop when you stopped the pizza rotating. The motion you see is apparent not real.
I think you might want to reconsider your discussion with DREMT on this issue. He is totally correct that the horse bolted to the MGR is NOT rotating on its own axis in a real way. He is correct in saying that it cannot. In real motion it will NEVER rotate on its axis. Only apparent rotation exists for this setup. Physics relies on understanding the vast difference between real and apparent motion. Physics does not work if you assume that the apparent motion is real.
https://isle.hanover.edu/Ch08Motion/Ch08ApparentMotion.html
Another concise contribution from our resident intellectual gnat.
I might be accused of ad hom attacks. My only defence is I don’t know the Latin for insect brain,
“I might be accused of ad hom attacks”.
Yes.
MikeR
I am not sure if you comment was directed at me or not. Regardless.
Another difference between apparent motion and real motion. With your pizza video. If your camera was rotating instead of the pizza would you still say the pizza was rotating on its axis even though you clearly know it is not?
To an observer of a video they could not tell if the pizza was rotating or the camera. But there is a real motion. The camera is either rotating creating the apparent rotation of the pizza or the camera is not rotating and the pizza is really rotating.
Quite a dilemma if one equates apparent motion equal to real motion.
Your crew is moving toward the Sun at 100,000 km/hr and on the opposite side of the Sun from your position is DREMT crew moving toward the Sun at 120,000 km/hr. You have open communication with each other via Dr. Roy Spencer Blog. You inform DREMT that the Sun is moving toward you at 100,000 km/hr. DREMT disputes your claim as he clearly knows that the Sun is not moving toward him or away, he realizes that he is moving toward the Sun and lets you know that the Sun is not moving toward you but is stationary. It is an illusion of motion, an apparent motion that you are seeing.
Norman,
Thank you for your interesting comments.
I must preface the following with the assumption that you are the same Norman that has been commenting here for the past few years. We have had instances in the past where pseudonyms have been hijacked to sow confusion.
When this all started I was confused by the notion that something that is not rotating in one reference frame can be rotating w.r.t. to another.
When the pizza is rotating, the olive which is obviously stationary in the rotating non inertial reference frame of the pizza is also rotating w.r.t. with the external reference frame.
When the pizza stops rotating, both the pizza and embedded olive of are longer in a rotating frame, which no longer exists. They can both only be referenced to the inertial external frame of reference.
With regard to apparent versus reality discussions, I have engaged with DREM and his accomplices on many occasions with regard to energy of rotation and how things in the real world measure rotation via gyroscopes.
One example amongst many is here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-521131
Nornan, I hope this has cleared up some confusion that may have arisen.
Sorry Norman,
You were an innocent victim caught in the crossfire between myself and DREM.
You are a genuine seeker of the truth unlike that troll who obfuscates in order to sow confusion.
MikeR
I am the same poster, as far as I know no one has hijacked my name yet. I missed those comments you directed to. With an almost 4000 post thread that opens in different spots I can miss some.
It is possible DREMT is just a troll to stir things up for his/her own amusement. If not I would think that the flaw is more about their understanding of how gravity works.
I still do not believe the bolted down horse is actually rotating on its axis so I agree with DREMT on this point. I do think that the Moon rotates on its own axis. If the Earth were removed and the Moon went off in a path it would still continue to rotate in around 28 Earth days and would still have a two week day and night cycle regardless of which path it was on.
Sometimes I do get fatigued from this debate. I am more than certain is will not be settled any time soon. Not sure why a handful of people suddenly believe all scientists are wrong and they have discovered this massive flaw that no one else saw and that all scientists are too dull and unthinking to see it.
The science teachers that instructed me were very thoughtful and intelligent. I do not know where they get the ideas that scientists are brain-dead automatons.
It is a weird cult. I think most of these come from the PSI blog which seems more interested in programming cult mentality than working to uncover truth. If you want brain-dead followers go to PSI and post something not hook-line-and-sinker with the prevailing thoughts. There you will find your unthinking zombie trolls. Or go to Postma blog and question his absurd physics and see how his blind and obedient followers react. That is where they come from.
Norman,
“If the olive were actually rotating on its axis in real motion, it would not stop when you stopped the pizza rotating. The motion you see is apparent not real.”
You lost me there.
The olive has measurable velocity, angular velocity, angular momentum, kinetic energy.
The olives motion is quite real.
It stops because the pizza surface applies a frictional force and torque on it.
Norman,
Much of what you are saying is eminently reasonable.
I just want to address some of the points you made previously.
The rotating camera above the rotating pizza are both in the same rotating frame of reference. If the camera then pans out to see the external environment it will soon realize that is rotating on its axis.
For the spacecraft example, again it is all in written in the stars.
We could both track our relative positions w.r.t.to the stars
Alternatively we could resolve the dispute by direct observation of a single star by both DREM and myself. The angular size of this particular star would increase as it was approached.
I am glad that DREM arrives at his destination first and it might the only feasible method to terminate my exchanges with this bizarrely obsessed fellow.
On your other comments in the post immediately above, I don’t normally encounter people in real life like our troika of trolls. I tend to associate, with the only exception of my MAGA hat wearing eccentric uncle, people who are amenable to logic.
Online, I have had occasional forays into other climate change forums populated by armchair experts who are even more deluded and also totally in awe of their own competence (one of the core criteria for the diagnosis of Dunning Kruger) than those that are found here (believe it or not).
In this forum, I have often indicated occasional uncertainty about my understanding of some areas of physics despite my many years of formal training. That is what specialisation , along with ravages of time, does to you.
In contrast, the certitude of the fools is a sure giveaway of what lies underneath.
Nate
While I respect your intelligence and knowledge of physics I would not agree with you on the olive rotation.
The measured values you attribute to the olive are no different than to the rest of the pizza. Those values are a product of the pizza itself and have this property. The individual parts are do not have unique separate values. The frictional resistance does keep the olive from independent rotation. The rotation is apparent not real.
Can you provide textbook evidence to suggest that the olive is actually rotating on its axis and not doing so apparently?
There are many opinions. I like strong scientific foundations on issues. I do not think parts of a solid object rotate independent of the object or are free to rotate on an axis. I think DREMT is correct on this issue, I think he is incorrect on many other things but not that one.
miker…”I have said on several occasions that because the wooden horse is bolted to the platform it cannot be rotating on its axis WITH RESPECT TO THE PLATFORM…
However it is rotating on its axis WITH RESPECT TO A FIXED FRAME OF REFERENCE DEFINED BY DIRECTION”.
I explained this in detail in a recent post. The turning of the horse on the MGR is a property of the circular orbit it is following, which is a property of a circle with a radial line and the tangent line to the radial line at the point where it contacts a circle (or any curve).
Never mind the horse, draw a circle to represent the MGR centred at 0,0 on an x,y plane. Draw a radial line from 0,0 to x = 5 and make it the radius of the circle. Draw a tangent line to the circle where it intercepts the circle. Now you have a radial line of length 5 with a vector tangent to it at x = 5 and pointing in the +y direction.
If you like, you can draw a horse on the tangential vector just for laughs. Start the radial line rotating CCW about 0,0. Note that the tangent MUST change direction at each instantaneous point on the circle. This is a property of a circle based on calculus with the slope of the tangent line = d(equation of circle)/dt. That is the first derivative of the circle defines the slope of the tangent line AT ANY POINT ON THE CIRCLE!!!
As the tangent line vector orbits the circle it changes direction at each point on the circle. Nothing to do with the horse. And, the tangent vector is ALWAYS perpendicular to the radial line and CANNOT ROTATE about the point where it meets the radial line on the circle.
That’s why the horse changes direction, not because it is rotating on its axis. Besides, being bolted to the floor of the MGR it cannot possibly rotate about its COG in any reference frame.
Gordon,
Ironically I think we are going around in circles.
You have provided a description of rigid body motion which appears to be correct. Things move in unison , I get that.
A rigid object translates and every constituent part translates, likewise if the same object rotates then every part also rotates.
Accordingly if the object rotates with respect to an external frame of reference, all constituent parts also rotate with respect to the same external frame.
The part which is confusing to some is the axis of rotation bit and that is why I show in my depictions the directional axes moving with object , be it the moon or an olive embedded in a pizza.
Finally, I seem to recall yourself and some others discussing at some stage, one coin rotating around another. For the sake of completeness, I have another depiction illustrating this,
https://i.postimg.cc/JrWnNJVq/Coins2.gif
The coin is rotating uniformly but I can change it to discrete steps, corresponding to rotation by hand, if required.
Apologies for the poor quality of the graphics. My programmer doesn’t know how to handle transparent bitmaps. I think I should sack him.
“I do not think parts of a solid object rotate independent of the object or are free to rotate on an axis. I think DREMT is correct on this issue, I think he is incorrect on many other things but not that one.”
Thanks for trying, Norman. Unfortunately these people get so caught up in reference frames that they lose sight of what is real and what isn’t. Your point about the revolving camera was well made, but it seemed to go straight over his head. In reality either the camera is rotating on its own axis, or the pizza is. It’s a binary proposition, and even though what you see is the same in either case, only one or the other is actually happening in reality.
Just like how, in reality, the olive is rotating about an axis in the middle of the pizza, and not on its own axis.
“he measured values you attribute to the olive are no different than to the rest of the pizza. Those values are a product of the pizza itself and have this property. The”
Norman, can you define ‘apparent’?
I can agree that the olive has no motion relative to the pizza.
So as people have noted, that means if we go into a frame of reference rotating with the pizza, the olive will not be moving. But this is a special non inertial frame.
In the inertial reference frame of stars, the olive is certainly moving and rotating.
One can describe the pizza as a rigid body rotating around its center.
But if we want to describe just the olives motion, we can describe it as rotating around the pizza center OR as orbiting the pizza center and rotating on its axis.
Both are valid for the olive, but the 2nd is more general, and only it is valid for the Moon, which has an elliptical orbit and rotation around a tilted axis.
“Accordingly if the object rotates with respect to an external frame of reference, all constituent parts also rotate with respect to the same external frame”
…but not on their own axes. All constituent parts instead rotate about an axis in the center of the object.
The TEAM is so caught up in their fundamentalist devotion to lunar axial non-rotation that they cannot acknowledge that there are multiple ways of describing the same phenomena.
Thus
‘if we want to describe just the olives motion, we CAN describe it as rotating around the pizza center OR as orbiting the pizza center and rotating on its axis.”
must be denied, even though it is easily proven with their transmographer tool.
“Besides, being bolted to the floor of the MGR it cannot possibly rotate about its COG in any reference frame.”
Yes, it really is that simple.
Unfortunately I have caught DREM’s infectious repititis C.
So I repeat “the certitude of the fools is a sure indication of what lies beneath” and the equally appropriate “to a simpleton everything appears simple”
Something that cannot possibly rotate on its own axis, doesn’t.
Ball on a string, chalk circle or horse nailed to mgr floor, all model orbital motion. It can’t be any easier.
If one desires more complexity, they can study the vidoes supplied by bob. The videos verify that if something were both orbiting and rotating about its axis, then the axial rotation would be apparent from the center of its orbit.
All counter-arguments are merely attempts to pervert reality.
No they don’t, perverter of reality.
Orbiting bodies are not connected by strings, boards, or nails.
You are doing it wrong.
Norman
Regarding the rocket In space –
If an object starts out rotating CW, for example, and then begins to make a clockwise orbit, it would be impossible for the object to always face the center.
Always knew you were a “non-spinner” at heart, Snape. Well done.
Snape
Do you have more information as to why you think this would be the case? The thrust only pushes the rocket forward. The side rocket is what turns it a direction.
I would think it is the same as a boat making circles in water or an airplane going in circles. When a plane circles the same side always faces the center.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzNSBTxH_Cs
Or a helicopter flying in a circle. You only see the same side as it circles. The main propeller provides forward motion, the tail propeller provides rotation to constantly rotated the helicopter to force it into a circular flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUWqi-UeTQc
“Ball on a string, chalk circle or horse nailed to mgr floor, all model orbital motion. It cant be any easier”
Sure, if your preference is for easy rather than accuracy or correctness.
Lets face it, if real science does not meet your need for simplicity, better to leave it to others.
…and here are the videos you are referring to (just the first two):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1cziZt92BQ&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw&feature=youtu.be
These videos got panned by someone whose name I will not reveal due to privacy considerations.
In contrast Rotten Tomatoes rate them highly.
I may be in danger of being arrested by The P.C. police for racial stereotyping, if I make comparisons with the comedic talents displayed by the late great Peter Sellers in “The Party”.
Accordingly such comparisons will not be made,
However I have been assured that Inspector Clouseau is permitted.
OK, “reachforthesky”.
The Pink Panther strikes again! The Inspector will be so proud of you.
OK, Mike Reich.
Indeed Youtube is a good place to get schooled on various subjects.
I have some videos on ‘Free energy from water’ the TEAM may want to look at. They could find a good investment opportunity. Also some equally impressively narrated ones on why the Earth is most assuredly Flat.
I regret to inform you that my brother Wilhelm has died after a nasty accident while perfecting his invention. Something about forgetting to rotate at the right time, and getting a part of his anatomy entangled in the rotor.
This is doubly unfortunate as you would have got along with him famously. Great minds think alike, see –
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/adventures-in-the-orgasmatron-wilhelm-reich-and-the-invention-of-sex-by-christopher-turner-2343723.html
I have inherited his orgasmatron so I invite you take a spin.
You could conduct experiments to anatomically verify the ball on a string theory but I will have to first disable the newly installed safety switch.
Maybe bring a chastity belt or a reinforced cod piece.
Nate, I am planning to make a video of DREM’s experimental anatomical verification of the ball on the string theory (fortunately DREM may have a durable backup, possibly made of brass).
This could be added to the sequence above or become part of the Flat Earth series.
DREM’s dream was always to become an Internet star.
The second one is particularly useful. I know how some people struggle with visualizing these things…
norman…in your rocket analogy you are suggesting that the Moon had a tangential force, like a rocket motor, driving it to turn around its axis, then somewhere along the way it encountered Earth’s gravitational field and got locked in orbit while still rotating.
That’s almost a fair analogy, except for one thing. If the device that caused rotation made the Moon rotate every 28 days then when it was captured by Earth’s gravitational field it would have to rotate once every 28 days, or orbit. Convince yourself on a drawing that it’s possible to complete such a 28 day rotation while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
Not possible. Try it with two coins and convince yourself.
Gordon Robertson
I have two quarters on my table as I type this to you. One in the center (not moving Earth) and the other moving in a circular path around the other. I need to rotate the Moon quarter as I move it in a circle to keep the same side facing the Earth quarter. I do not know how you could achieve different results. Look at what your fingers are doing with the Moon quarter as your hand moves it in a circular path. The fingers must and do rotate the Moon quarter as you move it around. It can be no other way. If your fingers do not rotate the quarter at the same time as you move the Moon quarter around the Earth quarter, the Earth will see all sides of the Moon quarter (you can tell my looking at what your fingers must do in each case).
So I tried your test and I am convinced you are wrong. Also check out the helicopter video. That should end this 3000+ comment debate. Tesla made a very wrong assumption and therefore came to an incorrect solution. He was a very smart person but that does not mean everything he thought was correct. Even brilliant minds can and do err, he did on this one.
Tesla could have done your coin test and then he would have seen he was not correct.
You just don’t quite get it, Norman. Don’t get me wrong, you come closer than most of the others. You at least understand that the chalk circle, wooden horse and ball on a string are all not rotating on their own axes, regardless of reference frame. That’s a huge leap forward in understanding. I think you’ll get there, in time. It’s simpler than you think.
Nate,
ClintR wrote,
“Ball on a string, chalk circle or horse nailed to mgr floor, all model orbital motion. It cant be any easier”
This gets to the heart of what we have been arguing about – synchronous rotation. The moon is just another example.
Norman
[I would think it is the same as a boat making circles in water or an airplane going in circles. When a plane circles the same side always faces the center.]
An airplane going in circles is yet another example of synchronous rotation, meaning it completes one axial rotation every time it completes a revolution about an external axis. This is either true or not true, depending on the chosen inertial frame of reference.
But assuming it is true, then if the airplane was already rotating before it started, it would end up making more than one axial rotation during the revolution, meaning rotation and revolution are no longer in sync.
norman…” I need to rotate the Moon quarter as I move it in a circle to keep the same side facing the Earth quarter”.
Good for you for at least trying the two quarters. Be careful, however, when you claim you have to rotate the Moon quarter. If you look really closely you are actually sliding it while turning it slightly. Rotation about the Moon quarter’s centre is the same as rolling the coin. The coin must roll on the Earth quarter’s circumference.
The same applies on a straight surface. If you mark a coin on one side and need to keep that mark always touching the straight surface, you must slide it along the surface. If you want the coin to rotate through 360 degrees, you must roll it.
If you rotate the Moon quarter, you must ROLL it, and the near face will begin to turn away from the Earth quarter’s centre. To examine that closely, I used a fine tipped felt pen and drew a line through both quarters. I set the Earth quarter beside the Moon quarter, to it’s left, and drew a line from 9 o’clock on the Earth quarter, through 3 o’clock, then through 9 o’clock on the Moon quarter to 3 o’clock. Then I drew an arrow on the Moon quarter at 9 o’clock so it pointed at the Earth quarter’s centre.
That leaves a line on the Moon quarter from 3 o’clock to 9 o’clock with an arrow at 9 o’clock pointing at the Earth quarter’s centre. The trick now is to keep that arrow always pointed at the Earth’s centre. If you try to rotate the Moon quarter about its centre, so it ROLLS along the circumference of the Earth quarter, the arrow immediately points away from the Earth quarter’s centre.
On the other hand, in order to keep the arrow pointed at the Earth quarter’s centre, you must SLIDE the Moon quarter around the Earth quarter’s circumference while slightly adjusting the arrow direction so it always points at the Earth quarter’s centre.
That is actually how Earth’s gravity operates on the Moon. Remember that the Earth quarter’s circumference is a resultant path (orbit) due to the Moon’s linear momentum and the Earth’s gravitational field. The Moon wants to follow the tangential path at each point on the orbit and gravity drags it slightly off that linear path.
As you move one quarter around the other, you must try to replicate that resultant path. It’s easy if you use the Earth quarter as a template for the orbit and simply slide around its circumference. However, you must also adjust the arrow on the Moon Quarter to always point toward the Earth quarter’s centre.
If you want to rotate the Moon quarter about its axis as it moves on the Earth quarter’s circumference you must ROLL it so the Moon quarter rotates 360 degrees as it completes its path around the Earth quarter’s circumference. You cannot roll it and keep the arrow pointed toward the Earth quarter’s centre.
Note that in order to keep the arrow pointed toward the Earth quarter’s centre, each point along the line drawn on the Moon quarter’s face is ALWAYS turning in circles about the Earth quarter’s centre. If you roll the Moon quarter to replicate rotation about the Moon quarter’s centre, that is no longer the case. The arrow cannot point at the Earth quarter’s centre and it actually rotates 360 degrees about its centre.
There is simply no way to move the Moon quarter around the Earth quarter, while keeping the arrow pointed at the Earth quarter’s centre, and have the arrow tip complete a 360 degree rotation about the Moon quarter’s centre. That’s because the Moon quarter’s centre and far side are moving in concentric circles around the near face. The near side cannot rotate around the centre because the centre is moving parallel to it.
Hi Gordon,
I do not have a quarter to my name, so I have had to make do with a dollar or two,
https://i.postimg.cc/JrWnNJVq/Coins2.gif
Does your thesis only work with quarters?
MikeR proudly makes the same mistake over and over again…
DREM,
As the resident member of the peanut gallery, what, if any, s criticisms do you have with regard to the depiction of the coins above?
Other than stale repetition, have you anything to offer? Does the orbiting coin spin or not? Can you move the coin around the other without rotating it?
Finally DREM, can you spare a dime? I am still waiting for my 7 lakhs.
They just can’t see what is obvious.
Gordon doesn’t realize he is actually rotating the coin, even when he says he is not rotating the coin, more than once.
“turning it slightly.”
and
“while slightly adjusting the arrow direction so it always points at the Earth quarters centre.”
and
“each point along the line drawn on the Moon quarters face is ALWAYS turning in circles”
Gordon, you are rotating the Moon coin.
You are proving the Moon rotates around its axis.
Thank you very much.
“Other than stale repetition…”
MikeR, you are just repeating yourself with the coin gif. Therefore I would be repeating myself to critique it. You just make the same mistake over and over again.
Shock horror. I have been accused of repeating myself by the master himself.
DREM clearly has no effn idea how to respond to the coin depiction, which I have had the temerity to post twice.
DREM has struck out repeatedly and is now too scared to even have a swing.
It is exactly the same as all the others…orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis.
Back to stale repetition. Oh well, sigh.
It would have been fascinating to see DREM, to at least attempt to fit the depiction of the coins within the framework of his simple theory.
Maybe Gordon, who seems to have gone AWOL, will show up and have an attempt, but perhaps not.
miker…”I do not have a quarter to my name, so I have had to make do with a dollar or two,”
Good graphics. You are still suffering an illusion that the one coin rotating around the other is rotating about its own axis.
Stop the image when the moving coin is stopped at 6 0’clock below the other. Note your cross-hairs. There is one line pointing N-S and one perpendicular and pointing E-W.
Now draw the same E-W lines parallel to that central E-W line at the near side and the far side. Let her go. You will note that the two new lines remain parallel to the E-W line (at 6 o’clock) throughout the rotation. That means the near-side, the centre, and the far-side are moving in concentric circles.
In order for rotation about a local axis to occur, the far-side E-W line at 6 o’clock would have to exchange places with the near-side E-W line at 12 o’clock. It does not, the near-side E-W line is always on the inside.
No rotation about the moving coins axis is possible under those conditions. Funny how curvilinear translation can look so much like rotation about a local axis.
Gordon,
I am not sure whether you are deliberately trying to confuse or you are just confused. As I always err on the side of generosity, I will go with latter.
Either way I am certainly discombobulated by your explanation.
“In order for rotation about a local axis to occur, the far-side E-W line at 6 oclock would have to exchange places with the near-side E-W line at 12 oclock. It does not, the near-side E-W line is always on the inside”
I assume you are referring to the red “cross hair” lines not the blue E-W lines, which are fixed in orientation throughout (as all directions should be). I am not sure what the far side and near side E-W line means when, at either 6 or 12 o’clock, the horizontal red line runs through the middle of the moving coin and is neither, far or near, with respect to the stationary coin.
I think you would be much better off not worrying about the right side of the graphic which has confused you ( and your description of it has confused me).
Instead ask yourself, is the coin in the left box rotating on its axisor is it not. That is the fundamental question. Slings and arrows will follow depending on your answer.
p.s. If you want to better explain yourself, why don’t you do a screen capture at the critical moments? You can even annotate it using your favourite paint program. Upload it into postimg which is very easy to do.
This should clear up the confusion, irrespective of whether it is me or you who is confused.
“I am not sure what the far side and near side E-W line means…”
Then read the explanation again:
“Stop the image when the moving coin is stopped at 6 0’clock below the other. Note your cross-hairs. There is one line pointing N-S and one perpendicular and pointing E-W.
Now draw the same E-W lines parallel to that central E-W line at the near side and the far side.”
So Gordon is referring to two additional lines that you mentally draw in, parallel to the red “cross hair” line pointing E-W, so that you have, in total, three red horizontal lines (and one vertical). One horizontal line passing through the center of the coin, one above that one passing through the near side edge of the coin, and one below it passing through the far side edge of the coin.
Thank-you DREM for interceding on Gordon’s behalf and providing some much needed clarification.
I still think Gordon’s explanation still requires further elaboration.
Why were these points chosen? Are they the only ones that behave in the manner that supports his argument? Each graphic has over 100,000 points and there are several hundred graphics in the sequence that make up the gif.
Are the opinions of the millions of other points irrelevant?
Of course I am being facetious here, but the point of the coins depiction is actually relatively simple (at least for this particular case and I know you guys like simplicity). Is the coin in the left hand box really rotating on its axis? It’s not rocket science and its not an illusion.
p.s. can you help Gordon with screen captures at the critical moments and accompanying annotations. If you can’t, get your kids or grand kids to help. It could be fun for the whole family and the basis for a science project for the young’ns.
I will keep it as simple as possible.
All points making up the orbiting coin are moving in concentric circles about the stationary coin.
If the orbiting coin was also rotating on its own axis, the orbital paths of the particles making up the orbiting coin would no longer form concentric circles. The paths of the particles would cross.
DREM, the points you are making ,yet again in an endless rinse and repeat cycle, are patently obvious to everybody. Of course this is true in the reference frame of the orbiting rotating coin. You don’t need to repeat that. I dont believe I am being presumptuous but we all, many moons ago, got the message loud and clear
However for whatever reason (I can think of a multitude) DEEM can’t seem to grasp that from the perspective of an external observer who is looking at the left hand box, the coin is rotating on its axis. Again this is patently obvious.
The only exception would be for someone who has decided to rotate his monitor continuously at the appropriate rate and direction while looking at the box.
DREM is this what you are doing?
Despite your efforts you will tire eventually and likewise we (being presumptive again) are getting sick and tired of your nonsense.
We will put you down as “ineducable”.
DREM , Your wrists must be painful from rotating the screen.
Stop it because you will go blind. Actually it is probably too late.
Is there anybody else that can honestly say that the coin in the left box is not rotating? I said honestly.
As a memory refresher –
https://i.postimg.cc/JrWnNJVq/Coins2.gif
Dumb.
Struck dumb. That’s very unfortunate.
Could be another, but unusual, symptom of R.S.I..
You are dumb. Stupid. Thick. Unbelievably thick.
MikeR made a video that explains the situation perfectly:
https://postimg.cc/9DdwrXvR
If the square is the inertial frame, then anything within the square, big or small, will be seen to rotate about an internal axis. You could glue the olive to the pizza with extra thick tomato sauce – doesnt matter.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Good job, Mike!
The olive is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. It is merely rotating about an axis in the center of the pizza – same as all the rest of the pizza.
dremt…”The olive is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame”.
As we discussed before, the olive cannot rotate about its centre because it is held in place with melted cheese.
…and it can’t exchange places with the anchovies either.
That’s right, you’re learning. Things that physically can’t happen, don’t happen.
MikeR,
Are you sure those rotating things are anchovies?
They look more like sardines.
“…those rotating things…”
Yes, they are rotating about an axis in the center of the pizza, and not on their own axes.
Bob,
You’re just being sardonic.
This isn’t the time or the plaice for fish puns…
I am booking you in for grouper therapy. That should be punishment enough.
He’s still carping on about it…
DREM, I like your work here, your first pun particularly.
It suggests a modification to generate a quadruple pun in one sentence . It is derived from the only 3 puns in one sentence, currently known to mankind.
This quadruple pun is (drum roll)…
“The Focus Ranch and Fisherman’s Haven, the only plaice where the son’s raise meat.”
It may need some more work.
Now that’s just roeful.
Yes, I am floundering.
Just when you thought it codn’t get any worse…
It could get worse.
I have been listening to stand up comedy on my AM/FM tuna and laughed so hard I nearly fell off my perch.
I’m not going to take the bait…
This is the ingredient list for my favourite bouillabaisse (if it’s a bit fishy for some, then they should try Fichyssoise instead) as supplied by
https://youtu.be/2gcO9a7sMYA
MikeR made a video that explains the situation perfectly:
https://postimg.cc/9DdwrXvR
If the square is the inertial frame, then anything within the square, big or small, will be seen to rotate about an internal axis. You could glue the olive to the pizza with extra thick tomato sauce – doesnt matter, it will still be seen to rotate.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Good job, Mike!
(getting around the blogs time constaint)
Oops, thought it hadnt posted.
The idiots are still idiots.
The ball-on-a-string beats all their conjured up cult incantations.
Reality is so hard on cults.
What we need is a volunteer from the non-spinner group.
A wooden merry-go-round, a basketball, a baseball, some nails, some duck tape and a smiley face sticker.
We nail the volunteers shoes to the merry-go round and glue the basketball to the merry-go-round in front of his feet.
We take the baseball and duck tape it to his hand so it doesn’t move and place the smiley face sticker on the baseball.
Now we bend him over and face the sticker on the baseball towards the basketball, and forcibly rotate the baseball around the basketball keeping the smiley face towards the basketball.
2 revolution should suffice, but 3 would be better.
Then after we take him to the hospital, we look at the doctors diagnosis.
That should prove that the baseball has to spin.
Any takers?
You are all in a cult, should be no problem to prove your position.
If the baseball doesn’t rotate, no injury. You will have proved your point.
But otherwise…
Here are those videos of yours again, blob:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1cziZt92BQ&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw&feature=youtu.be
Thanks for those.
The idiots are still idiots, as stated.
So no takers,
what a bunch of chickenshit cowards.
Calm down, blob.
I am calm you chicken shit insulting coward.
What are you, a name calling little girl?
OK, blob.
Poor bob. He learned to type, but nothing intelligent ever results.
He probably blames his typing instructor.
The video includes a close up of the object within the square. If you can’t tell that the object is spinning, check with your doctor right away. Could be a sign of something serious.
Sure, inside the box the olive appears to be spinning.
However…
The olive is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. It is merely rotating about an axis in the center of the pizza same as all the rest of the pizza.
Yes Snape it does sound serious. DREM can only tell whether the olive is rotating on its axis or not, only by reference to the right side of the depiction.
It’s magic. In graphical isolation it rotates with respect to the directional axes but the graphical depiction of the pizza overwhelms it and stops it rotating. This is his his theory and he’s sticking with it. Come hell or high water.
miker…”Yes Snape it does sound serious. DREM can only tell whether the olive is rotating on its axis or not, only by reference to the right side of the depiction”.
I am wondering how you got the box to turn CW to give an impression that the olive was in fact rotating CCW? If you drew that box around the olive at 12 o’clock and it was attached to the pizza it would have to move with the olive. You have arranged for the box to turn CW to keep it upright.
Of course it appears to rotate “with respect to the directional axes”…the olive is facing through different directions, because it is rotating about an axis in the center of the pizza, and not on its own axis! You just don’t listen, MikeR. Not even to the people on your side of the argument.
Actually, the olive is facing through different directions, because it is constrained to rotate once on its own axis (r2, cg2) while translating in a complete circle about an axis in the center of the pizza (r1,cg1) as proven by the transmographer. The transmographer programmer understand kinematics unlike DREMT and Gordon.
“…while translating in a complete circle about an axis…”
An axis is exclusive to rotation, troll.
DREM, is this another of your revolutionary theories?
No, just common knowledge. At least as far as motion is concerned. There are other definitions of “axis”, but when it comes to motion it is associated with rotation, not translation.
Oh good , your comment doesn’t exclude revolution of a body around an axis.
I was worried for a moment.
You just like responding to my comments, let’s face it…
Being an elderly curmudgeon I normally only respond to stupid comments. Fire away,
You’ve got “to” and “with” mixed up.
Yes on occasions like these, I can return fire with stupid facetious comments made solely on the grounds that the recipient is unable to grasp intelligent comments.
Only to be used sparingly for the egregiously stupid.
OK, MikeR.
Hi Gordon,
Just in case you were wondering, there was no involvement of a camera. There was also no microwave and unfortunately no pizza. This combination does not work well in reality, particularly for the camera and the microwave, unless you like fireworks.
It WAS simply rotation via software of an image of a pizza downloaded via the internet. The software also generated a fixed orientation “window” that tracked any part of the image, with fixed directional axes superimposed. This contents of this window were automatically copied directly into the fixed orientation box at left.
The same software can be used for any image to determine the rate of rotation around an axis for any point in the image.
The Tesla image was from a screen capture from the original document as shown here.
http://teslacollection.com/tesla_articles/1919/electrical_experimenter/nikola_tesla/the_moon_s_rotation
The earth-moon image is a composite of relevant images, again from the internet.
These simulations were for a camera that is not rotating, representing the view from an external inertial frame.
Gordon, I hope this clarifies how the gif image sequences were generated and therefore why the box was fixed in orientation and not turning CW.
A wooden horse is securely bolted towards the outside edge of a merry-go-round, so that it physically cannot rotate on its own axis. You start the merry-go-round rotating. Can something that is physically incapable of rotating on its own axis when the merry-go-round is stationary, now suddenly gain the capacity to rotate on its own axis, just because the merry-go-round is rotating? No, of course not. So the wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis.
You gotta do more than bolt your my little pony to the merry-go-round to stop it from rotating on its axis.
The whole merry-go-round can be rotated on the axis through the my little pony.
Ridiculous.
bob knows his cult is defunct. Yet he believes if he keeps distorting reality enough, then maybe….
Like most cult members, he will have to learn the hard way.
Reality always wins.
Bob,
With their inability to conceptualise these guys don’t do thought experiments. Maybe its time for another depiction.
I haven’t found a an appropriate plan view of a merry-go-round so I have had to make do with the pizza again.
Here is an olive taking the pizza for a spin.
https://i.postimg.cc/9m4TPBHK/Pizza-Spin.gif
How stupid can these people get!?
“Stupidity” is a virus.
Only those able to think for themselves are immune.
Those infected form cults.
You guys are a riot. Your lab results have come back and you are both STUPID+. You need to self isolate and stay away from the internet to reduce the likelihood of the infection spreading.
If you have been in contact with others, let them know that the telltale signs of infection are mental confusion and a total inability to understand visual depictions
Further details , including an historical perspective can be found here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-520999
It’s not just that blob’s “point” goes nowhere (except perhaps as the exception that proves the rule, so a bit of an own goal), it’s also that MikeR actually bothered to animate it…
The horse is bolted to the rotating merry-go-round and the olive is embedded in the rotating pizza base.
Is the major problem that I used an olive pizza/ base combination instead of the horse/merry-go-round combo?
I can imagine it would make a massive difference /sarcasm off.
The major problems are:
1) blob didn’t have a point in the first place.
2) we didn’t need to see the non-point illustrated to know it was a non-point.
I understood Bob’s point. You clearly didn’t.
If you need an explanation of “The whole merry-go-round can be rotated on the axis through the my little pony” then your mental confusion needs attending to. Urgently.
The same goes for your total inability to understand visual depictions
It goes without saying that the whole merry-go-round could be rotated on the axis going through the wooden horse. In which case the wooden horse would indeed be rotating on its own axis.
But if the only way you can get the wooden horse to rotate on its own axis is to rotate the entire merry-go-round about the wooden horse, then that kind of proves my point.
Which is why I said “ridiculous” when blob raised his complete non-point.
I think I can hear the anguished sounds of hares (still in pun mode) being split asunder.
The reference to frames of reference was clear to me at least.
Maybe not to others.
OK, MikeR.
The point was, since you missed it by a couple of parsecs, is that the
Moon isn’t bolted to anything
I forgot to add
DREMPTY is a cunt.
No Bob,
He is just a member of a cult.
The term “member” only refers to the male anatomy.
Nobody is arguing the moon is bolted to anything.
Really DREM? So why the talk about horses bolted to mgrs, metal plates, etc.? Just to waste everybody’s time?
I guess a troll’s gotta do what a troll’s gotta do.
But people are arguing that something that can’t rotate can’t rotate and they apply that to the Moon. There is nothing connected to the Moon that can stop it from rotating.
And that was basically Tesla’s argument with the spokes and all.
He did have spokes connected to the Moon, didn’t he?
It is just to get the point across that something which physically cannot rotate on its own axis moves a certain way whilst orbiting…with the same face always towards the center of the orbit.
Which is irrelevant to a discussion of the orbit and spin of the Moon.
My cat figured that out.
And the Moon doesn’t actually face the Earth, cause it points somewhere else.
Generally speaking, it continually faces the Earth. Far more than the alternative (one side remaining facing towards the same distant star whilst it orbits).
Well if we are generally speaking, we are doing it wrong, you want to make a problem as simple as possible but not so simple that it is wrong.
You do understand that continually facing in the general direction of the Earth, is not the same direction, the general direction the Moon faces rotates 360 degrees as the Moon revolves around the Earth.
On its axissssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
This
“Far more than the alternative (one side remaining facing towards the same distant star whilst it orbits).”
is what it would be doing if it wasn’t rotating, and we would see all sides from the Earth.
If you could see all sides from Earth, it would be rotating on its own axis.
That’s contradicted by the evidence which shows that the Moon is rotating on its axis and we can not see all sides from the Earth.
Wrong again, nothing new here folks, move along.
Whatever, blob.
Generally speaking, are you giving up because you have lost the argument?
You haven’t made any argument, blob.
The score card so far, please report any improvements:
– Y: Einstein’s theory is OK so far.
– Z: The moon rotates on its own axis.
– Capital letter: Agreeing to a large extent.
– Small letter: Has substantial objections.
– ?: Unknown (by me or he/she).
– ABCDEFGHI???YZ: Midas
– ABCDEFGHI???YZ: Tim Folkerts, Phd.
– ABCDEFGHI???YZ: bobdroege
– ABCDEFGHI?KLYZ: Bindidon
– ABCDEFGHI?KLYZ: barry
– ABCDEFGHIJK?YZ: Ball4
– ABCDEFGHIJKLYZ: Nate
– ABCDEFGHIJKLYZ: Svante
– ABCDEFGHIjklYZ: Norman
– ABCDEfGHI???YZ: Dan Pangburn
– ABCdefG??jkl??: Kristian
– ABcdefghijklYZ: Eben
– abcdefghijkl?z: ClintR/JDHuffman/g*e*r*a*n/geran (anger).
– abcdefghijkl?z: Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team/Halp-less/…
– abcdefghijkl?z: Swenson/Mike Flynn
– abcdefghijklyz: Gbaikie
– abcdefghijklyz: Gordon Robertson
I guess MikeR should have a capital Z.
Please say if I can remove any question marks,
or if any letter is wrong.
– A: The GHE exists.
– B: Agrees with 2LOT.
– C: Global warming is real.
– D: Man made.
– E: Caused by GHGs.
– F: Mainly CO2.
– G: Emitted by us.
– H: Causes sea level rise.
– I: Melts ice sheets and glaciers.
– J: Unprecedented since the dawn of civilization.
– K: Risky or bad.
– L: Should be stopped.
– Y: Einstein’s theory is OK so far.
– Z: The moon rotates on its own axis.
– Capital letter: Agreeing to a large extent.
– Small letter: Has substantial objections.
– ?: Unknown (by me or he/she).
– ABCDEFGHI???YZ: Midas
– ABCDEFGHI???YZ: MikeR
– ABCDEFGHI???YZ: Tim Folkerts, Phd.
– ABCDEFGHI???YZ: bobdroege
– ABCDEFGHI?KLYZ: Bindidon
– ABCDEFGHI?KLYZ: barry
– ABCDEFGHIJK?YZ: Ball4
– ABCDEFGHIJKLYZ: Nate
– ABCDEFGHIJKLYZ: Svante
– ABCDEFGHIjklYZ: Norman
– ABCDEfGHI???YZ: Dan Pangburn
– ABCdefG??jkl??: Kristian
– ABCdefGhijkl??: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
– ABcdefghijklYZ: Eben
– abcdefghijkl?z: ClintR/JDHuffman/g*e*r*a*n/geran (anger).
– abcdefghijkl?z: Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team/Halp-less/…
– abcdefghijkl?z: Swenson/Mike Flynn
– abcdefghijklyz: Gbaikie
– abcdefghijklyz: Gordon Robertson
You’ve got things all wrong, snowflake.
A: The GHE exists. CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
B: Agrees with 2LOT. CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
C: Global warming is real. CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
D: Man made. Houses, cars, and cookies are manmade.
E: Caused by GHGs. CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
F: Mainly CO2. CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
G: Emitted by us. CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
H: Causes sea level rise. CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
I: Melts ice sheets and glaciers. CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
J: Unprecedented since the dawn of civilization. CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
K: Risky or bad. Cults are risky and bad.
L: Should be stopped. You cant stop stupidity.
Y: Einsteins theory is OK so far. Its just a theory.
Z: The moon rotates on its own axis. Moon does NOT rotate about its axis.
Also, it was MikeR that claimed to be a PhD, not TimF. But MikeR is certainly a “Pretty hard Drinker”.
Lowercase letters indicate that you have substantial objections.
What’s your stance on Einstein’s theory of relativity?
Any objection worth mentioning?
What’s your statement of the theory, snowflake? Not some link, but in your own words. Or do you just swallow any garbage from institutions hoping you can fake it.
(Hint: It’s not working for you.)
Test
I should rephrase Z.
As Tim pointed out,nothing rotates around its own three axis.
You have to say what the reference frame is.
Who said something is rotating about all three axes? Where’d you get that straw man, silly snowflake?
Svante, please stop trolling.
Same question to you, what’s your stance on question Z?
Svante, please stop trolling.
DREM has some deep seated need to continually display his intellectual credentials via his repetive P.S.T.s.
Unfortunately for DREM these comments can be recognised as background emissions fromintellectual ground zero (Kelvin not Celsius).
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM,
Why don’t stop interrupting and go back to the kiddies table?
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM,
Another tantrum. I knew we should have put you down for your afternoon nap.
#3
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM,
Despite having much more material to continue in the same vein (it is being held in reserve) I will change up and return to an oldie but a goodie.
DREM To decide how best we can help please press the following,
# 0 – to speak to a physicist who will explain why the moon is rotating.
#1 – to speak to an astronomer who will explain why the moon is rotating due to tidal locking. He will also reference every other known moon in the solar sytem.
#2 – to speak to a mathematician who will explain why the moon is rotating and the math behind tidal locking.
#3 – to speak to a team of researchers who have scoured the internet and have found zero evidence to support the moon non rotating thesis other than the occasional crackpot.
#4 – to speak to a physicist who will explain the difference between thermal equilibrium and steady state in thermodynamics. The physicist will also why one object in the shade of another object will not be at the same temperature as the one directly exposed.
# 5 – to speak to a psychiatrist about delusions of grandeur and other issues associated with arrested emotional development.
#6 – to speak to a psychologist about the Dunning Kruger effect and treatment options.
#7 – to discuss with a behavioural psychologist your periodic tantrums involving accusations of others of being trolls , and how to curb this behaviour. The psychological concept of projection will be discussed.
# 8 – to talk to a psychiatrist about multiple personality disorder and how these manifestations can be controlled, if at all possible.
# 9 – to talk to a family therapist about your compulsion to post your theories incessantly at all hours of the day. Discussions about parental responsibilities will ensue.
If you do not think any of these apply ,please hold while we transfer you to the psychiatric ward at Belleview Hospital in New York. Additional long distance call charges may apply.
#4
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM,
You have pressed #4 to get help with thermodynamics .
Unfortunately our physicists are all on other calls but a kindergarten teacher is available to handle your question.
The teacher will explain that, when the sun shines and you are getting hot, you can go and stand in the shade of a friend and cool off.
Unless your friend finds his/her own friend to provide shade he/she will be hotter than you and very sad and maybe even feeling blue.
Even a greenhorn should be capable of understanding this.
Anyway the teacher has borrowed some of your work to explain to the more advanced kids, why the two friends cannot be at the same temperature.
https://postimg.cc/dDYbnWS8
They were highly amused and want to know whether you have more from where this came from.
#5
MikeR, please stop trolling.
You have pressed #5.
We are transferring you to a psychiatrist…
We have to interrupt with an urgent announcement!
The good ship “The Lunar Non Rotation” currently being captained by Gordon has hit an iceberg and is taking on water . Gordon unfortunately does not yet know it and is unlikely to appreciate the seriousness of the situation.
DREM your assistance is needed urgently. Call ClintR and Mike Flynn as well as their advice is always invaluable.
The scene of the disaster is here-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-526848 .
p.s. When the inquiry into the disaster is held you may need to answer why you were not on watch. If you had noticed that the coin in the left hand side was rotating at the same speed even when the orbital radius was changing then you could have alerted the captain to the danger.
With regard to the unfolding disaster, DREM, your only hope is to try and delay the inevitable with one your famous circular arguments.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-526744
Unfortunately going around in circles is not a good idea when the ship is taking on so much water. See if you can head in a straight line to the nearest port. If you have a compass use it, otherwise use the sextant to work out which direction to sail.
Actually a far better solution would be to airlift Gordon off and scuttle the ship.
It was a death trap , full of so many holes and liable to tip over in the slightest wind. It is amazing you guys manning the bilge pumps, night and day, managed to keep it afloat for so long . Herculean effort. Well done.
#6
MikeR, please stop trolling.
You have pressed #6. You can find about the Dunning Kruger effect on the internet. For example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Treatment options are discussed here,
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/31/18200497/dunning-kruger-effect-explained-trump
Due to the emergency situation, we unfortunately terminated the discussion about your delusion of grandeur and stunted emotional development.
Much of the material discussed above is relevant but we encourage you to seek psychatric help. You may need to be medicated.
Press #5 in this case otherwise press #7 to get help with your P.S.T problems.
#7
MikeR, please stop trolling.
You have pressed #7 to indicate that you need help in controlling your troll like behaviour.
Firstly, the resident psychologist will discuss the psychopathology of trolls and why trolls tend to call others “trolls”.
This behaviour is often exhibited to simply annoy others, either directly or indirectly, via insinuations such as requests to “please stop trolling” (an unsubtle variation of the standard “have you stopped beating your wife”).
These tend to occur in outbursts and are strong indication that the troll is very upset , usually as a result of feelings of inadequacy. More often than not, these feelings arise after the disappointing end to an argument or a series of arguments. The medical term for the troll’s condition is “status acopia” see –
https://www.physio-pedia.com/Acopia#:~:text=The%20word%20'acopia'%20is%20often,patients%20throughout%20their%20hospital%20admission.
Treatment options are as follows.
1. Hospital admission with a strict ban on electronic devices.
2. Alternatively the troll could try and not lose arguments on a continuous basis. This would require learning about the areas where they are deficient. This may not be possible for most trolls but it might be worth a try.
3. Learning to develop emotional intelligence. These trolls have emotional deficiencies that often match their general intelligence. Group therapy, where they learn how they are perceived by others is recommended.
4. For the most intractable cases, nothing will help and the troll’s behaviour must be managed as a chronic condition ( haemorrhoid cream or a rectal suppository may help).
DREM you can hang up now or press #8 to speak to someone about your multiple personality pathology.
#8
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Silly Svante probably worked all week putting all that nonsense together, only to have it blow up in his face.
His sewer backed up on him….
Svante put me down for a Z+.
By the way has my Ph.D. been revoked after 40 years?
Terrible news. Do I have to enrol again? I think I will choose something less onerous than physics.
Maybe interpretive dance? At my age and inflexibility, probably just a Masters to add to my collection.
Any way I dont like to intimidate via credentials so they only appear on my business cards.
Test
Hi Snape, where do you stand on these issues?
Svante. Put me down for the Full House. Include me in, for J,K and L.
Also, I bid 7 No Trumps (roll on November).
p.s. Schrodinger, my cat who appears to be alive this morning has suggested to put me down for a capital Q also.
Unfortunately Gordon seems to have a lower i and q than my cat.
MikeR says:
With pleasure.
– A: The GHE exists.
– B: Agrees with 2LOT.
– C: Global warming is real.
– D: Man made.
– E: Caused by GHGs.
– F: Mainly CO2.
– G: Emitted by us.
– H: Causes sea level rise.
– I: Melts ice sheets and glaciers.
– J: Unprecedented since the dawn of civilization.
– K: Risky or bad.
– L: Should be stopped.
– Y: Einstein’s theory is OK so far.
– Z: The moon rotates.
– Capital letter: Agreeing to a large extent.
– Small letter: Has substantial objections.
– ?: Unknown (by me or he/she).
– ABCDEFGHI???YZ: Midas
– ABCDEFGHI???YZ: Tim Folkerts, Ph. D.
– ABCDEFGHI???YZ: bobdroege
– ABCDEFGHI?KLYZ: Bindidon
– ABCDEFGHI?KLYZ: barry
– ABCDEFGHIJK?YZ: Ball4
– ABCDEFGHIJKLYZ: MikeR, Ph. D.
– ABCDEFGHIJKLYZ: Nate
– ABCDEFGHIJKLYZ: Svante
– ABCDEFGHIjklYZ: Norman
– ABCDEfGHI???YZ: Dan Pangburn
– ABCdefG??jkl??: Kristian
– ABCdefGhijkl??: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
– ABcdefghijklYZ: Eben
– abcdefghijkl?z: ClintR/JDHuffman/g*e*r*a*n/geran (anger).
– abcdefghijkl?z: Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team/Halp-less/…
– abcdefghijkl?z: Swenson/Mike Flynn
– abcdefghijkl?z: bill hunter
– abcdefghijklyz: Gbaikie
– abcdefghijklyz: Gordon Robertson
jKL for me
mikeRse…”Unfortunately Gordon seems to have a lower i and q than my cat”.
Realize how tough it must be for you, when dealing with someone like me who has a superior intelligence and understanding of science, to deal with the science rather than throwing out petty ad homs.
Thus far, your understanding of science as related to orbital mechanics is slim to none. You have failed to distinguish rotation about an axis with curvilinear translation.
Hmm Gordon,
Them there are fighting words. Curvilinear translation. As you claim to have superior intelligence so I will have to defer to your expertise and I would like some assistance.
I have always wondered about the relationship between the fictional forces inrotating coordinate systemsand in stationary curvilinear coordinate systems. Do you have some comments regarding this? In particular the use of Christoffel symbols.
My second question is more profound. This question has stumped one of your colleagues which unfortunately lead to him sustaining significant injury to his wrists and permanent damage to his eyesight. Gordon , before answering, consider upgrading your insurance .
This question which caused such consternation sn this depiction.
https://i.postimg.cc/dvwvwkkc/Coin-Rotation-Puzzle.gif
is the coin rotating on its axis (with respect to the directional axes ) or not ?
Gordon I am indeed sorry about the ad homs, but I don’t suffer fools gladly. Particularly those who claim to have superior intelligence and are unable to back those claims with anything that resembles evidence.
Finally, Gordon do you also claim to be a very stable genius? North America might have room for two. Gordon here is something to aspire to.
https://youtu.be/k-LTRwZb35A
MikeR, the coin is rotating about its center of mass, assuming equal distribution of mass.
Thank you for being a perfect example of a “blithering idiot”.
blithering
adj
1. talking foolishly; jabbering
2. informal stupid; foolish: “you blithering idiot”.
ClkntR, thank-you for intervening on Gordon’s behalf.
Gordon and DREM struggled with this one too.
https://i.postimg.cc/JrWnNJVq/Coins2.gif
Is the coin inside the left box rotating on an axis through its centre of mass or not?
p.s. I forgot how painful and slow, the Socratic method can be. No wonder they finished him off with hemlock. Clearly he asked too many hard questions.
The only struggle is the one you idiots have facing reality, MikeR.
The coin in the box is rotating about its axis. The other coin is orbiting.
This has been explained to you countess times, but several different people. But, you can’t learn because you’re an idiot.
This has been explained to you countless times, by several different people.
ClintR, I am not sure why the connection between the orientation of the coin that is mobile on the right and the coin in the box at left, isn’t obvious to you.
This is despite the presence of an identical box moving with the coin that also has directional axes clearly marked. The only reason I included this moving box was to cover individual’s who may have some kind of impairment.
Clint, have you ever taken an IQ test? Tests always include an examination of spatial reasoning. These usually ask questions about the connections between shapes on the left and right that are oriented differently. I hate to think how you would have scored on such a test let alone parts of the IQ test that examine logical thinking.
Here is a free IQ test
https://www.test-iq.org/take-the-iq-test-now/?gclid=CjwKCAjw2Jb7BRBHEiwAXTR4jZmKUGEsQMqJ9qcCOIog4L01FFoyueuLQ7VXJm538PLdJ4hQuH1XExoCzkcQAvD_BwE
You can take it many times. Come back when you can score over 50 on this test.
We get the connection, MikeR. You just don’t get that your box on the left does not represent the movement left over when orbital motion is removed from the equation. If it did represent that, the coin on the left would appear to be motionless, instead of rotating. No matter how many times we explain it, you simply cannot take it in.
We have to remember, MikeR believes he is a PhD.
False beliefs are all the idiots have.
Reality is their enemy.
“We get the connection, MikeR. You just dont get that your box on the left does not represent the movement left over when orbital motion is removed from the equation. If it did represent that, the coin on the left would appear to be motionless, instead of rotating.”
DREM’s ultimate circular argument.
It is not rotating in the left hand box because I SAY it is not rotating, all appearances to the contrary.
ClintR,
I definitely isn’t a Ph.D..
I never claimed that. I have only had one for 40 years.
As I have said earlier, maybe I have had my thesis revoked in the intervening period. News to me.
If that is indeed the case I have been practising without a licence all these years in academia and industry. All for nought, what a shame!
My own solace was that I was paid regularly on a fortnightly basis for my services (not vast sums, we are talking physics here, not high finance) over this period and was paid to go to many overseas conferences , laboratories etc..
Heaven knows why?
As for your qualifications you seem have some very limited exposure to physics. High school perhaps? Introductory course at university is unlikely.
The following is a bit of a give-away
“MikeR, the coin is rotating about its center of mass, assuming equal distribution of mass.”
Clint, objects will naturally rotate about its centre of mass by definition ( see the mathematics behind the derivation of thee centre of mass).
For example a boomerang that clearly doesn’t have an “equal distribution of mass” rotates about an an axis external to the boomerang. Same goes for a horse shoe. No assumptions required.
This is stuff that I taught to first year students and engineers years ago. If Clint has studied at this level then is is problematic as to whether he would have passed the exam.
Maybe ClintR would like to clarify whether he actually passed an exam at any level. It might also explain why he is so upset about academic institutions.
MikeR is still confused about what “orbital motion without axial rotation” looks like.
DREM, you need to have a crisis meeting. Gordon needs help urgently. Can you help him?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-526848 .
MikeR, you blithering idiot!. You don’t know crap about physics, and you can’t even fake it.’
Your coin graphic (coin in the box) is shown rotating about it’s physical center. But, if one half of the coin was made of a metal twice as heavy as the other half, the coin would then NOT be rotating about its center of mass.
So there is nothing wrong with my statement “MikeR, the coin is rotating about its center of mass, assuming equal distribution of mass.”
You will have to learn to fake it better, or type less, you blithering idiot.
(And, I don’t plan to correct every mistake you make. No one has that much time.)
ClintR,
There was no guarantee that the coin was rotating exactly around its geometic centre! In fact i am pretty sure it wasn’t by a pixel or two.
It really doesn’t matter. This should have been obvious from the example where I demonstrated a pizza rotating, with respect to the directional axes, around an offset olive .
See
https://i.postimg.cc/9m4TPBHK/Pizza-Spin.gif
p.s. I note your reluctance to discuss your academic credentials. Probably wise. If perchance you managed to actually pass some course , then your comments would provide strong evidence to remove the accreditation of the course and the institution that provided it.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM,
I refer you to some relevant reading matter.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-527632
It could help.
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Unfortunately it didn’t help DREM.
Maybe this will.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-528082
This could also be of assistance.
https://images.app.goo.gl/8jSW7c94CAkPjUsm9
#3
MikeR, please stop trolling.
I was going to ask my cat too, but he is doing a serial dilution for me and can’t be bothered.
blob, please stop trolling.
Bob, my cat Coriolis is also too busy rotating on his axis to answer stupid questions. He is ambi-circulatory , he can rotate clockwise or anticlockwise depending on which way the wind is blowing.
By the way does the homoeopathic ointment, your cat is working on, cover haemorrhoids? Might need some if these chronic pains in the rectum continue with their nonsense.
MikeR,
Oh noes,
The cat haz not beliefs in homeopathy, he just wants to helps us validates the HPLC and the GC.
Lidocaine ointment by prescription for Gordons of the world.
MikeR, blob, please stop trolling.
Jeepers creepers where did your cat learn these skills? Next he will graduate to mass spec. Can he also run a gel and handle a blotter?
In contrast my cats are dunces.
My young cat runs around in circles chasing a laser beam (he is convinced that one day he is going to catch it and tear it to shreds) while my older geriatric cat is on its last legs. Never know what to expect in the morning. A dead cat bounce or a fur ball.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
My cat can only do serial dilutions, it’s a comment on the skills of lab techs who have problems doing serial dilution.
My cat also knows the Moon is spinning, therefore he is smarter than a number of commenters on this thread.
#2
blob, please stop trolling.
DREMPT,
I will stop trolling after two conditions are met:
One: I have to start trolling.
Two: You have to demonstrate that you are smarter than my cat.
You are always trolling. You rarely have anything constructive to add.
Now, blob…please stop trolling.
Bob, your cat would be too much of a challenge for DREM.
He could start with my cats and work his way up.
Maybe Coriolis, who is always in a spin chasing his tail, could possibly be convinced of his theories.
Schrodinger, if he survived the night, would be much more of of a challenge.
p.s. I think between the both of us and Svante, we should be able to get him to break his all time monthly record of PSTs.
Currently his total stands at 58.
The Golden Troll award is almost within his grasp.
MikeR…you genuinely don’t see yourself as a troll, do you? You are a classic troll. At least 50% of your average comments are inflammatory rhetoric.
Now, MikeR…please stop trolling.
DREM,
Don’t worry , your Golden Troll Award is safe.
Only 50%? My inflammatory marker C.R.P.is that low? My bloods might need to be rechecked.
That’s a relief. I guess , the rest must include gifs etc..
It looks like I am going to have work a lot harder to get anywhere to your gold standard (rounding up) 100% C.R.A.P..
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM, at this stage you have 61 PSTs so far this month.
I don’t know what your long term average is but hopefully you don’t just miss out on a 100 average by a whisker. 99.94 would be a pity (arcane reference that may not be understood by our North American and European cousins).
To keep track I might try and put your running total after each of your emissions, nocturnal or otherwise.
#3
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM is still wearing the yellow jersey. His PSTR is now 62. Onwards to Paris.
#4
MikeR, please stop trolling.
PSTR = 63.
I am hoping we can get you to your target with a quick fire burst. Remember your monthly performance review is coming up soon.
#5
MikeR, please stop trolling.
svante…”The score card so far”
It’s typical, that someone who can only understand science through an appeal to authority, would waste time creating a superficial assessment of science he clearly does not understand.
The authority of Gordon or Einstein, that is the question.
Silly snowflake Svante has zero understanding of science, like his fellow idiot cult members. He just tries to fake it. That’s why he usually only comments in short failed attempts to insult. He can’t responsibly respond with any intelligence.
Asked for his statement, in his own words, of the theory of relativity, the snowflake melts…..
Special or general? Five words or less?
I understand it’s hard for blithering idiots to keep up.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-526120
ClintR, one key characteristic of a cult is that they are inevitably members of a tiny minority and accordingly they believe they they are the only “true custodians of the truth”.
In their eyes the majority are just “sheeple” who follow authority blindly.
ClintR, if that sounds familiar, then you might be waiting for Hale-Bopp to return in another millennium or two. In the meantime, stay away from the Kool-Aid.
Cults start as minorities, but can grow to be majorities. No one expects blithering idiots to know history, since they can’t learn.
Comparing yourself to Jesus is another sign of being in a cult (oops, lucky I caught my typo, it had a “n” in the wrong place).
You might also end up in a locked ward with the many who claim this status. The conversations could be very entertaining and you might get a better reception for your ideas. Perhaps not, as your ideas might be too nutty and they will think you are a real fruit cake.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Mass and energy are related.
Matter distorts space and time.
Which one is which?
blob, please stop trolling.
ClintR, I gather you are not a fan? Any specific concerns?
What’s not to like about clueless idiots wallowing in their own perversions of reality?
It’s great entertainment, and we learn a lot about what’s wrong with the world.
“Whats not to like about clueless idiots wallowing in their own perversions of reality?”
Well said. What do they say about clueless idiots hurling projectiles from within a glass house?
Answer. First of all open the windows, otherwise call an ambulance.
Clueless idiot MikeR, did you open all the windows?
But of course Clint. It was my idea to open the windows in the first place.
Accordingly, how are the gashes healing? Is DREM in the next ward getting his wrists attended to?
The CovIdiot20 ward is filling up. Maybe still room for one more*.
* I promised to lay-off on Gordon as he is such a delicate flower.
But of course Clint, as I am the one that suggested to open the windows in the first place.
On that note, how are the gashes healing? Is DREM in the same ward, having his wrists attended to?
The Covidiot20 ward is filling up. Maybe room for one more.
I see Gordon below is relatively in good health, specially at the moment. But generally speaking he may require some medical interventions.
Obviously MikeR, the blithering idiot, doesn’t understand the word “all”.
He’s just another uneducated idiot with a keyboard.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Hi DREMT, do you agree with ClintR’s thinking here, or would you like to elaborate on anything?
A: CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
B: CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
C: CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
D: Houses, cars, and cookies are manmade.
E: CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
F: CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
G: CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
H: CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
I: CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
J: CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures.
K: Cults are risky and bad.
L: You can’t stop stupidity.
Y: Einstein’s theory is just a theory.
Z: Moon does NOT rotate about its axis.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-526298
Silly snowflake Svante, if you ever quit trolling then you can answer to reality:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-526120
Yeah, Einstein’s theory of relativity still holds.
Amazing what you can do if you have a brain.
Nice try Svante, you slippery snowflake. But the challenge was for you to state the theory in your own words. You can’t do it. You’ve had close to 24 hours to study, yet you still can’t state the theory. You don’t even understand what you believe in. Like the rest of the idiots, you just try to fake it. But, you got caught.
You’re such a silly snowflake.
Yada, yada, yada.
Well you started all this nonsense, snowflake. But you can’t finish what you started.
That translates as “Fail, Fail, Fail”.
Allright ClintR, I’m going to take a gamble here.
Gordon says:
Now as a rule, Gordon is always wrong, so I say everything he discards there are well proved key features of Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Our silly snowflake Svante returns to entertain us again. Great!
Gordon is NOT “always wrong”, silly. It is you idiots that are always wrong. Your cult leads you away from reality, and your lack of knowledge keeps you away.
You don’t even know what the “theory of relativity” is. You can’t state it in your own words. You just “believe”, as you spew nonsense such as “…so I say everything he discards there are well proved key features of Einstein’s theory of relativity.”
You can’t prove something you can’t state, idiot.
You gambled and lost, again.
Fail, Fail, Fail.
You are right, I’m not going to prove Einstein’s theory.
Can you disprove it?
The fact that you can’t state the “theory” in your own words is all the disproof required, snowflake.
Hey ClintR, we trust Feynman, don’t we?
He’s quite an authority, isn’t he?
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Feynman or Gordon, who to trust?
Svante, please stop trolling.
Feynman is a troll?
#2
Svante, please stop trolling.
svante…”Yeah, Einsteins theory of relativity still holds.
Amazing what you can do if you have a brain”.
If you were not such a butt-kisser to authority figures you might have understood what I said. At no time did I say anything about the relativity theory in Einsteins works, I knocked adjuncts to the theory like spacetime, time dilation, and the changing of physical dimensions theorized at velocities closer to the speed of light.
Einstein admitted that his theory on relativity was no different than the Newtonian version. It isn’t basically, the problem lies in the multiplication factor for time that Einstein dreamed up in a thought experiment. The scientist who discovered the atomic clock, Louis Essen, objected to that, claiming Einstein did not understand measurement.
You cannot arbitrarily add a multiplier to time for several reasons. For one, time is a constant defined upon the rotation of the Earth, which is a constant. For another, Einstein did it based on thought experiments, not real experiments in the real world.
Here’s your problem, which will fly right over your head. The basic formula relating distance,s, velocity,v, and time, t, is: s = vt. Without any experimentation whatsoever, Einstein added a multiplier as in:
s = vt(1 – v^2/c^2) where c = the speed of light.
According to Einstein’s multiplier, time and distance must change as velocity approaches the speed of light. Absolute nonsense.
Look what happens if v = c:
s = vt(1 – 1) = 0, meaning a 12″ ruler has shrunk to nothing and time has shrunk to nothing.
If v = 2c, s = vt(1 – 2) and both distance and time become negative. Einstein seems to have solved that conundrum by claiming nothing can go faster than light.
Essen claimed Einstein’s theory of relativity is not even a theory, but a series of claims based on thought experiments. No one has ever seen time dilate, or spacetime bend, even though some idiots have set up experiments to watch light near the Sun during an eclipse.
They concluded that light does bend around the Sun. Gee…and that has nothing to do with the strong electromagnetic forces in the Sun affecting the electric and magnetic fields of which light is comprised?
Stick to your alarmists theories, sonny.
Gordon another of your absolutely hilarious contributions. I haven’t been following you closely, but I remember you as being amazingly eccentric, but this one is a beauty,
You just forgot to use the time dilation equation t’ = t / (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). The time dilates, not contracts as v increases! When v approaches c , t approaches infinity not zero!
The speed of the earth’s rotation changes daily. It slows down due to tidal effects (predominately lunar) and that is why we have to add a leap second every couple of years. Are you unaware of this? This why more accurate time keeping is via atomic clocks,that have been in use before I was born. Gordon were you born yesterday?
Lastly nothing , with mass , can have a velocity of c other than light itself. Photons have zero mass. This is why simply using v = c generates apparently confusing results for the mathematically naive.
The solar eclipse experiment that provided confirmatory evidence for general relativity was performed 101 years ago and has stood the test of time. These types of measurements are now done ( since the 70’s ) without waiting for eclipses ,using radio astronomy and all have confirmed the original observations.
All of this is readily available if Gordon bothered to learn how to use just plain old Google ( Google Scholar would obviously be a bridge too far).
miker…”You just forgot to use the time dilation equation t’ = t / (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). The time dilates, not contracts as v increases! When v approaches c , t approaches infinity not zero!”
Mike, you should try to stop making a fool of yourself. Time is based on the rotation of the Earth, which is a constant. There are 86,400 seconds per Earth rotation and that figure is constant. How the heck did you get an equation like:
t’ = t/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)?
Even so, if v = c, the quantity in the brackets is 0 and you end up dividing by zero. Not allowed. And how does time approach infinity? Do you ever think about anything you write?
If v > c, you are taking the square root of a negative number. What number times what number gives you a negative number? And how does something that does not exist, time, expand or contract.
Furthermore, t’ is a reference to time in the observed motion relative to an observer in an inertial frame where t = the time in that frame. Do you not understand how stupid it is to presume such a situation? Your equation is stating that time can be different in one frame than another.
Do you not understand what has happened here? In my equation for distance, s = vt, that is the t you have used in your equation. t’ is the time viewed by an observer in the frame where s = vt takes place, viewing an object in motion in another frame as s’ = v’t’. The theory of relativity tries to equate the two.
What it is saying in essence is that a human mind sees time changing on a different reference frame moving at a velocity relative to the inertial frame. That does not mean it is happening. Why has no one seen the bovious, that the human mind is incapable of doing that and is seeing an illusion?
Who is viewing this time and what machine is he using? Einstein said he is using a clock. What is a clock? It is a machine that rotates, hopefully in sync with the rotation of the Earth. If it is not measuring the Earth’s rotation, what is it measuring?
If it is measuring the Earth’s rotation, how can time change? You know, Einstein hit a real idiot moment here. For some reason, he imagined time as a real phenomenon that can change.
The t in s = vt does not exist. It is a measure created by humans as is s = distance. Velocity, v, is dependent on a force and a mass, the only real phenomena in the equation. However, v is related to the human inventions time and distance.
It’s based on f = ma, but Einstein inexplicably forgot about force and mass. Neither force nor mass depend on time. Einstein got himself tied in mental knots by working with accelerations, which are defined by time in f = ma, and completely forgetting about force and mass.
Having said all that there is a phenomenological relationship between force mass, velocity and acceleration but none of them involve time, which is a convenience humans have added so they can observe motion. If you watch a dragster accelerate, the change in motion (acceleration) is obvious. If a car is moving on a highway at a constant velocity, the motion is obvious.
A real force when applied to a real mass, where the force can have a significant effect on the mass, causes the mass to accelerate. I have not mentioned time yet. Something is causing the mass to change position at a variable change in position, but it is not time. If we could carry the force on till the body accelerated to velocity near the speed of light, then we removed the force, the body would continue to change position but would no longer have a variable change in position but a constant change in position.
I still have not mentioned time but it is not required till a human needs to quantify the change in position. There is absolutely no scientific reason to presume time will change under these conditions since all that is involved is a moving mass.
Gullible Gordon,
You do know why it is called time dilation and not time contraction?
The equation for time dilation comes from the same source that has the length contraction equation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#:~:text=It%20is%20also%20known%20as,which%20the%20body%20is%20travelling.
By the way , you left out the square root in your version.
L = L’ . Sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2)
As I said the measurement of time in terms of rotation of the earth has not been used since the introduction of quartz crystal clocks in 1920’s. These have been superceded by atomic clocks etc..
For obvious reasons, you can’t have a reference for time measurement that is slowing down! Even an old fool would realise that (Gordon I don’t know how old you are, maybe not that old).
As for your other nonsense, it is clear you have never studied math.
“Even so, if v = c, the quantity in the brackets is 0 and you end up dividing by zero. Not allowed. ”
Try sin(x)/x , when x=0, which equals 1. n.b. sin(0) = 0.
That should blow your mind.
This is senior high math , maybe introductory college math, depending where you are.
Gordon get your calculator out. Put it into radians (do you know how to do that?) . Put in x = 0.1, calculate sin(x)/x, then try 0.01 followed by 0.001 etc.. if you are really perceptive you might notice a pattern, but then you are Gordon.
“And how does time approach infinity? Do you ever think about anything you write?”
Time has a lot of trouble getting to infinity but it will get there in the long run. Just joshin.
“If v > c, you are taking the square root of a negative number.”
Yep that is why nothing can go faster than the speed of light!! (with the possible exception of tachyons, which i think are now passe – time reverses and causality is violated, but i don’t want Gordon to burst an aneurysm thinking about it).
Finally I suspect these outbursts of arrant nonsense from Gordon are just meant to distract.
Such as his inability to handle basics, such as rotation, orbital motion.
So Gordon why don’t address your latest mishap? The one that is causing much consternation in the ranks see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-526848
miker…”As I said the measurement of time in terms of rotation of the earth has not been used since the introduction of quartz crystal clocks in 1920’s. These have been superceded by atomic clocks etc..”
The more you talk the deeper a hole you dig for yourself.
An atomic clock, the most accurate form of clock, reads in seconds. That is the basis of the atomic clock is the second. Where do you think the second comes from? Do you think the atomic clock has a magical source of time?
No. An atomic clock uses the natural oscillations in the cesium atom and those oscillations are related to atomic forces, not time. To derive a second from those oscillations, the length of the oscillation interval must be multiplied millions of time to get one second.
Same with a quartz crystal. No quartz crystal generates a second. A quartz crystal in a watch runs at 32768 Hz. That’s 32,768 oscillations per second.
Is it sinking in a bit? The second is derived by dividing the period of the Earth’s rotation into 86,400 intervals. No clock can generate those intervals because they are the property of the Earth’s angular momentum. A clock is a rotating machine and must be synched to the rotation of the Earth. So don’t lay that crap on me that the Earth’s rotation is no longer related to time.
In fact, time is actually a distance measure. There are 360 degrees in the circumference of the Earth at the Equator. 1 degree = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds and 1 second longitude is about 80 feet.
Divide 360 degrees by 24 lines of longitude and you get 15 degrees per LoL. Is it a coincidence that every 15 degrees of longitude time changes by one hour, or 3600 seconds? What’s 24 times 3600? Why it’s 86,400 seconds.
As usual Gordon is out of date.
The rotation period of the earth is not constant, so using that to determine what a second is, is not consistent, and standards are set.
“Although the historical definition of the unit was based on this division of the Earth’s rotation cycle, the formal definition in the International System of Units (SI) is a much steadier timekeeper: it is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆νCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom, to be 9192631770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s−1.[1][2] Because the Earth’s rotation varies and is also slowing ever so slightly, a leap second is periodically added to clock time[nb 1] to keep clocks in sync with Earth’s rotation”
https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
frogs can read
Gordon , your mathematical skills are marvellous. You can calculate the number of seconds in a day!!! How did you do it? I need to know.
With your numerical skills you could easily get a job at any National Standards Laboratory, cleaning glassware.
As i said earlier, but now need to stress by using cuss words. Why the f..k would anyone in their right mind use a time standard that changes every day/month/year/decade?
Why does Metrology exist? Why are there nationallabs devoted to standards for all measurable quantities? Why do they go to extremes to ensure that these srandards are as constant as possible.
So many questions. So much nonsense from Gordon.
miker…”Gordon and DREM struggled with this one too.
https://i.postimg.cc/JrWnNJVq/Coins2.gif
Is the coin inside the left box rotating on an axis through its centre of mass or not?”
It is definitely not rotating about its own axis and I have explained why. The near-side, the axis, and the far side are moving in concentric circles. The rotation you are seeing about the axis is an illusion because that’s what you expect to see.
Look really closely and remember those tangent lines I told you to imagine. And don’t be discouraged if it is not apparent at first. It takes a genius-level mind as possessed by Tesla, Clint, Dremt, Swenson, and myself to see these things.
Gordon, you are possibly the most gullible person I have ever met.
You have fallen for one of the oldest tricks in the book. The famous 3 card trick.
This is the left hand box from the preceding image which I refer to as
Graphics 1,
https://i.postimg.cc/dvwvwkkc/Coin-Rotation-Puzzle.gif
Your comment is amusing.
“The near-side, the axis, and the far side are moving in concentric circles” .
This in response to my question “Is the coin inside the left box rotating on an axis through its centre of mass or not?
If you are to believed you should be able tell me what is the radius of these concentric circles!!!
I remind you the original graphic had the coin moving around the stationary coin at 3 different radii. See
Graphics 2.
See https://i.postimg.cc/JrWnNJVq/Coins2.gif
It starts off at a certain radius (medium) then after about 7 seconds it moves to a smaller radius (small) and finally after another 8 seconds it moves to its largest radius (large) where it orbits for another seconds and then the whole thing is repeated.
So Gordon which of the 3 orbital radii does the non rotating, but orbiting (according to you) coin in the left box of Graphics 1 corresponds t – Small, medium or large?
If you claim that the left box in Graphics 1 is depicting purely orbital motion then you must be able to tell me with certainty from the concentric circles which is the radius of the orbit.
If you are guessing then it is 1 chance in 3.
If am playing the 3 card trick then you have no chance in hell, because there is absolutely no way you can tell anything about the orbit. I could have made it even harder with the NxM shell game where I also ask what the coordintes of centre point of the orbit, but that would be too cruel.
So Gordon, call a friend . Call the brains trust, DREM, ClintR, Mike Flynn, g-e-r-a-n and all the sock puppets,
Get Tesla online via your ouija board (he is your only hope as he may have peeked over my shoulder as I was creating my graphic).
So I await your or your colleagues answer. Is it
A. Small,
B. Medium or
C. Large?
I will provide the correct answer once I receive your response. This should be fun.
MikeR, since you like to make silly graphics, why not make a graphic of you tripping over a physics book?
You seem to be very good at that.
Another impressive intellectual comment from ClintR.I.P.,
Impress us even more, and assist your colleague who clearly is in distress.
Is it A,B or C?
What in the heck are you blithering on about this time, MikeR?
The radius of the orbit has NOTHING to do with whether or not Moon is rotating about its axis. You clearly have no-zero-zip-nada understanding of the physics involved. I think you just start typing and never know where you will end up.
You’re just a blithering idiot.
Yes ClintR,
Very very wise words.
You should pass that information on to Gullible Gordon and DREM who clearly believe otherwise. See their comments about concentric orbital circles in Graphic 1, above and below.
ClintR,
You are doing well.
Have you managed to gain any insight into the relationship betwen the box at left, with directional axes in blue, and the same directional axes, superimposed on the moving coin in Graphic 2?
If so you can skip the IQ test. You have an IQ > 50.
What in the heck are you blithering on about this time, MikeR?
You’re just a blithering idiot.
ClintR,
For your delectation. Examine carefully. Discussion will follow.
https://i.postimg.cc/WNC2W7Vk/Loony-Tunes-A.gif
You already did this with the dumbbell and turntables.
DREM, yes, you f…ed up badly then. Let’s see if you can do better this time.
I also have 2 depictions this time. Case A and case B.
I am asking this time whether you really, really want to identify with those who believe the orbiting coin for case A is NOT rotating while for case B it IS rotating?
You surely don’t wont to be identified as an idiot, do you?
Either that or change your nom de guerre and move on. Maybe reverse the letters and become MERDE or something similar.
Further downthread I have quoted Tesla’s response to a similar thought experiment to your Case A. For Case B, I would remind you of your dumbbell and turntable example. If the coin was on a turntable, rotating CW, how could your coin – when at the central point – remain apparently motionless unless it was rotating on its own axis CCW at the same rate as the turntable?
DREM, total agreement with you on that one. Didn’t try to perform that experiment with the turntable. If you match the rates exactly then the phones gyroscope would show zero rotation. Maybe you should give it a go. You could be an overnight YouTube sensation.
Anyway here again is the experiment showing the turntable experiment that corresponds to Case A.
https://youtu.be/4KnbMQQfzC4
I have just responded to a question from the Indian fellow in the comments section. Feel free to join in.
Still on about the phone gyroscope “experiments”!?
MikeR…your phone gyroscope is not an “axial rotation” detector. It is a “change in orientation” detector.
DREM,
MikeRyour phone gyroscope is not an axial rotation detector. It is a change in orientation detector.
How do you think a tri-axial gyroscope works works out the change in orientation? Just makes up the numbers on the fly?
Let’s have your valuable insights and why, despite its name,these devices do not work as advertised.
I suspect you have no idea and you are just generating gas, like all incompetent blowhards do.
You already agreed with me, MikeR.
“If you match the rates exactly then the phones gyroscope would show zero rotation”
With the phone rotating on its own axis CCW at the same rate the turntable rotates CW, you agree the phone would not register axial rotation.
DREM,
yes, I am in total agreement, the net rotation of the phone would be zero and this what the internal gyroscopes would measure.
Are you planning to attach a motor to the moon and rotate it in the opposite direction to its current state of rotation? I am not sure how this would work in practice.
What may work is the attachment of several rockets to the moons equator in a Catherine Wheel arrangement. Could be spectacular and if it works we get to see the Dark Side of the Moon.
Maybe contact NASA and see what they think. Even if it is my idea I am very happy for you to run with it.
You don’t even notice when your arguments get refuted…
MikeR, the concentric circles referred to are the orbital paths of the particles made up by the orbiting coin as it moves around the stationary coin. You have gone and got yourself all confused, and excited.
DREM, Not a very good attempt. With this half hearted attempt DREM provides further evidence the good ship the “The Lunatic Non Rotation” is on its way down to Davy Jones Locker.
So DREM what is the radius of these concentric circles in Graphics 1 ???
Aren’t you at least curious?
Is it A, B or C?
At least one thing can be ensured. I am positive DREM you are going to refuse to answer directly. Maybe some waffle about appearances or another circular argument is probably the best we can expect.
p.s. The bubbles coming up are a good sign but you always want to see the oil slick to confirm the kill. If needed, I have some depth charges in reserve that I can drop ( death by a thousand gifs!).
MikeR, this issue was resolved back in May. The “chalk circle”, wooden horse, and string on a ball are all examples that squash your false religion.
You’re just such a blithering idiot you believe if you type long enough you can change reality.
It’s not working for you.
Oh well maybe it is time to get out the depth charges.
The bubbles from beneath the waters are getting annoying unless you are in to this kind of thing.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fart%20in%20the%20bath
The claim that it was all settled back in May and this is why you are avoiding answering above is ridiculously amusing. I told you it was going to be funny
“So DREM what is the radius of these concentric circles in Graphics 1”
There are no concentric circles in Graphics 1. They are in Graphics 2. Like I said, the concentric circles are the orbital paths drawn out by the particles of the orbiting coin as it moves around the stationary coin. You have to imagine them as you have not physically drawn them out in your gif. Whether the orbital radius is small, medium or large your orbiting coin particles are still tracing out concentric circles. So ClintR is right, the orbital radius has nothing to do with whether or not the moon is rotating on its own axis or not. You are utterly confused, and hilarious.
DREM,
Yes ClintR is correct.
Clint, or yourself, might explain this to Gordon so he can understand why he is totally wrong.
Probably won’t react well, if I tell him.
I think you just misinterpreted him.
Please explain! He was referring to Graphic1 f.f.s,!!! No ambiguity.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-527250
..
Left box as in-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-526660
Revisionist history is another of DREM’s unrecognised talents.
DREM and Clint,
I promised depth charges to terminate the sound of the bubbles that have been emerging from the deep.
I have my first set ready.
https://i.postimg.cc/cx1knq8x/Loony-Tunes.gif
Discussions will follow. Stay tuned.
Keep an eye out for the oil slick. It should be enormous.
Just a minor update. Runs a bit slower which might prolong the agony for the troika of trolls.
https://i.postimg.cc/WNC2W7Vk/Loony-Tunes-A.gif
Part B which involves orbital speed variation will follow only if the desired result is not obtained.
You already did this with the dumbbell and turntables.
DREM,
Do you self identify as an idiot? I would hope not, but its your choice.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-527772
I’ll let Tesla handle this one:
“An obvious fallacy is involved in the following abstract reasoning. The orbital plate is assumed to gradually shrink, so that finally the centers of the earth and the satellite coincide when the latter revolves simultaneously about its own and the earth’s axis. We may reduce the earth to a mathematical point and the distance between the two planets to the radius of the moon without affecting the system in principle, but a further diminution of the distance is manifestly absurd and of no bearing on the question under consideration.“
Poor old Tesla,
He must be spinning in his grave.
His manifestly absurd claim is itself manifestly absurd and its too bad that he didn’t have a computer to assist him in illustrating the errors in his ways.
Even a genius can get things wrong. Particularly when they are commenting about things that are outside their expertise.
Anyway, he can’t defend himself, so that’s unfair and the fact that his defence attorney is an incompetent blowhard is even more unfair.
You think Tesla was unable to visualize these things in his mind!?
I haven’t a clue what was going on in Tesla’s mind as I am not, by any means, a bona fide genius. However DREM, as you are a legend in your own mind, you should have a natural affinity for Tesla’s way of thinking.
Consequently I am hoping that you can throw some light on why Tesla would say “further diminution of the distance is manifestly absurd” without explaining why.
Can you explain his thought process? There are many cases where this is physically realisable, so DREM what was he thinking?
…because it then no longer has any relation to the system being discussed. That ought to be obvious.
Try this instead:
A horse is running around a track that goes around the entire equator of a planet. You look down on the planet from above its North Pole. Now reduce the radius of the planet towards zero. Even at zero, the horse is still not rotating about its center of mass. It would be rotating, but not on its own axis. The axis would be just beneath its feet.
DREM,
You are such a card, but unfortunately all the cards have been stacked against you. You are in a bridge game and you hold in your hand 13 two of clubs. DREM knows nothing much about anything, and thinks he was a little unlucky, but it was definitely not a good idea to bid 7 spades.
Your wonderful example of genius ( is this your own work, or did Gordon help you out?) is presumably a thought experiment. As long as the horse is in contact with the earth then it will join it in its rotation about its axis. For the zero sized earth it is standing at the pole (actually both poles simultaneously) as well as the equator.
A much more realistic , non thought experiment, is one that I described in my very first comment in this blog over a month ago.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-511188
You stand directly over a pole and you rotate once every 24 hours, move a micrometre in any direction and you freeze ( that will happen any way) , never to rotate until you can find the pole again.
DREM of the Antarctic, get your expedition ready.
It is spring in the Antipodes , the weather’s on the improve and it is past the vernal equinox (S.H.) so you will have more daylight hours. Just head due south, maybe bring a compass (and a chart that includes magnetic declinations). You don’t need to bring a phone, as 5G reception can be patchy (and you don’t want to come down with a bad case of the Covid ) . Anyway you don’t trust these devices anyway.
Don’t ask Gordon to come along as he doesn’t believe in either directions or in G.P.S..
If you succeed in arriving at your destination you could be the first person to circumnavigate the earth, without axially rotating, in much less than a minute.
Much fame and fortune awaits with your discoveries.
No, MikeR…you have failed to understand once again. When the radius of the planet is reduced to zero, the horse is still not rotating about its own axis. It is instead rotating about an axis located directly beneath its feet. I know you struggle with visualizing things mentally. Maybe you can make an animation for it? I’ll let you know if/when you get it right.
Hmm DREM,
A horse revolving/rotating around a non existent earth. Mind boggling.
Assuming you believe in the conservation of angular momentum then the horse would continue to rotate on its axis. This is despite today’s contribution from Gordon regarding the non existence of angular momentum.
This is like a mobile phone directly over the spindle of a rotating turntable (orbital radius = 0) when compared to the phone orbiting (orbital radius > 0 ).
Someone (modesty prevents me from claiming credit) has done this experiment* and demostrated that the rotation rate is exactly the same.
* It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the role of Nikola Tesla in this experiment.
My turntable is powered by A.C..
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-528412
DREM,
I hope you realise that you have just simply linked back to your most recent comment.
I understand your intent, but if you want to have an inner dialogue with yourself (best type, as you will be guaranteed 100% agreement) cut out the middleman (my comment in this case) and just link back to the comment inside itself i.e. make it fully self referential.
This way you will get the immediate gratification of agreeing with yourself in a recursive loop (in computer terms we refer to this as stack overflow or blowing your stack).
Another way of putting it, is you will be orbiting in ever decreasing circles until you disappear up your own a…h… (that place where the sun dont shine ), corresponding to radius =0. Hopefully you will find contentment there.
I’m sorry that you didn’t understand.
Don’t be sorry. I understand what your problems are.
OK, MikeR.
miker…are you listening at all. Put a tangent line on the near-side of the coin, and the far side, so they are parallel with the tangential line through the axis. Now watch them all rotate in parallel. Since when can parallel lines cross over to create a rotation about an axis?
Gordon, I gather you are now referring to the right hand side showing two coins.
The orbiting coin, whether it is rotating or not, will not have parallel tangential lines crossing. You can tell that from the red lines that pass through the centre of the coin. These lines are at right angles to thetangents.
With regard to the red line joining the near and far tangents.If these tangents were not parallel then there would be 2 seperate lines (one for the far side and one for the near side), instead of one red line, and one or both lines would not pass through the centre.
This is basic high school geometry for any circular object, rotating or otherwise.
See
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/405024/determine-center-of-circle-if-radius-and-2-tangent-line-segments-are-given
miker…”This is basic high school geometry for any circular object, rotating or otherwise”.
Then why are you having so much trouble understanding it? AT the link you supplied, the tangent lines are not parallel but form a triagle.
I am using tangent lines in a specific manner. The tangent lines represent the near-face and its orbit, the axis and it’s orbit, and the far-sdie and its orbit. Those tangent lines must always orbit in parallel or the near face cannot always point to ward the Earth.
If you have three concentric circles centred at 0,0 on an x-y plane with overlapping radial lines along the x-axis, when you draw the three tangents where the radial lines meet the circumference of each circle, and start the radial lines rotating, all the tangents will turn in parallel at any instant.
Now put the Earth at 0,0 with the same overlapped radial lines and each circle representing the orbit of the near-face of the Moon, the Moon’s axis, and the far-side of the Moon. The tangent line representing each circle is still rotating parallel to the others. I just described your diagram with the coin rotating around the stationary coin.
If the tangent lines are turning in parallel they must always turn in parallel in order for the near-face to always point to the centre of the Earth. If there is rotation about the Moon’s axis, the tangent lines will rotate as well. The tangent line representing the near.face MUST turn away from the Earth and after half an orbit the far-side will be pointing at the Earth.
“miker…are you listening at all.”
I don’t think he is able to follow even simple discussions.
DREM, you claim expertise in following instructions.
If I am incapable of following instructions then why don’t you illustrate Gordon’s idea. A picture is worth a thousand words
Paint and screen capture programs are available. Postimg is convenient. If you are incapable of doing this then get a 10 year old to assist you.
Can you help me out?
If you can’t it just confirms you are just as big a blowhard as your predecessors (may they rest in peace).
I am not wasting my time illustrating anything for you.
DREM, I anticipated you wouldn’t be competent enough to try and interpret Gordon’s weird and wonderful ideas, so I have taken on the task
Here it is with near and far tangents for both axially rotating and non rotating coins. The tangents are shown as lime and aqua coloured lines.
https://i.postimg.cc/tRyd8FpB/Tangents.gif
In accordance with my memory of high school geometry, no sign of anything strange , such as axes crossing, for either case.
Oh well another one bites the dust.
Apologies, I said above that you would just be another “blowhard” if you couldn’t illustrate Gordon’s concept.
I meant to say “incompetent blowhard”. Sorry.
The paths drawn out by the tangent lines on the orbiting coin on the left hand side are concentric circles. The paths drawn out by the tangent lines on the orbiting coin on the right hand side are parallel circles. The paths cross.
DREM, I am not sure what graphic you are looking at, but in my versions, at any instant of time, the tangents are parallel and do not cross.
Maybe if you are looking at an inside tangent at one time and the outside tangent at a different time then yes, this is definitely going to happen , along as the object is rotating!
The only time it is not going to happen is if the object is not rotating!!! As in Case B on the right hand side.
Now that you have successfully shot yourself in the foot for the umpteenth time, you now don’t have a leg to stand on other than your residual appendage.
Maybe its time for you to retire.
I said the orbital paths drawn out by the tangent lines cross, for the coin on the right hand side. And I am correct about that. Sorry that you still do not understand.
DREM – “The paths drawn out by the tangent lines on the orbiting coin on the left hand side are concentric circles. The paths drawn out by the tangent lines on the orbiting coin on the right hand side are parallel circles. The paths cross”
and
“I said the orbital paths drawn out by the tangent lines cross, for the coin on the right hand side. And I am correct about that. Sorry that you still do not understand.”
I think, like Gordon, your have confused the points of contact of the tangent lines with the tangent lines. The contact point just has 1 x,y co-ordinate in Cartesian space while the tangents are lines the have slopes and a contact (or intercept) point.
The paths you are describing correspond to these contact points. The path for these contact point are as you describe with a cross over for case B and concentric circles for case A.
However the tangent lines (which are infinite in extent) cross at different times of the rotation ( they are parallel at each instant for the near and far tangents) for the rotating coin in Case A. For example after rotating through 90 degrees the tangents will cross at 90 degrees with respect to the tangents at 0 degrees
For the non rotating case in Case B these tangent lines DO NOT cross as the orientation of the coin is fixed and consequently, of course, the tangent lines are also fixed in orientation.
This is patently obvious as I have shown in
https://i.postimg.cc/tRyd8FpB/Tangents.gif
The tangents in two colours (aqua and lime) rotate with rotating coin at left while they are fixed facing north/south ( i.e top to bottom of the screen).
If you can’t see this then you may have profound colour blindness. In that case, if you post your postal address, I can send you the Braille version.
Again DREM, I thank you for help in establishing another gold standard (there are many) for determining whether an object is rotating on its axis or not.
“The paths you are describing correspond to these contact points. The path for these contact point are as you describe with a cross over for case B and concentric circles for case A.”
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Unfortunately DREM, the concentric circle argument cannot be used to resolve whether the orbiting coin is rotating or not . It is just a trivial geometric consequence of the near side being closer than the far side for an object that is “locked” so that it always faces the stationary coin*.
Of course, the cross-over argument can be used to rule out Case B as the moving coin is not locked to always face the stationary coin, but this is just as trivial as the concentric circle argument.
The only ways to see whether it rotating on its axis are 1. via the directional coordinates and radial lines or 2. via the rotation or non rotation of the tangents , which is the method that Gordon pioneered successfully. As these two methods are just equivalent visualisations some may prefer one over the other.
* I am sure we will hear more of this from DREM as the tangent argument that Gordon proposed can actually distinguish axial rotation. As surely as night follows day, this will be the argument of last refuge for DREM.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-528970
Oh oh,
Accidental post back to previous comment.
Note to self. Hard to see which thread you are actually posting in and consequently should avoid using mobile phone to post comments. Particularly when you are in an advanced stage of dementia exacerbated by exchanges with the delusional individuals that frequent this site.
Actually the concentric circle argument can and will be used. It doesn’t just apply to case A and case B, and it transcends reference frames.
Concentric circles = case A = orbital motion without axial rotation. That is just how the “non-spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Get over it. Paths cross = case B but also literally any other possible case besides case A = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Doesn’t matter how fast the object is rotating on its own axis, and in what direction relative to the orbit…if it is rotating on its own axis, the paths will criss-cross. Only when there is no axial rotation are the paths concentric.
Gordon stated explicitly that he was referring to the left hand box corresponding to Graphic1.
Gordon -“Is the coin inside the left box rotating on an axis through its centre of mass or not?
It is definitely not rotating about its own axis and I have explained why. The near-side, the axis, and the far side are moving in concentric circles. The rotation you are seeing about the axis is an illusion because thats what you expect to see.”
Your follow up comment was in support of Gordon. Now you appear to be back sliding and think Gordon is wrong, but I will let it ride.
However I would like your opinion anyway.
https://i.postimg.cc/dvwvwkkc/Coin-Rotation-Puzzle.gif
Is this single coin rotating with respect to the directional axes?
Please don’t rotate the screen of your monitor.
Forgot to address the above to DREM. It is in response to his earlier comment at 3:05 am.
Gordon refers to a near side and a far side of the coin. These references only make sense when you have both the orbiting coin and the stationary coin in view, so he must have been referring to Graphics 2. The near side of the orbiting coin is the side closest to the stationary coin, and the far side of the orbiting coin is the side furthest away from the stationary coin. You obviously misinterpreted what he was saying, got yourself all confused and made a fool of yourself, and now you are blaming it on others.
The single coin appears to be rotating on its own axis, yes, but as we know…appearances can be deceptive. You need to “zoom out” to look at the whole orbit in order to know if an object is rotating on its own axis or not.
MikeR gets confused by his own incessant blithering. He seldom makes sense and if someone tries to help him, he just gets more confused.
He’s now fully frustrated and desperate. His resorting to misrepresentations, and juvenile “bathroom humor”, means he knows he has lost. He can’t present anything even close to intelligible.
But, he believes if he keeps typing out nonsense he can fool the other idiots. Once a blithering idiot, always a blithering idiot.
To clarify we need Gordon to explain what he was on about. He talked about the left, not the right hand side but with Gordon’s confusion who knows?
With regard to the rotating single coin. You are correct about appearances.
The only way this could possibly appear to be non rotating was if you were rotating your screen, in the same direction and at the same rate, as the coin is rotating.
This is so effn obvious. Even a child would understand that.
Please stop rotating it.
MikeR, you can’t understand your own graphics.
A computer graphic can “represent” something. The “coin” on the left represents “rotating about its axis”. But there is no “orbital” motion represented. The two coins on the right represent “orbital” motion. But, there is no “rotating about an axis ” (axial rotation) represented.
You still can’t understand the difference between the two motions, because you are a blithering idiot, unable to learn.
As I said before, re Graphics 2:
You just don’t get that your box on the left does not represent the movement left over when orbital motion is removed from the equation. If it did represent that, the coin on the left would appear to be motionless, instead of rotating. No matter how many times we explain it, you simply cannot take it in.
https://i.postimg.cc/WNC2W7Vk/Loony-Tunes-A.gif.
Disregard the left boxes if you so desire.
You already did this with the dumbbell and turntables.
Orbital motion is just the path and has nothing to do with how fast the object is rotating.
So removing the orbital motion leaves the spin, as they are two independent motions.
We have tried to explain this but you just refuse to think.
That’s right, blob, they are two separate and independent motions. You’re learning. Now all you need to understand is how to separate them correctly.
I have separated them correctly cunt.
MikeR
I like your graphics. They show the real situation quite well. Why they think a non-rotating object is rotating as it orbits is a strange mind state.
Again you have to realize you are dealing with Contrarians programmed to react against established physics (PSI is a big programmer of this odd thought process). You will never convince them. If you say the Sun is shining bright on a cloudless day they will say it is wrong and it is dark outside. You can’t reason with a contrarian.
If DREMT was at all interested in Truth he could take the Gordon quarters and move one in an orbit around the other. Now he could try to keep the same side always facing the center quarter. He will NOT be able to do it without rotating the orbiting coin. Gordon is too gone to attempt reason. Your graphic shows what you get with two real coins.
Norman, these analogies all break down at some point. You have to try to remember what you the analogies are trying to represent. There isn’t some big cosmic hand pushing and twisting the moon around the Earth. The ball on a string model is far more appropriate as a model for the moon’s motion than are Gordon’s coins. However, Gordon’s coins make their own, separate point…
blob…try to grow up.
Yes, physics-deprived people need to have it as simple as possible. The ball-on-string is a suitable model for a non-rotating moon, like ours.
The string represents gravity, and the tangential force is supplied by swinging the ball over your head.
Everyone but idiots can understand such a simple model.
“There isnt some big cosmic hand pushing and twisting the moon around the Earth”.
No there isn’t. I am glad we agree on one point.
The mon is rotating on it’s axis and for the same reason the earth is continuing to rotate on its axis.
It is called rotational inertia. The rate of rotation is different of course. Both the moon and Earth are slowing due to tidal effects.
The earth’s rotation has not slowed as much as the moon’s predominantly due to the Earth’s greater moment of inertia, but in several millennia the earth’s rotational rate will eventually be tidally locked to the moon’s orbital period.
It will then be interesting to see (unfortunately i am unlikely to be around) which half of the earth gets to permanently see the moon and which misses out.
Norman finally accepts reality: “Why they think a non-rotating object is rotating as it orbits is a strange mind state.”
Exactly Norman. You idiots have a “strange mind state”.
DREMT
Sorry to disagree but the “ball on the string” is a bad analogy for gravity. It is why Tesla got it wrong. He was a brilliant mind but if your assumption is wrong, the conclusion is wrong. The hand rotating the Quarter is a far more valid analogy for what the Moon is doing.
Have you tried to move a quarter around another? Do you see you have to rotate it to make it keep the same face to the center quarter. You can also see you are not rotating the quarter when you move it around and the center quarter sees all the faces.
I suggest you try it.
As I pointed out previously, the “ball on string” makes gravity totally illogical not rational. Science is not only about observation and experiment. It is based upon the assumption that the Universe is rational and logically connected.
If gravity did indeed act like a “ball on a string” for planets then no planet could ever rotate around a larger body (like Earth and Sun). The Sun would hold the Earth in orbit around it and at the same time prevent it from rotating.
You are wrong in your thoughts and it appears nothing will change it. Even a real world test of your idea (moving a coin around another) will not convince you. Therefore, logically, it is pointless to waste time trying to convince you of something that is not possible.
I am curious to know why it seems so important for you to convince people the Moon does not rotate and all astronomers and NASA scientists are deluded.
Logically it is far more likely that you and Gordon are deluded and wrong and not the scientists. At least with your conspiracy theories on Climate Change have a possible motive for scientists to deceive. They could profit and become famous by creating a false narrative on Climate Change (not that I believe this is actually going on). I do not see any motive for scientists to lie about Moon rotation nor do I see any rational reason for them to get it so wrong, so the conspiracy theories fail on that one.
With Climate Change Alarmism, I think this is more media driven than scientifically driven. Media, news, lives or dies by grabbing and keeping Public attention. They live on advertising dollars and the amount of money they take in is based upon how many people they can attract. So news, regardless of the issue, will make things seem very bad as that will grab the attention of the Public. I think the science is much different and more cautious on things they are not certain about. They give possibilities not certainties.
Anyway you are wrong about the Moon rotation. Not sure why this topic is brought up so often and it leads to thousands of posts each time. It never seems to be resolved.
DREMTPY,
No cunt, I have decided to come down and wallow in your level.
If you were smart enough to discuss the number of degrees of freedom necessary to model the Moon’s orbit and how many degrees of freedom any of your little pony models or your ball on a string model have, we could do that.
But no, you are not smart enough to realize that your little pony model doesn’t have enough degrees of freedom to model what the Moon is actually doing.
Norman, the “ball on a string” is NOT a model for a body both rotating and orbiting, you idiot. It is a perfect model for an orbiting but NON-rotating body, like Moon.
blob….try to grow up.
DREMT,
After you, cunt.
OK, blob.
DREMT,
So, you going to grow up then, cunt?
I see not.
#2
OK, blob.
OK cunt #1, #1.
#3
OK, blob.
dremt…”The near side of the orbiting coin is the side closest to the stationary coin, and the far side of the orbiting coin is the side furthest away from the stationary coin”.
Of course, I am referring to the rotating coin as if it’s the Moon and the stationary coin the Earth. So, the near-side as you say is the side of the rotating coin nearest to the stationary coin.
My point is that Mile R has drawn a tangential line through the axis of the rotating coin and thinks it is rotating about it’s own axis. I have advised him to draw tangential lines on the near-side and the far-side as well to see those points are moving parallel to the line through the axis. They are not rotating about the axis even though it may appear that way.
I explained that to him further upthread. He acted like he understood at the time but it has become clear that he does not get it. Oh well.
IF
“My point is that Mile R has drawn a tangential line through the axis of the rotating coin and thinks it is rotating about its own axis.”
Point fails, a tangential line can not go through the axis of a rotating coin, because the axis is through the center of the coin.
The axis of the rotating coin and all tangential lines are non-intersecting perpendicular lines.
Gordon,
Here is a depiction including tangents.
https://i.postimg.cc/tRyd8FpB/Tangents.gif
Unsurprisingly nothing untoward in either tHe rotating or non rotating cases.
The tangents rotate about the centre of the orbit in Case A and also rotate about the directional axes as shown by the “box” moving along with coin. Disregard the boxes at left of either diagram as they may have confused you.
You’ve got the “Idiot Alerts” backwards, MikeR. Case A is orbiting without axial rotation (Moon). Case B is orbiting with axial rotation (Earth).
As we’ve repeatedly tried to teach you idiots, if you see the moon rotating from the center of its orbit, then it is rotating about its axis. If you don’t see the moon rotating from the center of its orbit, then it is NOT rotating about its axis. Idiots just can’t learn.
Getting things backwards, and not learning, are what blithering idiots do.
The moon is actually revolving (sorry to be pedantic) about the barycentre of the earth moon system which moves along the radial imaginary line between the earth and the moon. The earth “wobbles” slightly around this centre.
So , using the orbiting coin analogy, how far from the centre of revolution does the moon/coin have to be before it stops rotating on its axis?
A. One Parsec
B. One light year
C. One astronomical unit.
D. Diameter of Jupiter.
E. Diameter of the Earth.
F. Diameter of the Moon.
G. The distance between San Francisco and LA..
H. The distance between your back door and the place where the fairies are currently domiciled.
I. The average distance betwen angels when forced to inhabit the same pinhead (may be different from normal due to Covid restrictions).
J. One bees dick (an obscure S.I. unit, used down under).
K. One micro bees dick.
L. Your equivalent appendage when at maximum extent.
M . One nanometre.
N. The size of a proton.
O. The size of a quark.
P. One Planck radius.
Q. It’s a trick question, as any one with two functioning neurones could infer that the coin is rotating on it’s axis irrespective of the orbital radius.
Miker’s keyboard seems to be stuck in “blithering idiot” mode again.
ClintR,
DREM in collaboration with Gordon has provided the Gold Standard proof, that in Case A , the orbiting coin is also rotating on it’s axis using the “tangents method”. He also managed to prove that in the Case B scenario, the orbiting coin is not rotating on its axis.
I knew wecould all work together to sort this out.
See –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-528082
and the preceding comments.
Do you want to reconsider your position or provide some additional insights?
ClintR,
As a follow up to the above, this link is appropriate.
https://gfycat.com/legalspryicelandgull
MikeR, I don’t know what you can do about your keyboard.
Have you tried gasoline?
miker…”The tangents rotate about the centre of the orbit in Case A …”
You don’t need your convoluted gif to see this. Place a line along the x-axis from 0 to +10. Let it rotate about 0,0 through 360 degrees. Got it, very simple?
Now draw a line perpendicular to that line at x = 8, x = 9, and x = 10. Let the line rotate. Do those perpendicular lines run parallel to each other at all times?
Now let those lines inscribe circles on the x-y plane. The inner perpendicular line at x = 8 is the tangent line to the circle at x = 8. The middle line at x = 9 is the tangent for the circle at x = 9. Do the same for the circle with radius x = 10.
Now let the radial line rotate. All tangent lines are still turning in parallel. Stop it at the x-axis and draw a circle at x = 9 with radius =1. Draw another around 0,0 to represent the Earth. That represents the Moon and the tangent line at x = 8 is the near side face. The tangent line at the centre of the Moon is just that. The tangent line at x = 10 is the tangent line for the far face.
Let it rotate. That action is exactly what your gif is doing with the rotating coin.
NOTE: the Moon in that description cannot turn about its axis because the axis runs right through it and each tangent line MUST remain parallel in order to have the near-face always point at the Earth. That means each tangent line must ALWAYS be perpendicular to the radial lines.
I cannot simplify this any more. If you cannot understand this then you have serious issues with perception.
Gordon,
I think my comment might be useful in addressing your scenarios.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-528257
“The paths you are describing correspond to these contact points. The path for these contact point are as you describe with a cross over for case B and concentric circles for case A.”
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation
Gordon,
The axis is perpendicular to the page.
Always at right angles to all the circle you have drawn on the page.
Try an stand your pencil on its end, if that helps you understand where the axis is.
MikeR,
You are missing a couple of measurement units.
a small boy, which is the size of a gap noticed when hanging a door.
Which can be corrected by moving the door to the right or left one rch.
“one rch”
blob has the c-word on the brain, apparently.
DREM, appears to have his own reality distortion field escorting him around.
I have been trying to penetrate (unsuccessfully) using depictions that a child could interpret.
A small snippet of my pseudocode is here. Syntax has not been checked.
This code could be included in a project for those who have some coding skills. It could be a header file named idiots.h.
#include
typedef
DREM = stupid const;
structure idiot
{
DREM DREMT, Gordon, ClintR, g*r, JDHuff, Halp, Flynn;
};
void rotating_coins()
{
Switch(idiot)
{
{
1: Case_A = non_rotating;
2 : Case_B = rotating;
}
}
If Case _A == non_rotating
{
printf(” idiot positively identified”);
}
}
“The paths you are describing correspond to these contact points. The path for these contact point are as you describe with a cross over for case B and concentric circles for case A.”
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-528970
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-529017
miker…”es ClintR is correct.
Clint, or yourself, might explain this to Gordon so he can understand why he is totally wrong.”
I have been in agreement with Clint and Dremt all along. Don’t know what you’re blethering about.
Space cadet Gordon,
You want to identify with these characters? Makes sense.
Oh well, I knew you were eccentric but your hyperbolic orbital parameters indicate you originated somewhere beyond the Kuiper belt.
Have you perhaps been asked to command the Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B?
https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_Ship_B
You would be eminently suited for this role as you have no idea about navigation using inertial frames, gyroscopes etc..
So being totally useless can sometimes have its advantages.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Your literary quality and wit does not compare favourably.
It’s PhD vs. kindergarten, just like your physics.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Silly snowflake Svante wouldn’t recognize physics even if hit by a speeding semi-truck.
He just goes ga-ga over blithering idiots.
Upthread, Norman opined: “I do not see any motive for scientists to lie about Moon rotation nor do I see any rational reason for them to get it so wrong, so the conspiracy theories fail on that one.”
Norman can’t face reality. Someone that believes Moon is rotating on its axis is NOT a scientist. But idiots can’t figure that out. If someone “claims” to be a scientist, then to idiots, that person is obviously a true scientist! Losers do not dare challenge “authority”.
Here is a definition of a scientist.
“a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.”
The difference is the word believes, I know the Moon is rotating on its axis because there is evidence that supports that.
ClintR believe it is not rotating on its axis, but of course he is not a scientist because he has no expert knowledge and refuses to study the evidence.
Wrong-o, bobbie. You “believe” Moon is rotating about its axis. You believe it because your cult of losers believes it. In order to believe it, you must deny reality. You must claim that a ball on a string is rotating on its axis.
Wrongo, worshipper of all things denial.
I do not believe the Moon is rotating, I know it is rotating because there is scientific evidence that supports that.
Sorry, buddy, can I call you buddy?
But you are the one in the cult of losers.
Yes, the ball on a string is rotating on both of its axes.
You are not an expert on Astronomy, so it’s just your opinion and with 5 dollars that will buy you a cup of coffee.
And can I have fries with that?
Still wrong, bob. You only BELIEVE Moon is rotating about its axis. You don’t “know” because you don’t understand orbital motions.
Here’s what you BELIEVE: “Yes, the ball on a string is rotating on both of its axes.” But we know that’s incorrect because if the ball were really rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it. So, you’re beliefs are wrong. Yet you continue to believe in your false religion. You can’t accept reality.
That’s why you’re an idiot.
Typing in all caps doesn’t make you more better corrector, it only shows you need to shout because you can’t make your point.
Shouting doesn’t make me want to listen to your wrong bullshit.
You just don’t know any better as you never studied any physics or astronomy.
Where are my french fries?
And no, the string would not wrap around the ball.
It wouldn’t happen spontaneously, nevertheless…for the ball on a string to be rotating on its own axis, the string would have to wrap around the ball. What that means in practice is that the ball on a string is constrained such that it cannot rotate on its own axis. It can only orbit.
bob could do the ball on a string experiment, if he weren’t such an IDIOT.
bobd…”Shouting doesnt make me want to listen to your wrong bullshit”.
By the same token, the use of foul language on Roy’s site (your reference the other day to a 4-letter word starting with c) is disrespectful to the man. He puts up with a lot from us and gives us a broad range of freedoms.
I am no Boy Scout. I have worked on construction sites and cussed with the best of them. I just feel there’s a time and place for blue language.
bobd…”I do not believe the Moon is rotating, I know it is rotating because there is scientific evidence that supports that”.
That’s contradictory, you believe it but you can’t prove it, especially using scientific evidence. Unless you mean the appeal to authority that NASA says its true, without scientific proof.
Clint and DREM,
I think you need to rush and assist Gordon. He has had another outburst of creativity. Please help him.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-528429
Now Gordon,
“By the same token, the use of foul language on Roys site (your reference the other day to a 4-letter word starting with c) is disrespectful to the man. He puts up with a lot from us and gives us a broad range of freedoms.”
Now, don’t be a hypocritical butt kisser, please!
Gordon,
I have proved that the Moon rotates, it’s just that some deny my proof is valid, without a detailed counter argument. Do you have a valid counter argument to the proofs I have offered.
You can’t even realize that you are rotating a coin when you move it around another coin keeping its face towards the center coin.
Around an axis perpendicular to the rotating coin.
You do understand what perpendicular means?
A ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. The string being attached to the ball makes axial rotation impossible. It is only orbiting.
DREMT,
Tim Peake on the space shuttle demonstrated how wrong you are.
No, the video demonstated Newton’s 3rd Law.
Idiots can’t understand physics.
ClintR,
Of course it did, you are so cute.
It also demonstrated Newton’s first law.
You would understand that if you met the prerequisites for a study of Physics.
All the particles making up the ball are moving in concentric circles about Tim’s hand.
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Slowly shorten the string, until the length of the string is zero.
Standard first year calculus stuff.
With the string at length zero, what is the ball doing?
The axis the ball rotates around and the axis the ball revolves around are now the same line.
And the ball is rotating around that axis.
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
but we have shortened the string to a length of zero, so all the circles become a point, and what is the ball doing now?
Yup, rotating.
Thanks for ignoring my short but elegant proof that a ball on a string is rotating on its axis.
Next!
You don’t prove something is happening in one situation by changing that situation to a completely different one. Next!
No, its called making continuous infinitesimal changes through to a limit.
Called Calculus and above your paygrade.
An elegant little proof that the ball on a string is rotating on its axis.
Try actually refuting my argument, rather that making baseless objection and straw man arguments.
It proves that the ball on a string is orbiting, and that orbital motion necessarily involves a change in orientation of the object. It does not prove axial rotation.
Drempt,
That is the crux of the biscuit.
You can’t have a change in orientation without turning on an axis.
The moon is turning on an axis…one passing through the Earth/moon barycenter…and not on its own axis.
DREMT
Look at this diagram carefully and tell me what is missing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif
I am well aware that astronomers believe the moon is rotating on its own axis, and that they believe this axis is tilted from one perpendicular to the moon’s orbital plane.
For the 100th time, it is just from studying the way the moon remains oriented wrt its orbital plane, whilst it orbits. It does not prove axial rotation of the moon.
DREMPT,
Nope, its from observing the Moon rotate, that is how they get an axis, because the Moon is rotating.
Also for the 100th time, you are wrong.
Sorry charlie.
If you say so, blob.
Yes DREM as you explained to the two very, very naughty men, that the 6.67 degree obliquity is just to make sure the man in the moon doesn’t look crooked.
It would upset every body if the figure was 6 or 7 degrees.
If you say so, MikeR.
miker…”It is called rotational inertia”.
It’s actually called angular momentum and the Moon has neither, either in orbit or rotating about its axis.
Inertia is the resistance of a mass to a force trying to change its velocity. At rest, v = 0 and inertia resists a change in position of the mass which would represent a velocity. If v does not equal 0, inertia is resistance to a force trying to ‘increase’ the velocity.
Momentum is the property of a mass in motion. It resists a force trying to stop the body or slow it down. The Moon has LINEAR momentum only since it is always trying to move in a straight line tangential to the orbital path. Gravity acts on the Moon to nudge it into a resultant orbital path.
The thing to note is that the Moon is always trying to move perpendicular to a radial line from the Earth through the Moon. I realize the lunar orbit is slightly elliptical but I am taking license here in presuming a circular orbit. As that radial line rotates around an axis in the Earth, the Moon must always move perpendicular to that radial line.
That explains exactly why the near-face always points toward the Earth and why the Moon cannot rotate about its axis under such a condition.
Really Gordon, you are outdoing yourself.
Not content with butchering Relativity and Quantum Mechanics Gordon now wants to take the knife to Classical Mechanics.
“Its actually called angular momentum and the Moon has neither, either in orbit or rotating about its axis.”
Gordon may dispute the rotation on its axis but now wants to ban angular momentum totally.
Come on DREM and ClintR, you alone may have some remote possibility of convincing Gordon that orbital angular momentum exists.
MikeR, Gordon explains it quite well. You just don’t know enough physics to understand him.
Moon has linear momentum based on mv. The angular momentum that confuses you is relative to Earth. You are considering Rmv, where R is the Earth-Moon distance. But, that is only a mathematical construct. If gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would go flying off in a straight line, with zero rotation.
Gordon is correct–Moon has zero angular momentum of its own.
You are an uneducated blithering idiot.
Rmv is not the correct equation for angular momentum.
Crack that physics textbook, but first take the plastic wrap off.
(All I can figure is bobdroege and MikeR must be in a contest to see which one is the stupidest idiot.)
Here is your opportunity to prove you know more physics than either me or MikeR.
Just post the proper equation for angular momentum.
After all, it’s just a mathematical construct, right?
Sorry to intrude Bob, but I think ClintR may need a lot of help.
So here is an opinion on the matter from a physicist (actually a geophysicist but there is a chance that he may know something about the earth/moon system).
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-angular-momentum-of-the-moon-around-the-earth/answer/Paul-Filmer?ch=8&share=8160ef95&srid=TubC
The fellow who wrote this worked at NASA for a number of years and has a Ph.D. from M.I.T., so what would he know?
Clint, from his armchair, can now analyse this and rip it to shreds.
bob shows his ignorance of physics, while MikeR finds more evidence that NASA should be defunded!
The competition is fierce for “Stupidest Idiot”.
Clint, I think you have lapped the field , leaving DREM and Gordon trailing,
I haven’t even found, let alone exited the gates. Where was the entrance sign? The only sign I saw was “Morons This Way”.
The blithering idiot blithers on.
(The only advantage to even responding to him is that my response usually triggers one of his long nonsense comments. And his time spent composing such nonsense means less time for him to roam the streets. It’s just one of my many efforts to “save the planet”.)
Clintr, thank-you for your concerns regarding my lengthy contributions. I am not a touch typist or as dexterous with my thumbs as my kids but I can belt out these comments rapidly (but sometimes with typos especially on the phone).
I am also capable of roaming the streets, drooling and typing simultaneously on my phone. I am not sure what your capabilities are in that regard. I suspect you keep your drooling in house.
You are unfortunately are making a judgement based on the length of time you require to generate your own very brief comments. More than one thought per hour would overtax your mind and lead to burn out. When you get going you can generate several comments per hour, so slow down before you melt down.
See?
miker…”The fellow who wrote this worked at NASA for a number of years and has a Ph.D. from M.I.T., so what would he know?”
The guy makes a stupid mistake right away by claiming the Moon spins on its axis. He should know that the Moon only has linear momentum and what he calls angular momentum is a resultant due to gravity.
The lunar orbit is not an example of angular momentum, it applies only to bodies that are connected by a rigid member. Fan blades have angular momentum. If you shut the fan off the mass of the blades keeps the fan rotating till air resistance and bearing resistance stops it. If you shut gravity off the Moon will stop orbiting and fly off on a tangential line.
Appears our NASA friend is orbitally challenged.
Gordon Robertson says:
😀
ClintR,
If gravity was suddenly switched off then pigs could fly and you and your colleagues could then form a squadron.
Maybe for my next gif, rather than using a coin, I can examine the aerodynamics of a flying pig. Both the rotating and non-rotating cases will be depicted.
More blithering from the blithering idiot.
As requested, more blithering.
I have a rather delicate question to ask.
Clint, how would you characterise the texture of your skin? Smooth or rough, oily or dry? I already have information about DREM as he always was as slippery as a greased pig, with his evasions and tendency to run for cover.
I need this information to get the flying pig simulations to work correctly. The drag coefficient critically depends on these parameters and I need to know if we are dealing with low Reynolds laminar flow or high Reynold’s number turbulent flow.
The non linear characteristics and complexities of solving the Navier Stokes equations for the latter would be way too stressful for my PC. I would probably have to apply for a research grant from the government or industry , to gain some time on the latest generation of supercomputers.
I could make some assumptions about the skin effects for your case, based on the many characteristics that you share with DREM, but it would be preferable to get some real data. Assuming I obtain the grant, would you be available for some wind tunnel tests?
Finally Clint ,do you need some more lipstick? You may have run out.
The blithering idiot strikes again.
Is that a yes or no with regard to the lipstick?
If you want to wear lipstick, that’s your choice.
With or without lipstick, you’re still a blithering idiot.
No, I meant for you or the pig that you are flying.
I prefer to use chapsticks.
ClintR.
Last I heard orbital angular momentum is always calculated w,r,t, to an axis centred on the centre of the orbit!
If the moon is not orbiting then what you are saying might make sense.
However orbital angular momentum has the key word “orbit” contained within.
Last I heard, MikeR was such a blithering idiot he could not understand the sentence “You are considering Rmv, where R is the Earth-Moon distance.”
But, as I stated, that is only a mathematical construct. Moon has zero actual angular momentum.
ClintR. Sorry to rain on your parade.
Technically it is preferable to write the angular momentum as L = m.(r X v). This is the more general case that covers all curvilinear motion, including linear translation (before or after gravity has been abolished).
Even when gravity is no longer on the scene and the centre of mass of the moon is moving linearly, it still possesses angular momentum with reference to any point in space outside of the moon’s trajectory. Look up position vectors and cross products.
mrv is only appropriate for orbital motion.
MikeR, sorry to rain of your parade, but you are agreeing with me.
You’re just such a blithering idiot you don’t realize it.
Gordon’s comment above that started this debate was
“Its actually called angular momentum and the Moon has neither, either in orbit or rotating about its axis.”
ClintR then went off on a tangent in his attempted rescue of Gordon with
“Gordon is correctMoon has zero angular momentum of its own”
This might make some sense , only if you completely disregard the fact that angular momentum, by definition, can only by measured or calculated with reference to a an external point.
However I am pleased that Clint agrees that angular orbital momentum of the moon exists and Gordon was “off his rocker” to claim otherwise.
MikeR, trying to twist my words, when they are clearly stated, just indicates what a blithering idiot you are. My exact words:
“Gordon is correct–Moon has zero angular momentum of its own.”
“But, as I stated, that is only a mathematical construct. Moon has zero actual angular momentum.”
So angular momentum is just a mathematical construct. Interesting but philosophical. Does the same go for angular acceleration and torque?
Is linear momentum also just a mathematical construct? Likewise for dp/dt and Force.
MikeR, few people understand angular momentum, so you get a pass on this one.
We don’t need anymore evidence that you’re a blithering idiot.
ClintR,
You are amongst the privilegd few who have a unique understanding of angular momentum.
There is an alternative though.
MikeR is a blithering idiot. There is no alternative.
ClintR says:
This is a dividing line. A completely crazy idea to anyone with a feel for physics, intuitive or educated.
Easily tested by throwing stuff around your garden,
or watch Tim Peake: https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5.
svante…”This is a dividing line. A completely crazy idea to anyone with a feel for physics, intuitive or educated”.
Why is it you cannot even begin to understand that the ball rotating around Tim Peake’s finger is affected by the timing of his release?
The Moon is not attached to a string that is pulling it in the same manner as the ball in the video. The Moon has its own momentum while the ball’s momentum is dependent on the string. If you watch the motion of a ball/string you must always pull slightly on the string to keep the ball rotating.
Try emulating it without a ball/string. Your hand automatically turns in small circles and that small motion has to be adding a torque to the ball that will interfere with its motion once released. Earth’s gravity does not do that to the Moon.
At any one instant, if gravity could be switched off, the Moon has only linear momentum. It has to move in a straight line. However, if you suddenly release the string, there are at least two factor determining whether the ball will rotate or not. One is the direction of the force you are putting on the string at release and the other is the drag/torque applied by the trailing string.
If you had a release mechanism right at the ball, so it could be triggered without affected the ball (tugging on it), and you could release it without moving your hand in the slightest, I’m sure the ball would not rotate. Furthermore, how do you know the string is centred on the exact centre of the sphere wrt the string?
When I explained this to idiots before, some got all tangled up with Newton’s 3rd Law. I offered a tug-of-war contest–one idiot would stand at the edge of a tall building roof, while I would stand at the center of the roof. We would both pull on a rope as hard as we could. The idiot would even be hanging over the edge of the roof, pulling as hard as he could.
I would suddenly let go of the rope. It was an easy demonstration of the 3rd Law, and also offered idiots a chance to win the “Darwin Award”.
The offer still stands….
I will volunteer after you demonstrate that you can revolve a baseball around a basketball exactly three times keeping the smiley face on the baseball facing the basketball.
Of course when we go to the roof, your arm will be in a sling, so you won’t be able to pull very hard, so I will have no problem staying on the roof.
Great. we have a taker.
Where do you live bob, so we can start the planning?
ClintR,
You haven’t met the prerequisites.
Oh, I fully expected you to slither out of it, bob.
I offered a contract, and you want to get paid first, before you complete your part of the bargain.
Typical.
I did the basketball/baseball thingy, bob. Piece of cake.
I did my part, now I get to watch you slither out of your part.
ClintR,
Do you have any evidence that you actually performed the experiment with the baseball/basketball? Such as a video. That would be a good start.
In the absence of anything concrete, my default assumption about ClintR is confirmed, that like his colleagues, he is just another blowhard.
MikeR, I’m not surprised you are unable to move a baseball around a basketball.
A picture of ClintR’s arm in a sling, or the x-rays showing a spiral fracture of the humerous, ulna, or radius will do.
That’s the only way you can demonstrate that you have moved the baseball in an orbit around the basketball keeping the same side of the baseball towards the basketball.
Sorry charlie, you didn’t do it.
Bob,
I would like to see an X-ray of his wrist as well, as he may have had an artificial wrist replacement as a result of his attempt.
He could be able to do donuts and 360s now, just with his wrists, so he may be able to prove us wrong.
MikeR and bobdroege basically admit they cannot perform the simple maneuver. Not surprising, as they’re both idiots. They’re so stupid they probably can’t even follow simple instructions.
Step 1: Place the basketball in front of you on a table.
Step 2: Place the baseball to the right of the basketball, with a smiley face drawn on the baseball.
Step 3: With your right hand, and keeping the smiley face pointed to the basketball, move the baseball 90 degrees CCW around the basketball.
Step 4: With your left hand, and keeping the smiley face pointed to the basketball, move the baseball another 90 degrees CCW.
Step 5: With your left hand, and keeping the smiley face pointed to the basketball, move the baseball another 90 degrees CCW.
Step 6: With your right hand, and keeping the smiley face pointed to the basketball, move the baseball another 90 degrees CCW. You have now completed one orbit around the basketball.
Repeat steps 3-6 as often as desired.
Idiots cannot figure out simple things for themselves.
That’s why they’re idiots.
ClintR,
Just a couple of points of clarification,
1. Are you just sliding the balls to each new position in the orbit?
2 Why are you changing hands?
It sounds like it could be easy to modify the baseball program to see how many dislocations are required.
ClintR,
The requirement for the experiment is to keep the baseball in one hand, without moving or changing the grip, that’s why I specified duck tape to hold the ball in your hand.
You have to do the experiment as written, you don’t get to change the experiment, or this former chemistry lab instructor will mark your grade a bit lower, though I always gave a point for your name and a point for neatness.
So you get 2 out of 10 on your lab report.
Wrong bob, you’re now changing your requirement. Here’s your exact statement:
“I will volunteer after you demonstrate that you can revolve a baseball around a basketball exactly three times keeping the smiley face on the baseball facing the basketball.”
I did my part, now you can slither out of your agreement.
ClintR,
You need to go back to the original description of the experiment.
Keep slithering, bob.
I never expected you to do what you said you would do. It’s just fun exposing you idiots.
And here it is
What we need is a volunteer from the non-spinner group.
A wooden merry-go-round, a basketball, a baseball, some nails, some duck tape and a smiley face sticker.
We nail the volunteers shoes to the merry-go round and glue the basketball to the merry-go-round in front of his feet.
We take the baseball and duck tape it to his hand so it doesnt move and place the smiley face sticker on the baseball.
Now we bend him over and face the sticker on the baseball towards the basketball, and forcibly rotate the baseball around the basketball keeping the smiley face towards the basketball.
2 revolution should suffice, but 3 would be better.
Then after we take him to the hospital, we look at the doctors diagnosis.
That should prove that the baseball has to spin.
Nope, here it is:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-528580
Keep slithering.
Let me point out that to do this
“Step 3: With your right hand, and keeping the smiley face pointed to the basketball, move the baseball 90 degrees CCW around the basketball.”
You have to rotate the baseball on its axis.
Well done ClintR, you are now a spinner.
Join the club, Gordon, DREMT, and now ClintR you are all spinners.
It was a reference to the original challenge which you did not accept.
This
“Step 3: With your right hand, and keeping the smiley face pointed to the basketball, move the baseball 90 degrees CCW around the basketball.”
Proves that you have to spin the baseball on its axis in order to keep the smiley face pointed towards the basketball.
It’s a baseball and a basketball, neither of which are orbiting.
You are rotating the baseball and it is not orbiting.
Welcome to the spinners club.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
Wrong again, bob.
To move one object around another object, without the object rotating about its axis, you must provide the change of direction. In actual orbiting, gravity provides the change of direction.
Your failed efforts at perverting reality continue to amuse
ClintR,
We are not talking about orbiting, we are just talking about a baseball and a basketball and whether or not you have to turn the baseball to keep one face pointed towards the basketball as you move the baseball around the basketball in a circular motion.
Oh and by the way
“In actual orbiting, gravity provides the change of direction.”
So you are saying gravity provides the change of direction?
How does it do that?
By providing a torque on the object in question?
I thought you were arguing that gravity can not provide a torque.
Remember what the definition of torque is?
Using a torque wrench you pull on the handle to turn the nut.
Turn Turn Turn
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner.
There is no torque applied about the moon’s own axis, because as we know the moon is not rotating about its own axis. About the Earth/moon barycenter, however…different axis, different story.
DREMPT,
Looks like you and ClintR disagree.
Why don’t you get a room and hash things out.
No disagreement as far as I’m aware.
Bob,
It think it might be just time to change tack and humour them using a time old methodology, as perfected in aged care and other settings. The technique is known to work for the infirm, both physical and mental, when nothing else seems to work.
“Yes DREM, you’re right , DREM. Of course the moon does not rotate. Don’t worry, The Man in the Moon will always be there. I know he has gone away, but it is just for a sleep. I am sure he will back in a week or two.
Yes DREM, all those silly silly physicists, astronomers and mathematicians are very , very nasty, nasty people to say the moon rotates and yes DREM, there are silly people who will believe anything.
I know DREM that you are very upset at the moment. I know you can’t turn your wheel chair on your own and you can’t get into the toilet. Someone will come and help you and turn the wheel chair for you or we will get the nurse to get some diapers.
Be patient and wait your turn, there are two others who have soiled themselves already. I know the smell is bad.
There there DREM, just settle down. We will get you back into your armchair and then I will bring you a nice cup of tea and a biscuit and a blanket to keep you warm. The nurse will bring you a nice little tablet that will make you feel better and help you sleep.
In the meantime, stop shouting something about Norwegian trolls that no one can understand and about someone called Bob or Mike. These might be the guards that help you come back home, when you go on your little wanderings and no one can find you.
Mike might have new pictures for you to look at, but you might have to wait a little as he is a bit busy at the moment, attending to other matters.
Bob will be around and he can turn a wheel chair in any direction even in the tightest corner. If not, he can get you up, turn you around and put you back in your wheel chair”,
Bob, what do you think about this approach?
I still want to see ClintR try the baseball non rotation trick, one handed.
This is the only trick, the great Houdini never managed to do after so many attempts.
Litte known fact of history. After his final attempt someone punched him in the guts for being so stupid.
p.s. from now on following Clint’s advice, instead of using my steering wheel when going around a sharp corner, I should try and do it orbitally. What could go wrong?
Re driving a car.
With NASCAR racing you could get away with the orbital “Look Ma No Hands” approach because of the steep camber of the track (note to self : explain to Clint how vector components work).
However if Clint et al. are correct then if the race starts in the morning and the cars are all facing East they will have the sun in their eyes for the entire race (at least until sunset) despite orbiting in circles (or ovals).
MikeR,
It’s really no use.
You can get them to contradict each other to no avail.
ClintR said
“In actual orbiting, gravity provides the change of direction.”
Which means gravity is turning or putting a torque on the Moon.
Though I am assuming he means both a change in direction and a change in which direction the Moon is facing, so the Moon is both orbiting and rotating.
But DREMPT said
“There is no torque applied about the moons own axis, because as we know the moon is not rotating about its own axis.”
and
“No disagreement as far as Im aware.”
Which figures.
It figures you would leave out part of what I wrote…
DREMT
Here is your whole quote, as if it makes a difference
“There is no torque applied about the moons own axis, because as we know the moon is not rotating about its own axis. About the Earth/moon barycenter, howeverdifferent axis, different story.”
Makes no difference.
It makes all the difference, blob. ClintR said that gravity was providing the change of direction, which could simply mean torque applied about the axis going through the Earth/moon barycenter, rather than the moon’s own axis.
DREMT,
That axis, the Earth-Moon barycenter axis is within Earth, so if gravity is torqueing on that axis, the gravity of the Earth is torqueing on the Earth.
Man, you guys will say anything.
So you didn’t understand, and attacked a straw man. Big surprise.
ClintR,
The final part of the experiment performed by the astronaut Tim Peake clearly demonstrates the conservation of angular momentum, which can be derived from Newton’s First Law (rotational inertia). The rotational inertia keeps the ball spinning after release.
As the object still obeys Newton’s 3rd law (Tim would have experienced a reaction force to the tension that keeps the ball revolving in the first part) you could, if you desire, to say this first part of the experiment demonstrates this law . However you don’t need to go into space to easily demonstrate this. In fact it could be much more difficult .
A tug of war is fine on earth but would be very difficult under weightless conditions.
The advantages of demonstrating the conservation of angular momentum under weightless conditions are twofold.
1. the object doesn’t fall rapidly to the ground, as it would on Earth (approx 0.5 seconds from a height of 1.8 m ) and consequently the object will undergo only a fraction of a rotation during that time.
This is in contrast to the weightless situation where the object can be slowly rotated and then let go, so that the rotation when the object is released is patently obvious.
2. Video recording, in the presence of gravity would be very difficult as you need to track the parabolic motion of the falling and spinning object . In contrast, for the demonstration, you can easily see the ball rotate multiple times over the duration of the video, as it linearly comes towards the camera.
I hope this clears up the confusion.
No MikeR, it dosen’t clear up your confusion.
That’s because you can’t understand the physics because you’re a blithering idiot.
bobd…”Gordon…The axis is perpendicular to the page”.
That’s understood, there is still no rotation about that axis since the axis is moving parallel to the near-side and the far-side. You can see that plainly on Mike R’s gif, the red line always pointing to the stationary coin’s centre has three tangent lines perpendicular to it. I have described, the near-side tangent, the far side tangent and the axis-tangent. All three turn parallel to each other.
miker…Rmv is the correct equation for angular momentum about an external axis, as Clint indicated.
Good grief,
“All three turn parallel to each other”
You just said it rotates!
Welcome to the spinners club.
bobd…”All three turn parallel to each other
You just said it rotates!
Welcome to the spinners club”.
Bob, you’ve got to stop interfering with those sheep and yourself. It’s interfering with your attention span.
Yes, the rotating coin is rotating about the centre of the stationary coin. We tend to call that revolving or orbiting. It’s not rotating about its own axis. That’s why I tried to point out to you that the three tengents are turning in parallel circles around the centre of the stationary coin.
That explains tidal locking….why the near-side always faces the Earth.
Look Gordon, there are not three tangent lines, only two, if a line goes through the center of the coin, it’s not a tangent.
That’s just typical of what you do, you get your terminology so messed up you can’t follow an argument.
Also, no such thing as parallel circles, try concentric circles instead.
With the far side circle having a larger circumference than the near side circle, so the particles of the Moon on the far side are moving faster than the particles on the near side. Since they are moving at a different speed, they should be getting farther apart, so the Moon has to rotate to keep them at the same distance apart.
That’s one proof that the Moon is rotating on its axis, but here is the simple one.
“why the near-side always faces the Earth.”
Which is not the same direction, so the Moon has to turn on its axis to keep facing the Earth.
You have a choice, join the spinners or the flat-Earthers, your choice.
I’m putting you down for the flat-earthers.
blob cannot correctly separate “orbiting” from “rotating on its own axis”, as his comments continually demonstrate.
DREMT,
You are the one who doesn’t separate orbiting from rotating.
You are calling orbiting a combination of orbiting and rotating, which is not properly separating them.
bob, this has been explained to you numerous times, by several different people. You won’t accept reality.
Remember this quote, blob?
“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.”
A rotation about an external axis is one single motion, yet the object faces through e.g. N, E, S, W whilst it moves. Just like a ball on a string. One single motion, blob. Not two.
Axial rotation is then separate and independent of that motion.
DREMT,
So Sorry, but the Earth revolving around the Sun refutes that interpretation of what that guy said.
Because the Earth does rotate around one axis as it revolves around another.
Did you forget that?
That’s right, blob…according to “that interpretation of what that guy said”:
The Earth is both revolving and rotating on its own axis.
The moon is just revolving.
DREMPT,
You forget that your source doesn’t say the Moon is only revolving.
Think on that for a minute.
According to the definition he gives, the moon is only revolving.
DREMT,
Nope, he doesn’t address whether an object rotating about an external axis can also be rotating around an internal axis at the same time.
Like what the Earth, the Moon and every other celestial body that is orbiting some other celestial body is doing.
If you contact the source and ask him if the Moon is rotating, I’ll accept his answer, but not your interpretation.
According to the definition of revolution he gives, the moon is just revolving. I’m sure he would say the moon rotates on its own axis if you contacted him, but nevertheless his definition of revolution is clear.
Just revolving?
I think not
He defines what revolving is, he doesn’t address that something could be rotating and revolving at the same time and lists several objects that are doing both.
So that quote just doesn’t support your case.
It does support my case, absolutely. Because even though an object can indeed both revolve and rotate, he defines revolution on its own as motion like a ball on a string. He could have used a different example, like for instance the Hubble Telescope, if he had wanted to support the way you define ‘revolution without axial rotation’. But he didn’t.
DREMT,
He mentioned a ball on a string, which rotates on its axes, both of them, which I have proven that the ball on the string rotates on its axis.
He also mentioned planets.
He never said an object can only revolve.
And no, he did not define orbiting as a ball on a string, he only used a ball on a string as an example. And a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis, again, I have proved this.
There really is no point talking to you, is there? You don’t listen, you can’t learn, and you won’t understand.
You are right about one thing, I don’t like learning and understanding things that are wrong.
You have posted a lot of things that are wrong, and instead of admitting that and learning something, you just accuse people of not learning and not understanding, now you are taking a page out of ClintRs playbook.
Not smart.
Dumb Dumb Dumb
And A Troll
If you say so, blob.
No Gordon, its the cross product (R x v).m that is the general equation for angular momentum. Rvm only corresponds to orbital motion ( or other cases where R and v are at right angles),
I seem to recall you that claimed to be an electrical engineer (perhaps I misheard), then presumably you have heard of the Biot-Savart Law which also includes a cross product term.
MikeR was unable to understand that the info he found verified what Gordon and I said!
What a blithering idiot.
ClintR, I am not sure why you are so agitated.
Yes, I can verify that Rvm is the correct equation for the magnitude of the angular momentum vector, for the particular case of orbital motion, but it is not correct in general i,e, for all the other cases when r and v are not perpendicular.
That’s all I am saying. No biggie.
Yes MikeR, that means you were able to agree with Gordon and I.
(And, I’m not agitated, I’m entertained and amused. It’s fun to expose idiots, especially blithering idiots.)
“…there is still no rotation about that axis”
Yet he said they turn!
Turn means rotate about an axis.
Desperate.
Demonstrated inability to understand the English language, typical.
Desperate.
Just tell me DREMT
How can an object turn without rotating on its axis?
It can be turning about another axis, instead of its own.
Yes DREM,
As always. You are right. For the right hand car the car is definitely just rotating about an external axis.
https://i.postimg.cc/9XLxf4hg/Car-Rotation-Center-of-Mass.jpg
And additionally you could be just arguing in your spare time.
Your night time medication, will be with you shortly.
If you say so, MikeR.
bob conveniently forgets Tim’s train example. A train can “turn” (change direction), but it is NOT rotating about its axis.
It’s the same with the ball-on-a-string, or Moon.
Back to the old choo-choo train. You guys are appropriately going around in circles. This is from a year or two ago!
https://i.postimg.cc/fMvwN0yX/singletrain.gif
At one revolution per year, this discussion could be prolonged, Better leave instructions to the next of kin,
Orbiting but not rotating about its axis.
No, it’s a choo-choo on a track, not an object in space orbiting.
But it is rotating.
…but not on its own axis.
DREMPT,
You have said that enough times that you believe it like it came from the Pope, but that doesn’t make it true.
Imagine the choo-choo on it circular track, and if you can imagine magically reducing the radius of the track all the way to zero. So you have the train going around a circular track of zero radius, and the train is still rotating.
I know, it’s Calculus, which is above your paygrade.
You don’t prove something is happening in one situation by changing that situation to a completely different one.
DREMPT,
Can you prove I am changing it to a completely different situation?
Cause that’s a straw man, I am making continuous small changes to get from one position to another.
Your lack of understanding don’t confront me.
One position to another…yes. From one situation to a different one. Thank you for agreeing with me.
…and even if it could prove anything, all it would prove is that the train is orbiting, and that orbital motion necessarily involves a change in orientation of the object. It would not prove axial rotation.
bob doesn’t understand anything above the 10 year-old level.
Making the radius smaller will NEVER result in what he wants. It’s just like if you try to move across a room by going half way with each move, you will never get there. Whatever distance is left, you can always take half of it.
Things like this are WAY over the heads of idiots.
DREMPT,
A change in orientation is called turning or rotating.
Thanks for confirming that you are a spinner.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner.
ClintR,
Not Zeno, try Newton.
Try calculus.
No, didn’t take that, just like you never took physics.
blob…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-529161
No bob, you can’t pervert reality by making the radius infinitely smaller. No matter how small you made it, you could still make it smaller. Infinity, like your stupidity, has no limits.
But I will add this diversion to the long list of failed attempts to pervert reality.
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Hotel bills and feeding pigeons
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
Facts are “neglect and revisionism”
“Smart” phone says bolted horse has axial rotation
Smaller radius
(Did I leave any out, DREMT?)
ClintR,
looks like you have a long list of things you don’t understand.
ClintR,
Here’s what we do with Zeno’s paradox.
His brother is much richer and has a room twice as big as Zeno’s.
His brother goes half way across his room, which is the same distance as all the way across Zeno’s room.
So we have reduced Zeno’s paradox to a previously solved problem.
Done
I predict comprehension on your part will be lacking.
DREMPT,
“and even if it could prove anything, all it would prove is that the train is orbiting, and that orbital motion necessarily involves a change in orientation of the object. It would not prove axial rotation.”
Thanks for confirming that orbital motion necessarily involves a change in orientation or rotation.
Remember this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif
What is lunar obliquity Alex?
Who’s a spinner?
Good boy, good boy, want a treat?
Woof Woof
Once again, blob:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-529161
As I recall DREMT
That guy does not rule out that an object can be revolving around one axis while rotating around another.
So it doesn’t support your case.
At all.
For the 100th time, I am not arguing that an object can’t revolve around one axis whilst rotating around another. The Earth does exactly that, for instance. Stop attacking straw men and try arguing against what I am saying for a change.
DREMPT,
I am continuing to argue against your opinion that orbital motion is one motion.
That’s incorrect, there is always two motions, rotating and revolving, except in the rare case of no rotation, the requirement for that being that the object continuously faces in one direction.
Which the Moon does not.
The Moon does not face continuously in one direction, therefore it is rotating.
And you are continuously wrong.
blob, you are so confused you may as well be arguing against yourself.
Is the reason you think I am confused is the fact that you don’t understand what I am posting.
You don’t seem to understand that orbital motion and rotation are two independent and separate things.
Yet you know full well that I understand they are two separate and independent motions. We disagree on how one of those motions is described. Revolving.
DREMPT,
So if we have agreed that they are separate and independent motions then we can ignore orbiting and just discuss whether the Moon is rotating or not.
Right?
Does the Moon face in the same direction or does it turn?
It turns, therefore it is rotating on its axis.
But you claim that is just orbiting, therefore, no, you can’t separate the two motions.
Orbital motion involves the object turning about the barycenter, not on its own axis.
Which still means that, without axial rotation, the object faces through different directions.
DREMPT,
Here is a definition of orbital motion.
“Orbital motion occurs whenever an object is moving forward and at the same time is pulled by gravity toward another object. … The result is a circular or oval path called an orbit, in which one object keeps moving around the other. Because of the relatively great gravity of the sun, Earth orbits the sun.”
Notice something is lacking, that being any mention of rotation.
…and for a more specific definition:
“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.”
I have more trains from god knows when.
https://i.postimg.cc/NB2Mx8vg/trains8.gif
All connected by a string as well!
MikeR
Those are convincing graphics. A rational or logical thinker would understand what your graphics show. You will not be able to convince a contrarian of anything. They are like stuck in cement. I have interacted with these types enough to realize that changing their view is not possible. Evidence does not convince them at all, textbooks are bad and full of flaws, experts are idiots. The only thing they do here is make the same claims over and over, they are not willing to entertain the thought that they may have formed an incorrect conclusion based on an incorrect assumption.
I think your playing around with them is about all the usefulness you will achieve. You have some funny clever put-downs but that is about all you get. If you love to hear the word “idiot” repeated 10,000 times you know which of the Contrarians to interact with.
Norman, I see you still have nothing of substance to contribute.
Norman,
I am glad someone else is reading my material other than the main protagonists.
Yes, I am in agreement with the futility of trying to change the minds of these “seekers of truth” . Their scientific illiteracy bars any chance of their minds being changed.
As for the put downs , I got them at the closing down sale of “Put Downs Are Us” . The bulk order has lasted for years and I still have a lot in reserve.
In reality, the exchanges with the jokers may be doing so much collateral damage to the “Denialarati” (is that how you spell it?) movement that perhaps it is worth my time to pursue this thankless task. Someone has got to do it and thank-you Norman, Bob and Svante for also putting in the hard yards.
Anyway, I hope that explains the rationale for my continuing presence here.
Oh Yeah,
I forgot about the train on a circular track that is rotating on its axis.
Try looking at the choo-choo through a toilet paper tube focusing just on the locomotive, you will see it rotate.
bob does physics: “Try looking at the choo-choo through a toilet paper tube…”
What an idiot!
So you didn’t try it and went straight for the insults.
Jack Horkheimer would not be amused.
bob, neither your toilet paper tube, nor your rose-colored glasses, nor standing on your head, will help you see reality.
You run from reality.
That makes you an idiot.
Norman…since you agree that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame, I would have thought you could see through MikeR’s gifs to the truth. Try a bit harder. You’ll get there.
Gordon, how do you explain the moving coin in Case B? Using your logic It can’t be revolving about the other coin because the tangents are not rotating!
Not even the other members of the brains trust can come to your rescue. I think it is past their bedtime so they will awake to yet another of your disasters.
p.s. I knew there was a reason I placed both cases A and B beside each other. It makes it so easy to pick apart this type of garbage.
Bob has already welcomed you into the rotator’s club. I am now nominating you for a lifetime achievement award for your contributions to the field of rotation. Your medallion will be a dollar coin. Use it wisely.
It’s easy, MikeR. Just remember:
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
No DREM,
Gordon, has it 100% correct .
For the orbiting coin, rotating radial lines and rotating tangents means it is rotating on its axis.
For the orbiting coin, fixed orientation radial lines and fixed tangents means it is fixed in orientation.
Concentric circles only if the orbiting coin is always facing the stationary coin, otherwise the orbiting coin’s near and fair points (from the stationary coin) cross over.
Hopefully I will get some time in the next day or so to program a demo of this and put this whole thing to bed.
On that note. Good night.
As per usual, you mistake a change in orientation of an object for axial rotation. Nobody needs you to “program a demo” and it most certainly will not “put this whole thing to bed”.
Gordon agrees with us, not you…obviously.
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
You are all spinners now, confirmed by your own words.
Dremt: Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
ClintR: Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
Gordon: Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
You guys want a retrial?
Don’t be late for your sixth-grade class, bob.
You don’t want to be held back again….
How to tell if the locals have lost the argument.
ClintR: He calls you an idiot.
DREMT: He says OK blank
Gordon: He always loses the argument, or he doesn’t engage.
I say “OK, x” just to acknowledge receipt of the last (usually vacuous) comment I received. Would be rude not to.
When did you start caring about being rude?
OK, blob. Vacuous comment received.
DREMPT,
you were doing so well, now you are back to being a cunt.
OK, blob.
bob, you “lost the argument” first.
You rated “idiot” after that, when you denied reality.
No one expects you to ever get things right–you’re an idiot.
Just like I said, you can’t make an argument, let alone win one, so you resort to insults.
bob, again, you “lost the argument” first.
You rated “idiot” after that, when you denied reality.
No one expects you to ever get things right–you’re an idiot.
miker…”can be derived from Newtons First Law (rotational inertia). The rotational inertia keeps the ball spinning after release”.
We have hit the bottom of the barrel with regard to drivel. It has occurred to me that Mike R is a troll who posits bs to get others to participate in his power trips.
Newton I is clearly about linear momentum. If a body is set in motion in a straight line it will continue along that straight line unless a force acts on it to oppose its motion. Mike doesn’t understand the difference between inertia and momentum and he gets the two confused.
Newton III is about inertia. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton even referred to the opposition to a force by a mass as an internal force called inertia. Using Newton’s definition, I claim momentum is an internal force as well that tends to keep a body in motion moving.
A ball on a string is not only about angular momentum. If you get the ball rotating about the hand as an axis, and keep the hand totally still, the ball will begin to fall due to gravity. It will keep rotating as it falls in a spiral. Therefore, the hand is doing something to the ball by pulling on it as it rotates.
What the hand is doing is pulling the ball up as well as rotating it. The tension on the string, T, has a vertical and horizontal component and the vertical component raises the ball as gravity tries to pull it down.
When the astronaut rotates the ball on a string, there is no gravitational force to drag the ball down. However, when he releases the string, if he does not release it exactly at the right time, the string will tend to turn the ball one way or the other as it is released. Furthermore, the string has mass and will present a slight drag to the ball as it tries to align itself behind the ball after release. The drag at an angle adds a rotational moment about the ball’s axis.
BTW…if you watch someone swinging a heavy ball on a chain, you will notice he/she swings the ball on a plane at an angle to the ground, not on a horizontal plane. If he/she tried that, the ball would fall. It likely does, forcing the thrower to compensate via a rotating plane at an angle.
It’s no surprise that the idiots are confused by angular momentum.
Moon is orbiting, but not rotating about its axis. If gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would move off in a straight line, still with no axial rotation.
The ball-on-a-string (in the ISS video) is “orbiting”, but not rotating about its axis. Yet when the string is released, the ball exhibits axial rotation.
Why the difference?
The difference, of course, is the mechanical connection of the string. Gravity provides no such mechanical connection. So when the string is released, Newton’s 3rd Law comes into effect, providing “conservation of angular momentum”.
It’s amazing how the laws of physics all work together to always get it right, yet the idiots work together to always get it wrong.
It’s pretty funny the contortions you go through to argue your point.
“So when the string is released, Newtons 3rd Law comes into effect, providing conservation of angular momentum.”
No, Newton’s third law doesn’t provide conservation of angular momentum, the ball had angular momentum before the string was released, so the angular momentum had to go with the ball or the string, since the string doesn’t turn after release, the ball has all the angular momentum.
Go on keep making shit up.
The string provides the mechanical connection so that when released the ball can rotate about its axis, conserving angular momentum. Before release, the ball is not rotating about its axis.
No one expects you to understand physics, bob. You’re an idiot.
So you are saying the ball does not have angular momentum before it is released?
Is that your argument?
That you are losing.
Here’s what I’m saying:
The string provides the mechanical connection so that when released the ball can rotate about its axis, conserving angular momentum. Before release, the ball is not rotating about its axis.
No one expects you to understand physics, bob. You’re an idiot.
In order to conserve something, it had to have it before the transition.
So you are saying the ball has angular momentum before the release, well done, spinner spinner chicken dinner.
The angular momentum to be conserved is the SYSTEM angular momentum, idiot.
bobd…”So you are saying the ball does not have angular momentum before it is released?”
Right. No angular momentum about the ball’s axis. However, if the ball was a bit heaver and you stepped into its orbit as it rotated with the string, it would bop you a good one. That’s angular momentum about the axis where your finger grasp the string.
There’s a difference between the ball on the string and the Earth-Moon system. The Moon has its own linear momentum, it does not require Earth gravity to achieve that momentum. On the other hand, the ball does need the string to achieve its momentum. The lunar orbit is a resultant of the Moon’s independent linear momentum and the perpendicular attraction of the Earth’s gravitational field.
The outcomes for both are the same, however, neither the Moon nor the ball rotate around their own axes. Also, if the string is cut or gravity is turned off, either will follow a tangential path.
The mechanics of an orbit is interesting. If the Moon was traveling in a straight line while approaching the Earth, and it was close enough to be an orbital candidate one of three things could happen.
1)if the Moon’s linear momentum was too high for Earth’s gravitational force, the Moon would pass the Earth in a parabolic or hyperbolic trajectory and never come back.
2)if the Moon’s momentum was too low, it would spiral into the Earth and crash.
3)if the momentum was just right to match Earth’s gravitational force. The Moon would go into orbit as it is now. Depending on slight variations in its momentum, it would have a more or less eccentric orbit. As it stands, its momentum is just about perfect for a circular orbit, although the orbit is slightly elliptical.
If the Moon has been rotating with a rotational period equal to its orbital period, it would show every one of its faces to the Earth.
Gordon,
First, that’s not how we likely got our Moon.
Second, from Discovery Magazine
“For starters, the moon is not stuck in place with one side facing us. Our lunar companion rotates while it orbits Earth. Its just that the amount of time it takes the moon to complete a revolution on its axis is the same it takes to circle our planet about 27 days. As a result, the same lunar hemisphere always faces Earth.”
bobd…”First, that’s not how we likely got our Moon”
So you believe the sci-fi that the Moon was spat out of the Earth as a near-perfect sphere? Where’s the near-perfect cavity in the current Earth where it originated? How do you get enough force to spit a mass the size of the Moon from the Earth’s surface then give it the proper angle of spit to get it into orbit.
That theory is so dumb it could only have come to a bleary-eyed geologist or astronomer during a nocturnal emission. The Moon did not originate in the Earth, it was captured by Earth’s gravity.
From Discover Magazine…
“For starters, the moon is not stuck in place with one side facing us. Our lunar companion rotates while it orbits Earth. Its just that the amount of time it takes the moon to complete a revolution on its axis is the same it takes to circle our planet about 27 days. As a result, the same lunar hemisphere always faces Earth.”
The statement is just about as dumb as the theory that the Moon originated in the Earth. How many times do we have to run it past you that the near-face always facing the Earth completely rules out lunar rotation about a local axis.
Once again, if the near-face always points to the Earth, the far-face must always point toward space. That means the near-face is moving in a concentric orbit inside the far-face orbit. ie. no local rotation.
This debate proves there are many scientists out there who simply cannot think for themselves. They simply repeat dogma they have learned without questioning it. Tesla was not that type, he looked at the problem and concluded the Moon does not rotate on a local axis.
Discover Magazine and other media are mainly butt-kissers who lack the guts to question authority.
Gordon,
There are other theories for how the Moon got around the Earth, the best one being that a Mars sized body collided with the Earth early in the solar system’s history.
You say
“How many times do we have to run it past you that the near-face always facing the Earth completely rules out lunar rotation about a local axis.”
How many time do we have to say, no it doesn’t?
The Moon rotates once for every revolution keeping the one face towards, more or less, the Earth.
How many time do we have to say that the value of Lunar obliquity proves that the Moon is spinning on its axis?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif
It’s not what butt-kissers kiss, it’s what they observe.
“How many time do we have to say that the value of Lunar obliquity proves that the Moon is spinning on its axis?”
Explain why you think it does.
Because it’s an axis, something must be spinning around it for it to be an axis.
That something is the Moon.
And since that axis is tilted with respect to the Moons orbital plane it explains the libration observed.
Your logic is circular. You start with the assumption there is an axis, yet this is what you are trying to prove.
DREMPT,
No assumption, it starts with an observation that there is rotation of the Moon about an axis.
The observed libration then proves the axis is not parallel to the one the Moon revolves around the Earth-Moon barycenter.
With all the up and down, side to side wiggles that allow 59% of the Moon to be observed from the Earth.
Not the same side always pointing to the Earth, but various portions of the Moon that total to 59%.
“No assumption, it starts with an observation that there is rotation of the Moon about an axis”.
There is no such “observation”. It’s an erroneous inference due to not being able to correctly separate orbital motion from axial rotation.
DREMPT,
Go to the north pole of the Moon, take a 30 day time lapse photograph.
The stars will appear as circles, proving that the Moon rotates.
No, it proves that the moon orbits (rotates about an external axis).
DREMPT,
You said previously that rotation and orbiting were separate and independent motions and here you go putting them into one motion again.
Proving you don’t understand what you are talking about.
The Moon both rotates and revolves around two different axes.
You are just a science denier.
blob, you must be the slowest person on the uptake that I have ever encountered.
Yes, they are two separate and independent motions.
The moon is only doing one of them. Orbiting.
The Earth is doing both of them. Orbiting and rotating on its own axis.
Once again, our differences are all based on the way orbiting is described. How you can not have figured that out by now is beyond me.
DREMT,
You are wrong again.
Step 1: If two things are separate and independent, then you can examine one of them without regard to what the other is doing.
The Moon is orbiting.
So we can determine if the Moon is rotating or not, by merely examining if the Moon is rotating like a top. Since it doesn’t face the same direction all the time, therefore it is rotating like a top.
You respond it is because it is orbiting, I say see step one again.
The fact that the Moon is orbiting doesn’t imply that it is not rotating, that fact is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Moon is rotating or not.
Go ahead keep denying science.
DREMT,
you say this
“Once again, our differences are all based on the way orbiting is described. How you can not have figured that out by now is beyond me.”
No, our differences are all down to how you define rotation.
Wait, you haven’t defined rotation.
“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.”
A rotation about an external axis is one single motion, yet the object faces through e.g. N, E, S, W whilst it moves. Just like a ball on a string. One single motion, blob. Not two.
Axial rotation is then separate and independent of that motion.
DREMT,
You can’t even answer a single simple question.
I asked you to define rotation, you failed to do a simple task.
Here is a source that does
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/e110/Lecture%20Notes%20for%20Sections%2016-1%20-%2016-3.pdf
All particles of the Moon move along circular paths in planes perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
I have linked to various sources before defining both revolution and axial rotation. The moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, not on its own axis.
DREMPT,
“I have linked to various sources before defining both revolution and axial rotation. ”
No you have not, particularly a source defining axial rotation, nothing like the source I just posted.
“The moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, not on its own axis.”
Nope, the Moon is orbiting the Earth/Moon barycenter and at the same time rotating around its own internal axis.
Yes, I have.
miker…”For the orbiting coin, rotating radial lines and rotating tangents means it is rotating on its axis”.
Noooo!!! The radial line on the orbiting coin is changing direction due to the constraints of the orbit. It is not rotating about its own axis as is proved by the 3 tangential lines.
This is basic calculus (1st year). The first derivative of any continuous curve at any point on the curve is the slope of the tangent line to the curve. That’s why the tangent lines must point in different directions at each successive point on a curve.
The tangent line tells us the rate at which the curve is changing and with any curve it has to change with successive points on the curve. This has nothing to do with rotation, it is simply a rate of change for the curve at any point. Same with the Moon, the near-side tangent, the axis tangent, and the far-side tangent (presuming those points are moving on concentric orbits) indicate that the orbits are changing at a specific rate.
You guys are making an error by regarding that as proof of rotation about a local axis. It is simply the property of a circular or eccentric orbit. It’s math, not rotation.
If you extend that radial line in the rotating coin through the centre of the stationary coin it becomes apparent. The radial line is rotating around the centre of the stationary coin and there are 3 fixed tangent lines on the rotating radial line which are orbiting in concentric circles. If those tangential lines are always moving parallel to each other on concentric circles, they can never rotate around the centre of the rotating coin.
Gordon I don’t have too much time for this any more.
Run the argument by me again with reference to both case A and case B that are both orbiting in
https://i.postimg.cc/tRyd8FpB/Tangents.gif
Better still, do a screen capture or two of this gif at various stages of the orbit, that you can then use, to explain your concept. Upload them to postimg.
https://postimages.org/
In the absence of this, I will go with my default assumption that you have not a clue about what you are talking about.
This assumption has served me well so far. Prove me wrong.
miker…”Gordon I dont have too much time for this any more.
Run the argument by me again with reference to both case A and case B that are both orbiting in ”
Better still, study some physics and get back to me. We are talking about basic orbital mechanics which I studied in depth via problem sets in first year engineering. The principles being discussed by Clint, Dremt, and myself are exactly what I studied in engineering. What you are discussing is some kind of philosophy.
Gordon, tell us the truth, you flunked out of engineering school, didn’t you?
This is evidence you don’t understand
“If those tangential lines are always moving parallel to each other on concentric circles, they can never rotate around the centre of the rotating coin.”
The tangent lines have to be rotating if they are following circles.
bobd…”The tangent lines have to be rotating if they are following circles”.
There is no such thing as a tangent line in reality, a tangent is a mathematical construct that serves to show the rate of change of a curve at a specific point. No one would expect a tangent line to rotate since it is fixed to a rotating radial line. If it rotated about the tip of the radial line it would be like the Earth rotating on a radial line from the centre of the Sun. We know in that case the Earth shows different faces to the Sun 365 times per orbit.
However the tangent of the lunar inner face as an orbit and the tangent of the outer face as an orbit tells us both are changing in parallel with each other AROUND THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH. Not shouting, capitals for emphasis.
If there was local rotation about the Moon’s axis, those tangent lines would be following the circumference of the Moon. However, at each instant the instantaneous NS tangent and the FS tangent would also be rotating about the centre of the Earth and next instant would be rotating about the Moon’s axis, replaced by another instantaneous set of tangent lines.
It is obvious in that case that the NS and FS tangents would rotate and the NS would no longer point at the Earth.
At each point along a curve, the tangent changes direction. That is part of the math related to a curve such as an orbit. If you draw a tangent line to a sine wave at the positive peak of the sine wave, the tangent line is flat (horizontal). It is telling us the sine wave is NOT changing direction, going neither positive nor negative. If you take the tangent where the sine wave crosses the x-axis, the tangent tells us the curve is experiencing a maximum change.
The tangent line slope is also the 1st derivative of the curve function. For a parabola, y = x^2 is the curve equation and dy/dx = 2 is the 1st derivative and the slope of the tangent line. The equation of a straight line is y = mx + b where m = slope and b = the y-intercept. For a tangent line you can express it as (y – y0) = m(x – x0). therefore for the parabola, (y – y0) = 2(x -x0). It tells us that the change in y is twice the change in x AT ANY POINT ON THE PARABOLA.
I picked a parabola because it has an easy equation. A circle is more complex. The point to be observed is that the tangent is only telling us how the curve (circle) is changing at any point. Therefore if the NS and the FS tangents are changing at the same time and in parallel orbits, they cannot be describing anything other than a rotation about the Earth.
You need to get it that the changing tangent lines are a property of the curve or the orbit and have nothing to do with local rotation.
Gordon,
You were the person that first introduced tangents to determine whether, or not, the motion of an object was purely orbital, or also included rotation on its axis.
Firstly here, September 22,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-528165
and recently, September 26
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-529474
How could you have forgotten this?
It was an insight of genius of epic proportions and now you disown it! You now have decided that tangents can not be used because –
“There is no such thing as a tangent line in reality, a tangent is a mathematical construct that serves to show the rate of change of a curve at a specific point. No one would expect a tangent line to rotate since it is fixed to a rotating radial line. ”
Oh well, all is not lost.
Contrary to Gordon’s latest expectation, in this depiction,
https://i.postimg.cc/tRyd8FpB/Tangents.gif
in one case the tangents definitely rotate , and in the other case they definitely do not!
So what exactly happened since September 26? Could it be that you finally realised that your tangents insight ended up proving the exact opposite of what you intended? Could this have played a part in your flip-flop ?
Could this be another case of the 3rd Law of Unintended Consequences – for every action there exists an equal (or larger) opposing unintended reaction*.
Anyway, to help assist you further, I have generated another gif that includes concentric circles (and crossing circles) as well as tangents that sometimes rotate and sometimes don’t, here –
https://i.postimg.cc/N0ZJYTKF/Orbital-Motion.gif
Looking forward to your response (not really as they tend to be somewhat confusing).
*We can discuss the 1st Law of Intellectual Inertia later.
Gordon,
You need not lecture me on basic algebra, I have a sawbuck that says I have passed more math classes than you.
I am all down with this
“You need to get it that the changing tangent lines are a property of the curve or the orbit and have nothing to do with local rotation.”
You are right, they have nothing to do with the question of whether the Moon is rotating or not, the problem is that YOU were using them to try to prove the Moon is not rotating. Epic Fail on your part.
The near side and far side tangents are rotating around the Earth and the Moon’s circumference at the same rate of speed.
You say
“No one would expect a tangent line to rotate since it is fixed to a rotating radial line.”
I would, since the tangent line would be at a right angle to the radial line, which is rotating, so the tangent line would be rotating.
So again, it rotates at the same speed at the Moon revolves keeping the same face more or less towards the Earth.
It’s pretty simple, MikeR:
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Yes DREM,
The naughty man is back. Don’t be upset as he says the concentric circles and crossover circles are just simply due to basic geometry.
In one case the moving coin always faces the stationary coin so the near side is always nearest and the far side the furthest.
In the other case the near and far sides switch over.
The very naughty man is hoping that this will calm you down as Uncle Gordon has taken his tangents and gone home.
I am not so sure so, we are going to restrain you so that you cannot have another tantrum of , what the man said, was PTS or was it the PSTs?
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
The naughty man is very happy that you have not PST’d yourself again. Thank goodness you didn’t, because we have run out of a change of clothing for you,
However we are getting worried about you repeating yourself over and over. We hope it doesn’t happen again.
Thought it might help you learn if I keep repeating myself. What’s the reason you keep repeating yourself?
DREM,
The naughty man does not like copycats.
He says you are addicted to cut and paste and thinks you need to detox.
So…no reason, then. I guess you just like repeating yourself.
What MikeR is discussing is his cult philosophy. In cults, beliefs count, reality doesn’t. That’s why cult members are so quick to pervert reality, make things up, and actually state nonsense. It’s all for their false religion. There’s really no better example than bobdroege looking through a toilet paper tube!–primitive cult behavior.
We have been trying to explain the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating about a CoG” for months. MikeR still can’t understand the difference. He still believes the ball-on-a-string is rotating on its axis. He believes the wooden horse, bolted to the floor of a MGR, is rotating about its axis. He believes that something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.
ClintR
this
“Theres really no better example than bobdroege looking through a toilet paper tube!primitive cult behavior.”
is just a trick to get you to focus on the locomotive on the choo-choo riding a circular track.
perhaps you need some Focus Factor, Optimind, or Memotenz.
Maybe some plain old Adderall.
Yes, I have been outed by ClintR.
I am indeed a member of a fake religion, I used to be a Pizzarian (hold the pineapple) but I am now a Pastafarian.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#/media/File%3ATouched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage_HD.jpg
I note that Clint is a life member of The Contrarian Church of the Orbiting Lunartics whose reference book for Physics is the Book of Morons.
This book includes such seminal religious gems such as the collected ravings of St. Gordon , the patron saint of cranks everywhere and St. G-eran and his many apostles, who always speak in tongues.
Note, heretics such as Spinning Dervishes are not allowed particularly if they are on high rotation. However Orbiting Dervishes are allowed.
Yes MikeR, you have outed yourself.
It was your failed effort to pose as someone with a PhD.
That just never got off the ground.
Yes Clint,
The suffix appended to my name corresponds to P for Pastafarian, h for heritage and D for Dilettante.
However, I posit that between the two of us, one of us has a Doctorate in Physics and the other abject has failures in numerous academic endeavours.
I will leave it others to decide between the two possibilities. Sometimes you just have to leave it to the “Wisdom of the Crowd” to decide.
Well MikeR, I will posit that you’ve been exposed to some physics. You did seem to understand angular momentum, after I explained it. That puts you a slight step above bob, Norman, Svante, and some of the other idiots. But, you have zero grasp of orbital motion. And, you still have no appreciation for reality.
So I suspect it is you that might have had a good physics teacher, at one time, but later flunked out.
“We have been trying to explain the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating about a CoG” for months.”
It really shouldn’t be this difficult…still, I guess some of the people reading along might have got it by now.
DREM,
Absolutement! They must have worked it out by now.
If not, here is a companion piece to the
https://i.postimg.cc/tRyd8FpB/Tangents.gif
This has the concentric cicles and crossovers for near and far points as well as the rotating tangents.
https://i.postimg.cc/N0ZJYTKF/Orbital-Motion.gif
This extra information, is as expected, and confirms that the objects are orbiting with the object always facing the centre per revolution (concentric circles), while in contrast for the other orbiting case, all sides are visible per revolution (cross over cicles).
For other rotation speeds that are in between these two cases , these curves become fascinating cycloids.
The rotating tangents, of course, tell you whether, the objects are rotating or not.
In the end DREM it is clear you are not going to budge a nanometre, let alone an inch, so rather than dislodging you from your bunker I will leave you to enjoy yourself in peace.
I think this is the best approach as discussed here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-529416
MikeR, you remain very confused, unwilling to learn, and motivated to pervert reality.
All you need to understand is the simple wooden horse, bolted to the floor of a MGR. That models orbiting without rotating about its axis. Just like Moon is doing.
All of your failed efforts just represent your unwillingness to face reality. You prefer a world filled with lies.
Yes Clint, you are totally correct. None of these examples that you quote have ever been discussed or explained to your satisfaction and anyone that disagrees with you is a pervert.
Keep calm. Someone will be along soon to take you back to your room.
All of your failed efforts just represent your unwillingness to face reality. You prefer a world filled with lies.
Clint, have a cup of tea while we wait for someone to take you to hospital. Your poor wrists must be so sore. Fancy trying to play baseball with a basketball.
I have some good news.Your good friend DREM will be waiting for you in the same hospital ward as he has also hurt his wrists trying to spin his very heavy computer monitor.
I know, silly boy.
Let your friend Gordon know that both of you will be in the St. Onan ward (R.S.I. section) . Get him to call first to check, because they say that before they discharge you to the psych ward, that both of you may need to have your cataracts removed.
…. to be continued.
It’s pretty simple, MikeR:
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Yes DREM,
The naughty man who is showing you the pictures that are so upsetting you will go away, some time soon. Yes , he is a very nutty professor, saying that you need to turn the steering wheel when going around corners.
Yes , DREM , in that picture, the coin on the left is not rotating and on the coin on the right is definitely rotating.
Wait until I wipe some drool from your glasses. Oh my goodness, these glasses are so filthy, no wonder you have been walking into the walls.
Oh dear, dear, what a state you are in. There is also a bit of froth on your bottom lip. Let me wipe it away, and I will get you a bib.
… to be continued.
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
DREMT,
I think we need to urgently take you to seek medical treatment. You keep repeating yourself and drooling. Are you still unable to visually detect motion?
I hope you are not having another seizure.
Thought it might help you learn if I keep repeating myself. What’s the reason you keep repeating yourself?
7:03 am. The previous seizure happened only 1 minute earlier.
Could be a grand mal brought on by the sight of rotating tangents.
So…no reason, then. I guess you just like repeating yourself.
With regard to the epicycloids. Here is a depiction of an orbiting object generating a range of epicycloids
https://i.postimg.cc/d3fnL0d0/Orbiting-Rotating-Epicycloids5.gif
,going from one rotation per rev (concentric circles), 2 rotations per rev ( Cardiods), 3 rotations per rev (Nephroids) etc..
Some nice demonstrations of “coins” rotating are also shown on the Wolfram site.
https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/CreatingACardioidANephroidAndOtherEpicycloids/
I recommend this demonstration to Gordon and friends.
The point to emphasise is that the circle is a member of the general class of epicycloids. All these members arise from rotation and none can be generated from an orbiting object that is not rotating .
So for axial rotation its QED with regard to concentric circles.
You mistake a change in orientation, for axial rotation. As always.
Consider an object that physically cannot rotate on its own axis, like the wooden horse on the merry-go-round. All of its particles move in concentric circles about the center of the merry-go-round. Therefore:
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
QED.
https://i.postimg.cc/vZBWjn1x/Epi-Cycloids.gif
N =1 Epicycloid is a circle.
The wooden horse is the moving coin and the centre of the merry-go-round is the centre of another stationary coin*.
Concentric circles = orbital motion WITH axial rotation,
QED^2
* I can change the graphics accordingly upon request.
There is no N=1 epicycloid. Epicycloids are formed by rolling a circle around another circle. Whereas the only way an N=1 epicycloid would work is by rolling a circle around a point. Anything bigger than a point, and you are sliding the circle around the other circle, rather than rolling it, to keep the same face always towards the center. As your depiction shows, in your N=1 scenario the circle is sliding around the other circle, rather than rolling around it.
QED.
As for the rumoured non existence of N =1 epicycloid.
https://i.postimg.cc/vZBWjn1x/Epi-Cycloids.gif
QED^2.
As for the rolling versus sliding debate, it is covered here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-531301
MikeR, in your gif, the only one that is actually an epicycloid is your N=2 case. For the N=greater than 2 examples, your orbiting circle needs to be smaller than your other circle. See:
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Epicycloid.html
Really DREM.
My default assumption is that your assertions are always false.
Proved correct, yet again.
https://i.postimg.cc/yYk0hYjy/Rolling-Different-Radii.gif
DREM, Is there anything else you want to run with? Can’t do infinitely large circles. Zero size circles are also hard to display.
Your basic problem is you don’t seem to know what “rolling” is as opposed to “sliding”. You also fundamentally misunderstand epicycloids. I don’t really know how to help you, but I am enjoying watching you make a fool of yourself.
Try getting two coins and rolling one around the other, to practice “rolling” and what it looks like.
Sorry misread your comment.
Doesn’t matter at all of course, here is N = 3.
https://i.postimg.cc/R0MFRg9x/Rolling-Different-Radii-N-3.gif
How deep will he dig himself in before he realizes his mistake? Fascinating to watch.
DREM, The difference between rolling and slipping was explained to you in tedious details here –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-531301
What didn’t you understand?
For further information about the physics of rolling, consult the following-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling#:~:text=Physics%20of%20simple%20rolling,-The%20velocities%20of&text=is%20the%20angular%20velocity%20vector,with%20the%20same%20angular%20velocity.
DREM,
The only thing I am digging is the grave to dispose of your garbage,
☺️
Mike, seriously. Take two coins. Roll one along your desk to get a feel for “rolling” and what it looks like. Now roll one coin around the other coin. Get a feel for what that looks like. Then take another closer look at your gifs. When you have realized your mistake, get back to me.
Just done it. Rolled one coin around the other.
No surprise.
p.s I can post the video on my YouTube channel, if necessary.
It should be an overnight sensation!
OK, MikeR.
So this one will have to be a thought experiment. Regarding your gif here:
https://i.postimg.cc/vTSHHy6Q/Rolling.gif
Apparently you believe in all cases that your outer circle is rolling around the inner circle, and not sliding. So…take a barrel, and paint a line across the top. Tip the barrel on its side so it can roll. Now, move the barrel around the entire equator of a planet with the line always pointing towards the planets core. Of course, you will not be able to roll the barrel, because then the line you drew will be rotating, rather than always pointing towards the planets core. You will have to slide the barrel the whole way around…
DREM,
I see you no longer want to go with the coins analogy*. Sensible strategy as you were floundering badly.
As for your barrel (replacing a small coin) and the Earth (replacing a large coin), the situation remains the same.
If you slide the barrel, instead of rolling, then half way around the earth, the line (assuming it has an arrow head) is now pointing away from the Earths core.
Any other thought experiments you want to pursue? Hula hoops on Jupiter, perhaps?
* I could have slid the coin instead of rolling it, or had a mixture of the two processes going on, but of course only pure rolling resulted in the moving coin always facing the stationary coin.
ClownR, if you roll the barrel then the line rotates potentially millions of times before the barrel completes a circuit around the equator.
If you slide the barrel, it remains pointing towards the core the whole way around.
If you were to drive around the equator of an imaginary planet, your car would not be upside down halfway around the journey, would it!?
“I could have slid the coin instead of rolling it, or had a mixture of the two processes going on, but of course only pure rolling resulted in the moving coin always facing the stationary coin.”
Then you are either dishonest, or incompetent. Or, maybe both.
No DREM,
Only one very slow rotation is needed per circumnavigation. One step at a time.
Do we need to revisit the baseball diamond and polygons depiction again? F.f.s.
‘If you were to drive around the equator of an imaginary planet, your car would not be upside down halfway around the journey, would it!?”
Not if my car was following the curvature of the earth and rolling (via the engine driving the wheels and the traction between the tires and the ground) at the required rate of 1 degree per 1 degree of the earths’s circumference.
Rolling at any other rate would not be physically possible without leaving the earths surface. Likewise slipping would send you off on a tangent*.
*If you were lucky you might hit the moon at the right angle and the force to stop it rotating.
MikeR, we are talking about rolling, remember? Think about the circumference of the barrel vs. the circumference of the planet. It will roll potentially millions of times before completing a circuit.
How thick can you be!?
DREM,
You have lost the plot and officially have reached peak stupidity.
Your requirement was that a line on the barrel would point towards the centre of the earth for the entire journey!!!!!!!!!
You obviously forgot that.
Howevet DREM , feel free to rotate the barrel as many times as you like but you will not satisfy this requirement unless you roll it, very slowly so that it does one rotation over the entire journey.
Sliding the barrel doesn’t do it, for the reasons already discussed, and would require would require lots of lubrication. This lack of lube is possibly why a theoretical physicist around 3500 BC thought that rolling was an interesting concept .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling
A mechanical engineer at this time thought about a practical implementation of this concept and thus the wheel was invented.
https://www.livescience.com/18808-invention-wheel.html
I am not knocking sliding as a valid form of transportation but it tends to work best in a low friction environment, like ice, where wheels tend to be ineffective.
However maybe DREMT, rather than doing a bicycle circumnavigation of the world , which has been done numerous times, you should be the first to try it by sled. The huskies might find the equatorial temperatures not to their liking but if you succeed , fame and fortune awaits.
Your journey could be the basis of a Ripping Yarn such as https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074s72
😉
MikeR…for an epicycloid where the two circles are the same size, the outer circle is rolling once per revolution of the inner circle. Because the circumference of the two circles are the same. For an epicycloid where the circumference of the inner circle is double that of the outer circle, the outer circle rolls twice per revolution of the inner circle. And so on. Understand yet?
Yes DREM,
I stand corrected. I am wiping the omelette off my face now.
It would have to be a very big barrel.
If you managed to slide the little barrel around the earth to the other side it would be facing the opposite diection and have rotated on its axis with respect to the external reference frame of the stars.
With respect to the curved earth’s surface it would not have rotated which I am sure we both agree.
This is just another example of the merry go round, turntable, pizza etc…
Should I do another depiction for this case?
Probably not because I have made this point so many times, without it sinking in.
Let this sink in:
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
As a gesture of good will and for the sake of completeness, here is the correct set of epicycloids which are all 100% rolling and 0% slipping.
https://i.postimg.cc/hj8K2bXx/Rolling-Epicycloids.gif
The N = 1 case corresponds to the concentric circles and show that axial rotational is required ( and for all N >1 ).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-532432
On the off chance there is anyone still remotely interested, they can start here and keep on reading.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-532461
Pretty sure nobody is still reading by this point, MikeR.
bobd…”the problem is that YOU were using them to try to prove the Moon is not rotating”.
I have not disowned tangent lines as claimed by Mike R. I have used them simply to orient the near face, the axis, and the far face wrt each other during an orbit. All I am claiming is they don’t rotate about the Earth in a physical sense like the Moon. A tangent is a mathematical construct that shows at each point on a curve how the curve is changing AT A PARTICULAR INSTANTANEOUS POINT.
There is no motion with a tangent, it lives at one point on a curve only.
I could have used a vector to represent the motion in the tangential direction and that would have represented something real. That motion is instantaneous as well and must change direction as the tangent is required to do at each point.
So why don’t we do that? We replace the tangent line on the near face with a vector representing the linear momentum of the near face. Then we replace the tangent line at the far face with a vector representing its linear momentum. How about the axis, between the NF and the FF? Ok, we replace that tangent with a linear momentum vector as well.
What do we have? We have three vectors moving on concentric circles at the same angular velocity, because the Moon is a rigid body and takes the angular velocity of the radial line through it from the Earth. Three vectors that can never cross other vectors moving in the same instantaneous direction, so how do they rotate about the Moon’s axis?
It’s not kosher to do that with a rigid body and I am doing it simply for visualization. I am counting on you guys not to throw in a red-herring.
Here’s another point. Take a vector at the near face pointing tangentially along the orbital curve. It must always point perpendicular to a radial line from Earth’s centre through the Moon. As the radial line rotates through 28 days, the vector must always point perpendicular to the radial line. If it points in any other direction that tangentially it means the near face must start turning away from facing the Earth.
How the hay does the vector rotate around the Moon’s axis by 360 degrees and still keep pointing tangentially?
The vector pointing tangentially rotates with the radial line.
The near face rotates 360 degrees at the same rate the radial line rotates around the earth. In 28 days or so. Thus always keeping the same face more or less towards the Earth.
Gordon,
The intersection points of the tangents and the near and far points on the orbiting coin rotates for Case A while they don’t move for the corresponding coin in case B.
Can your explanations account for both cases? One out of two is a major problem, zero out of two is even more disastrous .
You want 3 concentric circles instead of 2? Easy to do.
I just noticed I mislabelled the colours of the near and far sides. The red and blue should be interchanged -sed
https://i.postimg.cc/N0ZJYTKF/Orbital-Motion.gif
Irrespective what colour do you want for the middle radial circle?
I am not sure about the kosher comment, i have been trying to contact friends of that religious persuasion but they are off-line. It could be the high holidays?
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Gordon,
I have just got on to my friends re kosher. They want to know whether the red herrings you want avoid are Bismarck ot Matjes red herrings? They can provide both types for you to avoid.
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Yet another seizure. Three in 5 minutes.
DREM, things are getting serious but help is on its way.
However they are taking some time, as your insistence that they cannot rotate the steering wheel to change direction is slowing them down. They have had to travel in a wide arc via Los Angeles, New York, Paris and now London.
However the alternative path travelling in a straight trajectory relied too much on the curvature of space time and Uncle Gordon would not give permission.
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Paths cross all the time because the rotation is sometimes faster that the orbiting, sometimes slower.
You don’t think the orbital paths of the particles making up the moon are concentric ellipses?
No, points waggle back and forth across the orbital path.
It is called longitudinal libration.
Wrong, Svante. The orbital paths of the particles making up the moon are concentric ellipses. Longitudinal libration is an apparent “waggle” only.
You won’t believe me. Oh well.
I can feel another depiction coming on.
Concentric ellipses? Maybe, maybe not.
Give me 10 minutes and I should have an answer.
Sorry DREM,
Wrong again. The answer is not concentric ellipses but concentric Nephroids.
https://i.postimg.cc/xjh4xn1n/elliptical-orbits2.gif
See
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephroid
This is a sub class of epicycloids which are generated by rotational motion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid
Finally-
Proofs that moon rotates on its axis
1. Moon rotating by tangents method, tick.
2. Moon rotating by near and far points (Nephroids), tick.
3. to 1000. Take too long and wasted enough time already.
If Moon were tracing out those shapes, we would see more than one side of it.
You blew it again, MikeR.
svante…”Paths cross all the time because the rotation is sometimes faster that the orbiting, sometimes slower”.
You are confusing rotation of the Moon about the Earth with rotation about its own axis. In the lunar orbit rotation there are changes in the speed of the Moon’s linear velocity due to very slight changes in the gravitational force. If the orbit was purely circular there would be no speed variations.
That change of speed has nothing to do with the mythical angular velocity of rotation about the Moon’s axis. There is no such angular velocity.
I explained that a while back. With a circular orbit, the radial line between the Earth and the Moon would always point at the Earth’s centre. With eccentricity in the orbit, that radial line points slightly away from the Earth’s centre and the full force of gravity is not applied to the Moon. All through such changes, the Moon does not rotate or waggle on its axis. It can all be explained between the Moon’s linear velocity and variation in gravitational force.
Yes we do Clint.
We see about 8% more of the moon due to longitudinal libration.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#:~:text=In%20lunar%20astronomy%2C%20libration%20is,the%20surface%20at%20different%20times.
I would love to see the DREM team model nephroids mathematically without rotation.
Pity they prefer handwaving.
Concentric nephroids! Now I’ve heard it all.
No, it’s concentric ellipses.
MikeR believes “8%” is “all”!
And silly snowflake Svante doesn’t realize you can’t model nephroids without rotation. Moon can’t model nephroids!
That’s why they’re idiots.
ClintR, Do you actually read what you write?
“If Moon were tracing out those shapes, we would see more than one side of it”
Yes, I said 8% more, not all sides.
The term “more than” one side would cover 1.08 sides unless you are a “moron”.
MikeR…nephroids!? You can’t actually be serious!? I assumed you were joking. Orbits are not kidney-shaped, for starters…
…and Svante laps it up without even a moment’s skepticism.
Oh dear.
MikeR now has to deny his own words: “Yes we do Clint.”
What a blithering idiot!
You get concentric circles with a circular orbit.
Not with an elliptical orbit.
See:
https://i.postimg.cc/xjh4xn1n/elliptical-orbits2.gif
Concentric ellipses, Svante.
You fell for MikeR’s little joke (I have to assume it was a joke) about nephroids. More fool you.
DREM,
Yes, you may indeed be correct, the shape for an orbitally locked object is shaped a bit like a kidney or a peanut but it may not technically be a Nephroid.
However the curve is definitely not elliptical as can be determined by someone who has normal eyesight see –
https://i.postimg.cc/xjh4xn1n/elliptical-orbits2.gif
The convex and concave parts of the kidney curve are the regions of the orbit where the radial blue line from the centre of the orbit leads or lags the the red axial line joining the near and far points of the orbiting object, corresponding to libration.
The Nephroid is N = 3 epicycloid ( 3 rotations per orbit)
The Wolfram site illustrates beautifully an “orbiting coin” rolling around a stationary coin for different rates of axial rotation. The left most case is cardioid (N=2) which rotates twice for each orbit. The (N =1) case corresponding to tidal locking is not shown, presumably because it is trivial, is a circle (hence concentric circles),
See https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Epicycloid.html
In the “positions” window, you have your near side red line drawing an oval shape whilst your far side blue line is drawing the peanut shape. Is the orbiting object meant to be growing and shrinking in size throughout the orbit!?
To the doubters.
In the morning I may have time to generate the corresponding epicycloids shown in the Wolfram site, for for different rates of rotation for the orbiting coin.
This should be convincing evidence* that the concentric circles are a result of an object rotating once on its axis per orbit.
Good night.
*except for those who prefer blindness as a lifestyle choice.
Yes DREM, you make an interesting point,
The change in distance between the near and far points are, I think, due to these points no longer lying exactly on the radial line joining the object to the centre of the orbit.
The line between the near and far points tilts at varying stages of the orbit (w.r.t. radial line) foreshortening and stretching the component of this line in the direction of the radial direction.
At least this is what I think may be happening. Will look at it again tomorrow.
How will that be evidence of anything!? Epicycloids are formed by rolling one circle around the outside of another circle. That is not “orbital motion with/without axial rotation”.
You made a mistake with “nephroids”, your software has obviously messed up on your animation of a elliptical orbit, and you are now struggling to try to cover for it all.
DREM,
Yes there was a mistake, no biggie. The curves and the radial line should have gone from the focus rather than from the centre of the ellipse. This would have shown the required libration effects. Will fix it up, when I get a chance.
It reminds me of the joke about the engineer who is being executed by guillotine. First two attempts fail. The engineer then turns his head and looks up and says “I think I can see what your problem is”.
DREM, thanks for pointing out the problem.
DREM et al.
With regard to the epicycloids. Here is a depiction of an orbiting object generating a range of epicycloids
https://i.postimg.cc/d3fnL0d0/Orbiting-Rotating-Epicycloids5.gif
,going from one rotation per rev (concentric circles), 2 rotations per rev ( Cardiods), 3 rotations per rev (Nephroids) etc..
Some nice demonstrations of “coins” rotating are also shown on the Wolfram site.
https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/CreatingACardioidANephroidAndOtherEpicycloids/
Gordon and friends may find the demo useful.
Finally, what should be recognised is that the circle is a member of the general class of epicycloids. All these members arise from rotation, and none can be generated from an orbiting objectthat is not rotating.
So in the end, the concentric circles provide yet another nail in the non rotating coffin.
MikeR…nothing has changed.
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
bobd…”The near face rotates 360 degrees at the same rate the radial line rotates around the earth. In 28 days or so. Thus always keeping the same face more or less towards the Earth”.
Let’s see you do it using two coins. Set up a rotating coin with a radial line and an arrow head pointing at the centre of a stationary coin. Now keep the arrow head always pointed at the centre of the stationary coin and move the rotating coin around the other while rotating the rotating coin through 360 degrees.
Gordon,
I think you have answered the question for me.
You set up a rotating coin that is also revolving.
So you have a rotating coin and a revolving coin at the same speed at the same time.
Keeping the arrow pointing to the center coin is all it takes to cause the rotating coin to rotate, you don’t have to rotate it any more than that.
bobd…”You set up a rotating coin that is also revolving.
So you have a rotating coin and a revolving coin at the same speed at the same time”
I have specified several times that you cannot roll the rotating coin around the stationary coin’s circumference. If you do, the near face must roll away from facing the Earth and complete a 360 degree rotation. Half around the orbit the near face becomes the far face.
It’s the same if you place the coin on edge on a linear surface. If you define the near face as the part of the coin touching the surface, you cannot rotate it (roll it) and keep that near face in contact with the surface.
You must SLIDE the coins in either case, around a curve or along a linear surface. Sliding is the only way to move that coin across either face while keeping one part of the coin always in contact with the surface.
Sliding is equivalent to curvilinear or rectilinear translation, not rotation about an axis. The Moon is performing curvilinear translation since all points on the Moon are moving parallel to each other and have the same angular velocity (as part of a rigid body).
Furthermore, sliding is more in line with the actual situation. To keep the same point of the rotating coin in contact with the stationary coin’s circumference, you need to slide and nudge it into position at each point. That’s what happens with the Moon. It has linear momentum and gravity nudges it around into an orbit.
The Moon is actually sliding (translating) around its orbit, not rotating on its axis.
Gordon,
“The Moon is performing curvilinear translation since all points on the Moon are moving parallel to each other and have the same angular velocity (as part of a rigid body).”
Nope, parallel requires straight lines, curves by definition can not be parallel.
And curvilinear motion requires the object to face the same direction as it moves, which the Moon does not.
You have to turn the coin as you slide it around the center coin.
Turning means rotating on an axis.
bobd…”Nope, parallel requires straight lines, curves by definition can not be parallel”.
According to your definition there is no such thing as curvilinear translation. When working with curves, the instantaneous straight line formed by the tangent line is considered a straight line motion. A curve then is an infinite sequence of instantaneous straight-line paths.
Consider two concentric circles, both centred at 0,0, one with a radius of 5 along the x-axis and the other with a radius of 10. When you consider only the points (x,y) = (5,0) and (10,0), the tangent lines will be, respectively, lines running perpendicular to the x-axis along x = 5 and x = 10.
Those tangent lines will remain parallel at any point on the circle provided the radial line intercepting both circles is common to both. Therefore, particles moving along either circle in sync with the rotating radial line will be moving parallel to each other. Hence curvilinear translation.
Gordon,
The two tangent lines are tied to a rotating axial line, hence rotation, not curvilinear translation.
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/e110/Lecture%20Notes%20for%20Sections%2016-1%20-%2016-3.pdf
Page 3
In curvilinear translation the object remains orientated towards a singular direction, which your example of tangent lines to a radial line do not.
miker…”The Wolfram site illustrates beautifully an orbiting coin rolling around a stationary coin”.
No, it doesn’t. It’s clear beginning with the red dot on the rotating coin, which is the near face, that the radial line and the dot rotates through 360 degrees and only faces the Earth once per orbit.
miker…”Finally, what should be recognised is that the circle is a member of the general class of epicycloids”.
Absolutely nothing to do with the Earth-Moon system. Wolfram is simply showing how to create an epicycloid.
Gordon,
Are you aware the majority of coins are circular?
I am not sure who introduced the two coins into the argument? I have a vague memory that it might have been yourself.
You certainly have not claimed that it is not relevant lately, with your many ongoing comments over the past week or two.
Is this like the tangents argument which you ran with until it was clear that this argument confirmed rotation of the coin on its axis?
If you want to me to replace the coins depiction with a moon/earth depiction I will be happy to oblige.
Gordon.
Re-
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Epicycloid.html
For the cardioid the arrow on the coin points left initially , it points left again after it has orbited 180 degrees ( one rotation) and is on the other side of the stationary coin and is pointing left again when it gets back to home base. That corresponds to 2 rotations of the moving coin.
The reason there isn’t an ‘N=1’ epicycloid in the wolfram depictions is because epicycloids are formed by rolling a circle around another circle. Whereas the only way an ‘N=1’ epicycloid would work is by rolling a circle around a point. Anything bigger than a point, and you are sliding the circle around the other circle, rather than rolling it, to keep the same face always towards the center.
N=1 epicycloid.
https://postimg.cc/vxfd3pzj
That isn’t an epicycloid.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid
“In geometry, an epicycloid or hypercycloid is a plane curve produced by tracing the path of a chosen point on the circumference of a circle—called an epicycle—which rolls without slipping around a fixed circle. It is a particular kind of roulette.”
For two circles of the same size it is definitely rolling.
Point taken about circles of dissimilar size which will slip.
No….you are still not quite there. For two circles of the same size, to see one rolling around the other, study your N=2 case here:
https://i.postimg.cc/vZBWjn1x/Epi-Cycloids.gif
That is rolling. Your N=1 case is slipping.
Yes I see your point.
Here is a N = 1 epicycloid that corresponds to a larger coin rolling, without slipping, around a smaller coin.
https://i.postimg.cc/9MYL8rCz/N-1-Epicycloid.gif
So despite your claims, the N = 1 epicycloid does exist!
The score is one all.
Still slipping, MikeR.
My credibility was briefly slip sliding away, but now back on track to my destination.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-532461
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
DREM,
Here is the N=1 epicycloid which is a circle formed by rolling a circle around a circle, plus N=2 to N=4.
https://i.postimg.cc/vZBWjn1x/Epi-Cycloids.gif
This is proof that,
Concentric circles = orbital motion WITH axial rotation
Paths cross = orbital motion WIthout axial rotation
Did you really think you would get away with it?
There is no N=1 epicycloid. As your depiction clearly shows, the circle is sliding around the other circle, and not rolling. With a circle rolling around a point (the only way it would work), that is a case of a circle rotating about an external axis, not on its own axis. Hence, as I explained:
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation (including cases where the object is rotating on its own axis more than once, or in either direction relative to the orbit).
DREM
You are just being silly now. The sliding coin would have the line always pointing to the left while it orbits. This the N=0 epicycloid, which crosses over!
ClownR, in the N=1 case the circle is sliding around the other circle. Not rolling. To see it rolling around the other circle, study the N=2 case.
DREM ,so from N=2 to N = infinity , it is rolling but for N =1 it isn’t, while for N=0 it starts to roll again!!!
By the way my code,and presumably the Wolfram code, doesnt have an option to turn off friction, so rolling is always assumed and sliding is definitely not allowed.
No, MikeR. You have completely failed to understand epicycloids and you are making a massive fool of yourself. I am trying to help you. Look again at your wolfram link. The circles are different sizes, in each case. Only in what you describe as your N=2 case are the circles the same size as each other. In all cases shown in the wolfram link you have one circle rolling around another circle. To have a circle rolling around another circle more than once requires the rolling circle to be smaller than the circle it is rolling around.
DREM,
Is this another area of your expertise?
In biblical terms, you know not what you speaketh of!
Let’s simplify things.
For example consider the case of a car that is translating linearly.
If a car is rolling then the linear distance travelled per revolution of wheel equals the perimeter of the wheel.
For a car that is slipping instead, the centre of mass does not move at the 2 pi x R rate per revolution. It might be on ice and the wheels are spinning and the car is not moving or it might going down and moving faster than the wheels are spinning.
Similarly for a rolling , but not slipping , circle moving around another circle, it does not matter what the size of the rolling circle is!
R is the radius of the big circle, little r is the radius of the little circle . Assume N = 1.
The centre of the rolling (orbiting) circle must trace out a circle of radius R + r whose perimeter is 2pi x ( R + r ) corresponding to the distance travelled for one revolution. A point on The small circle’s perimeter must move 2pi x r for one rotation. The perimeter of the large stationary circle is 2pi x R.
Total distance travelled by centre of small circle = distance travelled due to rotation + distance travelled due to orbital motion.
Hence trivially
2pi x ( R + r ) = 2pi x r + 2pi x R
The N = 1 case must be rolling and not slipping irrespective of r or R !!!
For N not equal to 1, multiply both sides by N.
As per usual, I will sign off with a gif(t).
https://i.postimg.cc/vTSHHy6Q/Rolling.gif
None of the examples in your gif are rolling, MikeR. It becomes increasingly obvious the smaller the orbiting circle gets that it is just slipping around the perimeter of the other circle.
Once again, to have a circle rolling (not slipping) more than once around another circle requires the rolling circle to be smaller than the circle it is rolling around. Look at the animated example in this link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid
It is no coincidence that the radius of the orbiting circle is three times less than the radius of the circle it is moving around.
With respect to DREM’s ridiculous claim about the small circles slipping rather than rotating.
https://i.postimg.cc/kGF1CMVH/Rolling-verus-Slipping.gif
To anyone who is not Mr Magoo this obvious b.s..
Yes, that is also slipping.
Yes agreed. My eyesight isn’t what it used to be.
By the way…look here again:
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Epicycloid.html
What do you notice about the comparative radii of the two circles in each case? Do they remain the same as each other, as in your animation? Why do they not, do you think?
DREM’s Law of conservation of garbage.
Here is a depiction that demonstrates this law.
https://i.postimg.cc/vTSHHy6Q/Rolling.gif
Convincing evidence that MikeR does not know what “rolling” means.
DREM,
Re my comment about the difference between rolling and slipping.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-531301
What didn’t you understand in the above comment ? All of it or just some of it?
I already understand the difference between rolling and slipping, thanks. Perhaps this will help you rise above your current level of understanding:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-531370
DREM, do you harbour even a faint suspicion that you could be possibly wrong about your claim about the non rotation of the moon, irrespective of the frame of reference?
Not even a skerrick of doubt after all your assertions have been shot down in flames? You wouldn’t consider that the entire physics and astronomical communities might actually be right?
An admission of doubt might earn you some respect otherwise it is clear you are just another armchair buffoon.
Consider an object that physically cannot rotate on its own axis, like the wooden horse on the merry-go-round. All of its particles move in concentric circles about the center of the merry-go-round. Therefore:
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
QED.
Just to rub it in , here are the near and far points for the circles that are orbiting and rotating on their axes.
https://i.postimg.cc/hGSsJK9B/Near-and-far-Points-Epicycles.gif
So much for DREM’s concentric circle theory.
Bye, bye it was nice knowing you even if it was only for a couple of days.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-532432
No can’t agree of course.
See
https://i.postimg.cc/d3fnL0d0/Orbiting-Rotating-Epicycloids5.gif
Yes, you still do not understand epicycloids.
I have corrected my depiction for epicycloids.
https://i.postimg.cc/hj8K2bXx/Rolling-Epicycloids.gif
The orbiting dumbbell still shows the same epicycloidic behaviour.
https://i.postimg.cc/d3fnL0d0/Orbiting-Rotating-Epicycloids5.gif
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-532432
You really understand the difference? In that case what was wrong with what I wrote above at 5:47 pm.
Specifics please, rather than a recursive link to an earlier exchange that is currently running ( you are not doing very well there anyway).
Being the first day of October, I think it is time to call it.
R.I.P. The Good Ship Lunartic
As always, totally Lost at Sea.
We are sad to announce the sinking of the Lunartic.
All hands have been lost. The crew sailed around in large circles because none of them knew how to use the inertial navigation system.
After a brave struggle by all on board, who valiantly pumped out an enormous amount of bilge, the ship could not be salvaged so they fled to the lifeboats. Distress flares were occasionally ignited, but unfortunately they were extinguished when DREM PST’d himself.
The lifeboat “the Tangents” was the first to be swamped taking down the hapless Gordon. Commandant DREM then climbed aboard “the Concentric Circles” but it unfortunately met the same fate. ClintR disappeared without trace , sucked down in a rotating vortex of perversity , created in the wake of DREM’s descent.
The valiant efforts of the crew to keep the Lunartic afloat for two years has to be fully acknowledged. The ship was never seaworthy, a total rust bucket full of gaping holes. The only thing that worked were the bilge pumps which were manned to the very end.
Yes, I understand the difference between rolling and slipping. You clearly do not.
You have completely embarrassed yourself.
Is idiot MikeR admitting his ship has sunk?
Or is it just another of his incoherent typing exercises?
I think it’s a bit of both. Currently he is failing to understand the difference between rolling and sliding. That all came about due to a software malfunction which made him think one side of an orbiting object draws out an ellipse as it moves, whilst the other side draws out a peanut shape. This somehow led him to believe that orbiting objects move in concentric nephroids (!). On realizing his mistake, he decided to continue with the subject of epicycloids, believing he could try to salvage some of his lost credibility. Unfortunately he was unable to understands epicycloids, or even the difference between rolling and sliding, as mentioned earlier. This has led to his recent outburst about leaving the discussion, which has to be about the 50th time he has said he is going to leave.
Great entertainment!
Don’t miss silly Svante’s attempt to revive the “plates” nonsense, starting here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/09/climate-hustle-2-premieres-this-evening-at-8-p-m/#comment-531199
He’s conjured up a new “vision”, using “layers” instead of plates. He also changed the numbers, in a failed effort to hide his deception. But, he gets caught again.
Thanks, I’ll get my popcorn and enjoy the show.
Yes I have taken a hit to starboard but very much afloat.
You guys need to get your act together and decide which way the valves on your bilge pumps work. Gordon pumps it in while you two have to pump out the bilge,
Guys. Just feeling generous tonight, so just a reminder about the tangents problem which torpedoed Gordon and yourselves.
https://i.postimg.cc/tRyd8FpB/Tangents.gif
and the golden oldie
https://i.postimg.cc/WNC2W7Vk/Loony-Tunes-A.gif
and of course the more recent concentric circles and crossover circles.
https://i.postimg.cc/N0ZJYTKF/Orbital-Motion.gif
Which is a companion piece to
https://i.postimg.cc/Yqyz3jv2/Orbiting-Rotating-Epicycloids.gif
Enjoy!
p.s. I hope you still have that popcorn. Otherwise I can get some pizza in. I recommend the olives and anchovies.
Good night guys.
…and all of that is sunk by:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-531555
Actually observed is only get concentric circles if the horse rotates on its own axis exactly once per orbit of the cental axis.
Therefore as observed:
Concentric circles = one complete orbital motion with one horse axial rotation.
Paths cross = one complete orbital motion with less than or more than one horse axial rotation per complete horse orbit.
QED.
No Commandat DREM,
You are still under water and just generating bath farts. At least you are going down with the ship.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-532091
Just heard the news. Science 1 , Trump 0.
Too upset to continue.
I told you before…the only way your N=1 epicycloid can exist is if your outer circle is rolling around a point, rather than a circle. In which case it is still not an epicycloid, but a circle rotating about an external axis. Shrink your inner circle down to a point, and reanimate.
Of course, you will then be confirming that concentric circles represent rotation about an external axis, without axial rotation, but you might as well see your obsession with epicycloids down to its logical conclusion.
DREM
You are 100% correct. It doesn’t matter whether it is rolling or sliding , what is important is the orientation of the moving coin and it also doesn’t matter whether thay are epicycloids or not. Thank-you for helping me sort that out.
Accordingly let’s change tack.
See these two depictions below and decide whether any of the moving circles are
1. orbiting
2. or axially rotating
3 or both orbiting and axially rotating
https://i.postimg.cc/GpyML1vw/Rotation-Concetric-Circles-N-1.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/4yNb9CH3/Rotations-N-Greater-than-1.gif
I have my opinion and I am sure you will have a different opinion. I will leave it again to the Wisdom of the Crowd to decide for themselves.
The most important one is the concentric case of course. The other one is to just reinforce the message.
Just to finish off , here is the earlier orbital depiction that includes all the above curves.
https://i.postimg.cc/hjxCGjmr/Orbital-Motion2.gif
Sorry I forgot to include this one.
https://i.postimg.cc/Yqyz3jv2/Orbiting-Rotating-Epicycloids.gif
You are welcome, re the help.
1st gif = all orbiting without axial rotation.
2nd gif = all orbiting with axial rotation.
Here is the extremely obvious follow up to DREM’s highly amusing comment above.
https://i.postimg.cc/gksXjYR9/October-Surprise-Zero-Rotation-Orbit.gif
DREM’s unique* interpretation of is this depiction is that it represents a rotating moving circle, in stark contrast to
https://i.postimg.cc/GpyML1vw/Rotation-Concetric-Circles-N-1.gif
Which in DREM’s words ,”1st gif = all orbiting without axial rotation.”
As a result, the expression “laughed out of court” , immediately comes to mind.
* well almost, there’s Gordon and ClintR , assuming the latter isn’t just a figment of DREM’s over active imagination.
You do seem to struggle with objects that are rotating on their own axis in the opposite direction to their orbital movement, in sync.
Just picture an object resting on the outside edge of a turntable that is turning counter-clockwise. In order for it to appear to not be rotating, it has to rotate on its own axis, once, clockwise, per counter-clockwise orbit.
Yes of course DREM. Your just proving my case and also that 1 – 1 =0.
I rest my case.
I won’t even bother with the rotating tangent argument because that would be overkill.
“I rest my case.”
OK then, MikeR.
DREMT, why is lunar axial precession not oriented according to the orbital plane?
Why would it be?
Axial precession is an artifact of axial rotation.
The axial tilt is 1.54 deg compared to the orbital plane.
The precession does not match your description.
Actually the so-called “axial tilt” is 6.68 degrees to the lunar orbital plane. It is 1.54 degrees to the ecliptic. And no, at least according to Wikipedia, axial precession is due to gravity, not “an artifact of axial rotation”.
It is the rotational axis that traces out a cone.
“it is a continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body’s *rotational* axis”.
So it does not arise from its orbit, which is at a different angle.
An imaginary line through the moon that is not quite perpendicular to the moon’s orbital plane undergoes minute adjustments in its orientation over a period of years. Does that prove axial rotation about that imaginary line? Of course not.
Its magnitude is irrelevant.
It’s the fact that it is there.
OK, Svante. I acknowledge receipt of your opinions.
“Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler”.
Your model fails in that respect. Elliptic orbit plus constant rotation does not.
#2
OK, Svante. I acknowledge receipt of your opinions.
Thank you.
OK, Svante. I acknowledge receipt of your gratitude.
It’s not like the moon’s rotation and orientation of the axis of rotation* have beeen directly measured on a continuing basis since the 1970’s?
That would mean that DREM et al.’s ( including all incarnations since G-e-r-a-n) asinine assertions would be asinine excrement evacuated via DREM’s ass~.
Surely not?
*https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6059837_Lunar_Laser_Ranging_A_Continuing_Legacy_of_the_Apollo_Program
~a.k.a. ClintR.
The above reference (not to DREM’s ass) was mangled by WordPress.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6059837_Lunar_Laser_Ranging_A_Continuing_Legacy_of_the_Apollo_Program
Yes, they too cannot correctly separate orbital motion from axial rotation. It’s a common problem.
So where were you when the Apollo program installed these devices !!!?
You could have saved them a fortune. They could have just installed them in the studios where they simulated the moon landings.
Fancy all those scientists publishing the rotational data for almost 50 years. You should be writing to the journals explaining your objections in details.😂
OK, Mike “Nephroids” R.
OK, ” Dr Roys Emergency Haemorrhoids Medical Team”.
You are being disrespectful to our host, by implying he needs a medical team for haemorrhoids. Bad form, MikeR.
You are being disrespectful to our host by implying you share his views.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Where have I implied that, troll?
You imply it by using his name.
Nonsense, troll.
No disrespect intended to Dr Roy but maybe he does, or maybe he doesnt, need a team of proctologists. Do you have some inside information?
Anyway, I think we all need to use copious amounts of haemorrhoid cream after reading each of your comments.
Which obviously you are forced to read.
Just being polite.
Yes, you are a very polite stalker.
So DREM,
where were you when the Apollo program installed the laser retroreflectors to measure the moon’s rotation !!!!!?
You could have saved the space program a fortune. They could have just simply installed them in the studios where they simulated the moon landings.
Why are scientists still publishing this fraudulent rotational data and have been doing so for almost 50 years?
Why aren’t you writing to the journals explaining your objections in detail and demanding retractions.
So many questions, so much avoidance!
Yes, MikeR, they think the moon is rotating on its own axis. This is because they do not correctly separate orbital motion from axial rotation, just like you.
So they are recording the moon’s change in orientation as it orbits, mistaking that for axial rotation. The measurements themselves aren’t “wrong”, or “fraudulent”, they are just not measuring axial rotation. So it’s not like they are wasting their time, really.
I can’t be bothered to contact the journals. They wouldn’t listen to me anyway. No doubt they would scoff and dismiss what I have to say in the same way you have. If people won’t give Tesla the benefit of the doubt, why would they listen to me? I’ve never claimed to have any expertise in this.
It’s just a simple, fundamental concept. You either get it or you don’t. I was unfortunate enough to understand it from the get go, as I think bill hunter did when the idea was first introduced to him. Once you understand it, it’s impossible to go back.
DREM, you claim no expertise. When did this suddenly dawn upon you? It is such a shame that you have several thousand comments over two years furiously debating those that clearly do have some expertise.
You claim it is such a simple , fundamental theory which can in some cases be a virtue, however in this case it is simply wrong and fundamentally flawed.
History is littered with simple, fundamental theories (phlogiston, aether, miasma theory of black death etc, etc…) that turned out to be junk. All these are much more credible than the nonsense you have been peddling.
Yes DREM, those with the appropriate expertise would scoff at your simple theory. Yes you are again 100% correct in that assessment.
I’m not aware of having debated any astronomers on here. Certainly there have been a lot of people that are up themselves and who think they know everything…but nobody with any actual expertise on the issue. Not that any is required to understand the moon axial rotation argument, which you either get or you don’t. Those who don’t understand it do tend to get quite upset with those that do.
Hi DREM,
Just when you think it is safe to go back into the water!
DREM, I don’t know if anyone that has debated you on this matter is a professional astronomer.
I am a mere life long amateur and have enough awareness of these matters, that I could tell by instinct (i.e. from time t=0) that what you were claiming was crap. Then my physics training kicked in and I worked out that it was absolute crap. My mind has not changed since.
If you however want to engage with an astronomer , either professional or amateur, then I encourage you to do so.
Accordingly a visit to the local Astronomical Society should be illuminating.
Sometimes you need to have a sense of humour to survive the cold nights, keeping the dew away, so these discussions about the moon could provide much needed merriment to all and sundry (until you outlive your welcome).
Mars is just days away from opposition, so now is a good time to learn some astronomy and if you don’t start raving, they might allow you to peer down the eyepiece. Saturn and Jupiter are also good viewing at the moment and you can easily see some of their tidally locked moons.
Good luck to yourself and particularly to any of my friends in the astronomical community that has the fortune ( or more accurately misfortune) to encounter you.
Yes, as I said, there certainly have been a lot of people who are up themselves, and think they know everything…
Ok DREM, despite confessing that you have no expertise, you paradoxically make the ultimate arrogant “know all ” claim that you and a few select companions are the only ones capable of having the appropriate “unique insights” into orbital motion.
You have also made it abundantly clear that you think that people (i.e. the rest of the scientific community) who don’t share these amazing insights are just naive sheeple.
If this is a misrepresentation of your views, please let me know.
Of course it’s a misrepresentation, as are most of your comments. There is no “confession” involved in my not being an astronomer. I never claimed to be. And I would never appeal to my own authority in any case. I leave that to you guys, who crow on about their credentials in order to try to sway people to your view. I never said anything about “unique insights”. It’s just something you either get, or you don’t. I can’t help it that I understood it immediately. I almost wish I hadn’t.
I’ve never said or implied anything about the people who don’t get it. All I know is, it seems to make them angry. Angry, obsessive and relentless in some cases. Oh well.
So DREM your arrogance was well illustrated here.
Referring to the scientists who have been been analysing rotational data for 50 years.
“Yes, they too cannot correctly separate orbital motion from axial rotation. Its a common problem.”
What was amazing was the confession , in a preceding comment was that you yourself had no expertise regarding this matter!
You now state, for the particular case of astronomy, that you have no expertise. Do you have expertise in physics or any expertise in any field at all?
The answer appears to be self evident but I would like to hear your answer.
As for your delusions of grandeur, what else can one make of your comments –
“Its just a simple, fundamental concept. You either get it or you dont. I was unfortunate enough to understand it from the get go”.
and again above
“just something you either get, or you dont. I cant help it that I understood it immediately. I almost wish I hadnt.”
DREM, Please seek help with regard to your delusional stare before you find yourself involuntarily confined with others who claim they are also uniquely omniscient.
DREM,
Are your comments about your own amazing insights, like saying, “I wish I didn’t realise I was Jesus”?
I think we are getting to the nub of the matter.
I don’t think I’m anything special, MikeR. Plenty of people understand what I understand. It’s incredibly simple and straightforward. Sorry you didn’t get it, but don’t take it out on me. Perhaps it’s all your training that stops you from getting it. Too much inculcation.
Plenty of people? ClintR, Gordon, Bill? The apostles seem to be thin on the ground lately.
Anybody else who has rushed to nail their colours to the mast?
Perhaps there are there legions of scientists, somewhere out there, that are demanding that the truth about the rotation of the moon be revealed?
Personally I would be otally astounded if even 3% of astronomers and physicists would share these amazing insights of yours? I think you would be struggling to get 0.00003 (+/- 0.00003) % ,on a good day, to agree with you.
Perhaps this is because scientists are just sheeple that have been inculcated by reading scientific papers and other such nonsense?.
Additionally the lay public have been exposed to numerous articles and videos, over many decades, in books and now on the internet, about why only one side of the moon is visible.
All of these differ from your version.
Have the public been brainwashed by an evil cabal that wants to hide the truth about the moon’s rotational deficiencies?
So many questions. The evaluation of DREM’s mental state is contingent on the answers,
The number of people who have at one time or another commented in favor of the “Non-Spinner” position runs into the double figures on this blog, last time I counted. Not a huge amount, but quite surprising considering it’s such an apparently niche viewpoint. I don’t think the subject is one that the general public is particularly aware of. They most likely wouldn’t care either way. I think the average man on the street would understand that the wooden horse on the merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis, but I could be wrong.
As to astronomers…well, they’ve done things a certain way for this long…why would they bother to change it? Who is raising the issue to them? Are they likely to listen, or even try to understand? Probably not. No conspiracy theories required, MikeR.
DREM , I am glad that you agree it is a niche theory. So niche, I think it should be interred as soon as possible.
Depending on how you count sock puppets, there seems to be maybe half a dozen adherents. Other than hard core i.e. yourself/ClintR and Gordon, most have shown little or no commitment and have drifted off .
I am also glad that you don’t believe in a conspiracy, so it still leaves the question as to why you are so fervent in your belief.
Is it a matter of ideology, like the attitude to climate change and Covid19 which split along ideological fault lines?
Probably not, because some of your natural allies have made it abundantly clear that they think you are a total whackjob when it comes to this issue. Others appear to have just ignored you, hoping vainly you would go away.
So in the end, you are preaching the gospel almost alone, looking for the next station of the cross. Fortunately the last station will most likely be in a place where you can safely* relate to like minded others, the details of your theory.
* however the debate with the flat earthers could become heated. You should however, find plenty of common ground with the followers of the NASA moon landing hoax conspiracy. In fact you could launch a recruiting campaign based on the fact that those NASA scientists and engineers were too stupid to realise that the moon was not rotating. It would be a great selling point.
p.s. with regard to astronomers, your theory, if correct, is so revolutionary that they would be complete idiots to ignore it. Accordingly I urge you to start an online campaign, using all means at your disposal, such as petitions, emails and the creation of Reddit and Facebook groups.
DREM, can you do the moonwalk? A Tiktok presence would be invaluable.
Those who have at one point or another posted in agreement with the “Non-Spinners” include:
ClintR
Gordon Robertson
DREMT
Swenson
gbaikie
bill hunter
Ftop_t
AndyG55
Martin
Harves
Scott R
I think I am missing one or two. That is just the people who have chosen to actually comment. There is likely to be more that think it, but don’t say it…and this is just on this blog, which is not even an astronomy blog. If you check the astronomy blogs, this topic has come up before. It’s niche, but not to the extent you are trying to make out.
Wow MikeR makes a major appeal for democratic science. Screw the facts its all about what people want it to be. LMAO!!!
MikeR says:
I am also glad that you dont believe in a conspiracy, so it still leaves the question as to why you are so fervent in your belief.
=========================
Its not a matter of belief its simply the understanding of what a ”system” is and the true dynamics of that system.
MikeR says:
Is it a matter of ideology, like the attitude to climate change and Covid19 which split along ideological fault lines?
===============================
Yes I have noticed that also. I am toying with the idea of writing a paper on it. Briefly speaking, the main ideological difference was expressed by Mike Pence in the VP debate in regards to the attack on the administration’s covid-19 response.
Pence said the administration had great faith in the American people to individually take the information provided about social distancing, process that information, and arrive at a response suitable to their perception of risk to themselves and others.
Something people of faith routinely do in truly respecting the intelligence and rights of others.
OTOH, the other side is focused on an ignorant public that is only going to do what others do. The leaders of that group are like a herd of fawning mothers worrying about their inexperienced children. That’s a fantastic model for your children indeed. But its pretty disrespectful to believe you are smart enough to determine what everybody else should do.
The impact of this pandemic would have been a lot better off if say the Governor of New York had not ordered nursing homes to accept covid patients. the list is awfully long of stupid boneheaded things that government does all out of disrespect for the intelligence and frequently rights of the people they govern.
My gawd at the start of all this the medical community was telling everybody face masks don’t work and travel bans don’t work. . . .just another thing to make political hay out of like saying border crossing barriers don’t work.
Meanwhile you have the democrats attacking the administration for their Covid response, yet their platform on it as noted by Mike Pence looks like it was plagiarized from what the administration has been doing.
I always say and it particularly applies to politics. Don’t listen to what politicians say but pay very close attention to what they do. In this case the democrat plan for a covid response is a stunning endorsement for the administration. Imitation is the greatest compliment.
And of course the moon also obviously just coincidentally rotates on its own at the exact average speed as its orbit. . . .NOT!
NOT! There’s quite a big difference between the varying orbital speed and the steady rotation.
DREMT says:
“I think the average man on the street would understand”.
Yes, your simpleton idea must have dominated since the stone age. The ancient greeks might have seen (!) the problem, but it was really until Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton that it became apparent. The simpleton model just can’t explain observations.
Svante, could you be a little less obnoxious please?
Thanks.
DREM, so there are 12 apostles, most who have unfortunately gone missing in action! Maybe they are still roaming the streets wearing sandwich boards or involuntarily domiciled somewhere.
Anyway probably enough for a Facebook group.
Can you locate the astronomy group where similar discussions are taking place. Is it the Flat Earth group?
Bill “And of course the moon also obviously just coincidentally rotates on its own at the exact average speed as its orbit.”
Nah Bill, definitely not a coincidence. God ordained it*.
Either that or tidal locking.
* the lord moves in mysterious ways. If she could freeze the sun for Joshua , then getting every moon in the solar system to act if they are tidally locked would be child’s play.
“Wow MikeR makes a major appeal for democratic science. Screw the facts its all about what people want it to be. LMAO!!!”
Is the non-rotating moon theory part of the Republican platform? Will it be mandated to be taught in those states where Creationism is on the school curriculum?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump, juiced up on dexies, announces that this is his new Science policy. DREM’s silent majority, who secretly believe that the moon doesn’t rotate, will cause a landslide of epic proportions.
With Bill heading his new medical team, covid will be abolished by decree and everyone will live happily ever after.
Here is one example:
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/archive/index.php/t-86156.html
Notice how some of the forum members mention that this is not the first time it has been discussed, etc.
As you already know, there are others posting videos about it on YouTube, etc.
Stop trying to pretend it is all me. You are obsessed.
Thank-you DREM for posting that link!!!!! Did you actually read it?
There was no evidence that any of them believed for one second that moon does not rotate! This is not surprising as it was an astronomical forum.
You have shot yourself in the foot yet again. This is the only thing you seem to be competent at.
You obviously didn’t read Sam5’s comments closely enough.
It is actually a great pity that DREM et al. didn’t read this back in 2009. The explanations given there cover most of the material that has been debated here over the past 2 years.
Just illustrates What a waste of time it has been and what a waste of space is g-e-r-a-n/DREM.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, g-e-r-a-n.
When you re-read Sam5’s comments, make sure you take note of the fact that part of them are quotes of other people’s comments. Don’t get yourself all confused! Actually, if you click on the link at the top to see the full version, it makes things clearer.
Yes I read Sam5’s contributions. You clearly didn’t.
He was in eventual agreement that the moon rotated. He also learnt that the moon was oval shape and not a perfect sphere.
No, he did not agree that the moon rotates on its own axis.
Just when you thought that this could not get any stupider!
My reading is that Sam5 was not sure and left after the following comment cleared up his confusion.
However DREM, if your bespoke reading of his comments is that he was convinced of your case then “Sam5 from 2009” is your 13th apostle!
This has clearly tipped the scales! The entire astronomical world is devastated and physicists everywhere are bewildered and in mourning, wandering around in sackcloth and ashes.
The Book of Lamentations will need an addendum.
He left arguing a point I have never seen raised before. I might bring it up at a future date, once I have checked it out.
DREM,
He didn’t seem to be arguing with other 20 contributors on his way out and has not been spotted since his exit, by man or beast.
Perhaps I should interview everybody on the planet about the issue and report the results to you? Or will you still not be satisfied unless they come and argue with you in person on this particular sub-thread?
No DREM,
Heaven forbid. You know how long that would take and you’re not guaranteed to find anybody.
So lets just go with 12.5 disciples (0.5 for Sam5,2009 who may or may not agree) of which 3 or 4 seem to be still extant.
Just one last question. You claim you have no relevant expertise. Are the others similarly credentialed?
MikeR misses the point.
And what point may that be?
You and a few others share a delusion of grandeur that you maybe the only people around who have this insight?
If you want to gain adherents maybe you need to concentrate on proselytising to a more receptive audience. Join the Flat Earth Facebook group.
No, MikeR. The point is maybe you could learn to extrapolate. You seem to think it is literally just me and a handful of others vs. everybody else in the entire world. You are constructing your own little narrative, which no amount of evidence will sway you from.
DREM,
You are the one trying to simultaneously revolutionise astronomy and physics. If you going to get anywhere you need to demonstrate that you are not just a bunch of delusional nutjobs that believe they hold this amazing insight that others lack.
Unfortunately you appear to lack a groundswell of credible support. However great ideas sometimes generate their own momentum.
Maybe you should nail your credo to the front door of your local Astronomical Observatory or Department of Physics and wait to see if you are flooded with converts.
Good luck with that,
“that believe they hold this amazing insight that others lack.”
We don’t. As I keep explaining, it’s not some amazing insight. It is amazingly simple and straightforward. I’m sorry you don’t get it, but stop taking it out on me. Try to grow up, and calm down.
A plaintive cry, “but stop taking it out on me*,
DREM, we have already determined that you have Messianic thoughts. Now you have a persecution complex.
Don’t worry, I am not intending to feed you to the lions. They have much better taste and anyway are not fond of trolls that lack succulent grey matter.
Try to grow up, and calm down.
Nah DREM, cool as a cucumber here.
How’s the paranoia going? Am I still out to get you?
…grow up, and calm down.
The troll is going into repetition mode again.
You are indeed. Still repeating the same tired arguments, hoping for a different outcome, e.g:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-537664
No different question.
No different. OK, MikeR.
The Guardian reporter minds are exploding!
No need to make a case for renewable subsidies anymore as the price of renewables will build them out painlessly on a for-profit pace.
And since no identifiably harm has been seen (that would be via science rather than political posturing) we can all just take the better road and not impact everybody in the nation, especially the poorest, to get somewhere where there is no identified need to rush.
Consumerism has demonstrated the advisability with the popularity of battery operated cars etc. We are no longer on the ‘business as usual’ track that so many feared.
Sit back and enjoy the ride.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/05/aussie-government-we-dont-need-a-carbon-price-because-renewables-are-too-cheap/
Wasn’t so hard, was it?
You have to be rich to afford coal power.
Yes Bill definitely.
The Australian Government should immediately level the playing field by removing the $12 billion subsidy to the fossil fuel industry and also the $2.8 billion subsidy to renewable energy.
See –
https://www.marketforces.org.au/campaigns/ffs/tax-based-subsidies/
https://www.afr.com/politics/renewable-energy-subsidies-to-top-28b-a-year-up-to-2030-20170313-guwo3t
Svante is also right that until now the “Lucky Country” has been able to afford these massive subsidies.
I thought it might change for the new Covid economy as the government is predicting this year, to be in deficit by a nickel or two ( $213.7 billion), so maybe $14.8 billion is considered to be just a rounding error.
More information about the latest budget, fossil fuels and renewables can be found here.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-new-budget-feeds-taxpayer-fuel-to-an-emissions-monster-97678/
Sure thing Mike that would be extremely fair if they did that at the same time they removed special taxes of fossil fuels like excise taxes. I am sure the fossil fuel industry would be fully on board with giving up partial refunds on fossil fuel taxes if there were no special taxes.
Send a letter in support. I am sure it will be appreciated.
The discussion continues…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-533774
miker…”You [Dremt] claim it is such a simple , fundamental theory which can in some cases be a virtue, however in this case it is simply wrong and fundamentally flawed.
The problem is in your brain Mike. You are suffering the consequences of the cosmic joke, the joke being that the creator gave us humans a brain that does not work well but we believe it does.
You are being fooled by an illusion and you are far too rigid to see the illusion, even though it’s pointed out to you. That’s what Dremt is getting at, once you see it, the obvious stands out like a sore thumb.
I have pointed it out to you using tangent lines on a circular orbit but you lack the basics to understand the principles underlying the tangent to a curve. You think the tangent lines are rotating around a lunar axis but you fail to understand that any one of the tangent lines is an instantaneous point on the orbital curve and not a tangent rotating about a lunar axis.
A tangent line can only be defined for one point on a curve at any one time. As the Moon moves point to point on its orbital curve the tangent must be calculated at each one of those points. In other words, the tangent line for the near face on a rotating radial line is related to the Earth’s centre, not the lunar centre.
It’s not the tangent lines rotating its your concept of a tangent line that convinces you it is rotating about an axis.
Gordon, you can keep on spluttering but compare Case A with Case B in
https://i.postimg.cc/tRyd8FpB/Tangents.gif
I rest my case.
miker…”compare Case A with Case B …”
With regard to case A, imagine a radial line extending from your red line that always points to the Earth’s centre to the Earth’s centre. So, you have a red rotating line from the Earth’s centre through the Moon (moving coin) and the red line on Case A that always points to the Earth’s centre is on that line.
Take a tangent line at each point of rotation of the radial line and visualize those three tangents as belong to three concentric circles. One tangent is for the near face, one for the centre, and one for the far face of the rotating coin. You have three concentric circles the inner representing the motion of the near-face, the outer representing the far-face, and the middle circle representing the motion of the potential axis or centre.
Are you trying to tell me that at each point of the orbit, those three tangents are not always parallel? I can see it plainly and I have no idea what you imagine you are seeing. With those three tangents always parallel, how can they rotate around the centre of the moving coin?
You have a rotating radial line with three tangent lines perpendicular to it and they cannot rotate around any point on the radial line. Ergo, no rotation about the centre of the moving coin.
Ok. Gordon
Use whatever logic you used for Case A and apply exactly the same logic to case B with reference to the tangents (aqua and lime) .
Reminder that there is agreement that in both cases, the moving coin is orbiting. The dispute is, for which of the two cases is the moving coin also rotating?
Report back with your conclusions. Over to you now.
miker…”Report back with your conclusions. Over to you now”.
What’s the point, you lack the precise understanding of a tangent line to understand what I am getting at? The tangent line is not moving, there is a different tangent line for each point on the orbital curve. The only way to visual that is to relate the tangent lines to a rotating radial line, where they are fixed and not able to rotate about a local axis, which is also on the radial line and moving parallel with the points representing the near-face and far-face.
Throw out Case B, it is irrelevant. Case A is your reality. There is no agreement that both coins are orbiting about a local, internal axis, they are rotating about an external axis centred at the Earth’s centre. Rather than rotation, we normally refer to that as revolution or orbiting.
Once again, with Case A, draw an imaginary radial line from the centre of the stationary coin through the centre of the moving coin so it extends beyond the coin. Now imagine three concentric circles: one at the radius of the near-face, one at the radius of the far-face and one in-between through the centre of the moving coin. As the radial line turns, there is a new tangent line defined at each point on any circle for which it is the radial component.
This cannot be the actual case since the Moon (coin) is a rigid body. However, we can imagine points on the radial line at the near-face, the centre, and the far-face and consider them orbiting in concentric circles. When we draw tangent line at the intersection of the radial line with each concentric circle, we see immediately that those tangent line must always be parallel to each other.
Remember, at each point traversed by the tangent line on each circle, a new tangent line is defined. The tangent lines do not follow a fixed point on any circle they are constantly redefined on the orbital paths at each point on the orbital path.
That tells you that the three points on the radial line representing the near-face, the centre, and the far-face must always be parallel to each other. That excludes any rotation about a local centre.
The moving coin or the Moon APPEARS to be rotating. It is not, the orbital path is forcing a change in direction so the near-face always points toward the Earth’s centre.
Obviously a circle cannot force a change in direction but Earth’s gravity, acting along the radial line, can force a change in direction of the Moon. With the coins, you need to replicate that change by sliding the moving coin around the periphery of the stationary coin while adjusting the radial line to always point toward the centre of the stationary coin.
If you try to rotate the moving coin at any point around its local centre, the radial line immediately points away from the stationary coin’s centre. By the time you move halfway around the periphery, the radial line has rotated through 180 degrees and the near-face is now the far-face.
Gordon,
The point of having a theory is that it should be able to cover all cases unless the theory is total b.s..
Accordingly Case B which screws over your analysis is absolutely of utmost relevance.
p.s. your red herrings are also being to stink. No-one is suggesting either coin is orbiting/revolving about an internal axis as this axiomatically false!
Just ask DREM.
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yadda, yadda, yadda, just regurgitation of material that’s already been debated on numerous occasions.
That is all that is left for DREM.
I know being useful violates the troll’s code of ethics but helping Gordon with his dilemma regarding case B and the wicked tangent problem, might be actually be useful.
MikeR, you are the one repeating yourself. Then you call me out. What do you expect me to say?
Hmmm, what exactly have I been repeating in my exchanges with yourself, DREM?
However, I have insisted, on more than one occasion that Gordon try and deal with the elephant in the room with regard to Case B , rather than launching another of his long winded confused contributions. Is this the repetition you are referring to?
I was hoping that you would help him out with one of your “insights” specifically with regard to the tangents for case B. It is a pity you haven’t as Gordon is lost at sea. Why dont you give it a go?
#2
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Can anyone find the troll’s reset button?
Yes, it would be good to reset you.
Or would it? You are still just repeating the same mistakes over and over again already, so who knows how bad it could be if your memory was wiped.
How do you put this troll into control mode?
I know the user name is DREM. Is the password still “moron”?
Why would the username to your system be DREM? Oh, I forgot…you are that obsessed with me. I assume you know your own password.
I think the DREM troll needs a security upgrade. The “moron” password was too obvious.
DREM has been hacked by a troll farm controlled by the GRU. About to release Clinton’s emails.
OK, MikeR.
MikeR, you read DREMTs Tomic reference, didn’t you?
I found the paper a bit unclear, but I find it hard to believe that someone with his credentials would support DREMT.
A diploma in astronomy in 1975 and then magister in astrophysics 2005, not exactly in orbital mechanics but still well done for a 58 year old. Tesla was over 60 when he wrote his moon piece in the Electrical Experimenter magazine.
http://acaatomic.angelfire.com/ALEKSANDAR__TOMIC_-_CV-_06.pdf
Is Tomic serious or is it just some Tesla homage.
I would say the following is more of a homage
https://tinyurl.com/y39696qd
It mainly consists of extracts from Tesla’s article with little additional commentary.
Unfortunately much of it is difficult to read, as English is clealy not the native language of the author or Tesla. Maybe in the original Serbian it would be comprehensible.
High school teacher for eighteen years, I think he’s A OK.
Apropos of the above, the paper unsurprisingly appears to have sunk without trace and has zero citations from anyone.
How did you find it DREMT?
The paper you are thinking of (different to the one MikeR linked to) was found by Bindidon.
miker…”p.s. your red herrings are also being to stink. No-one is suggesting either coin is orbiting/revolving about an internal axis as this axiomatically false!”
I see your problem now, you are late to the party. The problem we have been discussing(??) for a long time now is whether the Moon rotates about an internal axis, like the Earth.
The spinners, have been arguing that the Moon rotates once per orbit ON ITS AXIS. That’s what the debate is about. So you have been arguing about who knows what? You state above “No-one is suggesting either coin is orbiting/revolving about an internal axis…” So, you agree that the Moon is not rotating once per orbit on its axis.
Your Case A proves without a doubt that the Moon is NOT rotating on its axis but performing curvilinear translation.
I don’t believe your protestations, however. I think you are trying to remove egg from your face because you may finally have seen the truth.
Gordon,in your semantic confusion, you don’t seem to be aware of the difference between revolving and rotating in the astronomical sense. I will take it very ,very slowly.
In astronomy, revolving describes an object orbiting around an external axis i,e. The earth is revolving around an axis through the centre (actually barycentre of the sun/earth) of the sun. Last I heard the sun was not inside the earth. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?
Again in astronomical terms, rotation about an axis describes rotation about an internal axis (I expect that there might be exceptions, such as irregular horse-shoe or boomerang shaped asteroids).
So my claim is the standard one found in every astronomical text book, that the moon is revolving around the earth every 27.3 days and the moon is rotating on its axis every 27.3 days.
I think it is time to give up using the Socratic method with Gordon, as at the corresponding stage, the old fellow decided he could no longer put up with the stupidity of his students and decided to end it all.
I don’t have access to hemlock , so I will just have to explain to Gordon, that for Case A below the moving coin is orbiting and rotating on its axis as per the moon while for Case B the moving coin is orbiting but not rotating.
https://i.postimg.cc/tRyd8FpB/Tangents.gif
The graphics in Case A and Case B were generated by exactly the same piece of software with one adjustable parameter, the rotation speed of the moon.
If you don’t believe me, then go ahead and make my day, by writing your own version(alternatively get some help from someone who knows how to code).
Except that revolution without axial rotation is already defined like Case A:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
Except??? What is this “except” bull shite?
For the tenth time (see comment directly above!) that definition is 100% correct ( Gordon note) and concords with Case A being the rotating case and Case B non-rotating which is obvious to anyone with normal vision and a functioning cerebral cortex.
DREM, your trolling is so tedious. Is this what gives meaning to your life?
miker…”For the tenth time (see comment directly above!) that definition is 100% correct ( Gordon note) and concords with Case A being the rotating case…”
For cripes sake, LOOK at Case A. Is it that hard for you to comprehend basic math?
You have a radial line from the centre of the stationary coin extending through the centre of the moving coin. As the rotating radial line touches each point on the orbit, I have asked you to imagine three points on it, forming three concentric sub orbits: the inner orbit representing the near-face, the outer orbit the far-face, and the inner orbit the axial point.
At each instant (point) on the orbit, the inner face must point to the Earth’s centre. Draw a tangent line at the point where the radial line meets the near-face at any point of the orbit. That tangent line must always be perpendicular to the radial line, otherwise the near-face cannot remain pointed at the Earth’s centre.
That proves in itself the near-face cannot orbit about the point on the radial line representing its centre.
Now draw a tangent perpendicular to the far-face where the radial line extends from that face. That tangent line MUST BE always parallel to the near-face tangent line, otherwise the near-face cannot remain pointed toward the Earth.
This is dead simple stuff and you are obfuscating it in your denial.
miker…”So my claim is the standard one found in every astronomical text book, that the moon is revolving around the earth every 27.3 days and the moon is rotating on its axis every 27.3 days”.
I just proved to you using your Case A coin gif that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate about its axis every 27 days. The problem is, you don’t understand what a tangent line is by definition and you cannot follow the math I am trying to explain to you.
You are out of your league and bluffing your way through. What I have explained is totally clear to anyone who understands the calculus of an orbiting body. You fail to grasp what I am saying and you are offering some mumbo jumbo interpretation in which you claim I am talking about a body rotating within itself.
We are talking about the same thing re the Moon’s alleged rotation. In the last reply I compared the two to the Earth’s rotation on its axis so you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Mike, your brain is not functioning properly. Fix it!!! Become aware rather than relying on conditioned garbage in your mind.
Look Gordon,
I am really, really dumb and cannot understand your maths.
Perhaps you are simply referring to the concentric circles for the near and far points that indicate an object is rotating on it’s axis while it is revolving about an external axis. See the debate between myself and DREM.
If i have got this wrong then help me out. If you can draw a diagram on a piece of paper and photograph it and then upload it then I am willing to engage further.
Anyway it is all moot as you can’t , or are unwilling, to confront Case B, which indicates your theory is total bunkum.
By the way my theory works very well for both cases.
p.s. I am also extremely puzzled about “you claim I am talking about a body rotating within itself”. Did I make such a claim?
Did anybody make such a claim?
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Who asked you? Can’t Gordon answer for himself?
miker…”Perhaps you are simply referring to the concentric circles for the near and far points that indicate an object is rotating on its axis while it is revolving about an external axis”.
I am using the concentric circle to represent just three points on the Moon: a point on the near face where a radial line from the centre of the Earth pierces the near face as it passes through the Moon, a similar point on the far-face where it exits the Moon, and a point in the centre of the Moon on the same radial line.
I am taking some license here in presuming the the lunar orbit is a pure circle. It’s not but it’s fairly close. It’s much easier to think in terms of pure circles. A radial line is simply a radius of a circle, which as an ordinary line, can be extended outside of the circle if required.
Think of radial as the spokes on a wheel. Usually they terminate at the wheel rim but there’s nothing stopping you extending them beyond the rim, say for traction. I use the term radial line to represent both the radius of a circle and a line extending from a hub that can extend to infinity if required. Conversely, a tangential line is a line perpendicular to a radial line where the radial line meets a circle or a curve.
If you imagine the Earth’s centre at 0,0 on an x,y plane, then the tail of the radial line is located there. The tip of it is located on a circle with radius = r, where r can be any number. If you consider the Moon, then a radial line extends from the centre of the Earth through the Moon, with a circular orbit, and it turns with the Moon, completing an orbit in 27 days and change.
Suppose you put your moving coin at x,y = 5,0. So its centre is located along the x-axis at x = 5 and y = 0. If we treat the coin as a rigid body then we presume its centre of mass is located at x = 5 and y = 0. We can do that because the coin is fairly uniform in mass throughout the coin.
We have a coin centred at x,y = 5,0 with a radial line extending from 0,0 to 5,0. We want to let the coin move around the circle so the same face on the side that faces 0,0 is always facing 0,0. We call that the near-side of the coin.
We let the coin start moving around the circle and the radial line moves with it, always pointing at the centre of the coin. So we have the condition you and Dremt talked about where a rigid body is rotating around 0,0 as an external axis.
What I have done is kept the circle at the centre of the coin and added two more circles. Suppose the coin has a diameter of 2. It therefore extends 1 x-unit along the x-axis either side of x = 5, so it’s near face is at x = 4 and its far face is at x = 6. I have drawn a circle at x = 4 and another at x = 6. But I am doing this to focus only on a single point on the near face, a single point on the far face and a single point on centre at x = 5.
Now we have 3 overlapping radial lines, one of length 4, touching the near face, one of x = 5 touching the centre, and one of x = 6 touching the far side. I am focused on those three points as they rotate about the external axis 0,0.
However, I have added 3 perpendicular lines to those radial lines at x = 4, x = 5 and x = 6 to represent tangent lines to the circles. I want to watch those 3 tangent lines to make sure they are always parallel at any point on the three circles.
In fact, they do remain parallel. Move the coin around CCW to the top of the circle and look at them. The near face must be pointing toward 0.0, which it is. Therefore the tangent line at the near face to the circle at x = 0, y = 4 is still perpendicular to the radial line, now pointing to x = 0, y = 4. Same for the tangent line at x = 0, y = 5, and x = 0, y = 6. All three tangent lines are parallel to each other after a 90 degree rotation about 0,0.
That means the coin cannot have rotated about its own centre.
Do the same at any point on the circle and those three tangent lines will remain parallel to each other. That means clearly that the near face is always pointed to 0,0 and the far-face is always pointed away from it. Since the centre of the coin is also moving on a sub-orbit parallel to the near-face and the far-face, neither the near-face nor the far-face can rotate around it.
Those three concentric circles only represent three points on the coin/Moon that touch a radial line from the external axis through the Moon. The orbits as such don’t exist because both the coin and the Moon are rigid bodies and as such all points on the rigid bodies must move in concentric circles, at the same angular velocity, IF THE NEAR FACE ALWAYS POINTS TOWARD 0,0.
Gordon,
Your comment above is unnecessarily complex and you have not made an effort to 1. Illustrate it with a diagram and 2, apply it to both cases.
The decision as to whether the moving coin is rotating or not fir both cases is remarkably simple. It only requires the answer to just two questions.
Is coin 1 rotating on its axis or not?
Coin 1 – https://postimg.cc/kV5q4zVz
Likewise is coin 2 rotating on its axis or not?
Coin 2 – https://postimg.cc/tnQKhMTX
If you are unable, or unwilling to answer, then there is not much point in continuing the discussion. However I hope to hear from you. Good night.
You have to look at the whole orbit to determine whether or not an object is rotating on its own axis. A good rule of thumb is to follow the orbital paths of the particles making up the object. If they form concentric circles, the object is orbiting but not rotating on its own axis. If the paths criss-cross, the object is orbiting whilst rotating on its own axis.
I can summarize that for you again, if for some strange reason you choose to respond.
No, these coins are not orbiting. It is obvious that their centre of masses are stationary!
Anyway let Gordon work it out for himself.
OK, MikeR.
miker…”these coins are not orbiting. It is obvious that their centre of masses are stationary!”
They are not meant to be orbiting, they were offered as a model for the Moon’s motion. I was trying to demonstrate that if you try to replicate the Moon allegedly rotating once about its local axis per orbit that the moving coin would have to be rolled around the stationary coin. If you do that, the near-face cannot remain pointed at the Earth.
To replicate the Moon’s orbital motion, while keeping the same face pointed toward the Earth’s centre, you have to slide the moving coin while adjusting it to replicate the action of gravity. That’s the action you are mistaking for local rotation. The Moon has only linear momentum and it is slowly nudged into an orbit by gravity. You have to replicate that by sliding the moving coin while adjusting it so the near face always points to the centre of the stationary coin.
That’s what is happening in Case A if you observe closely. Don’t let your brain fool you, keep looking till you see that action.
Gordon, the coins in the depictions may or not be orbiting.
Let’s assume they are not.
Is coin number 1 – https://postimg.cc/kV5q4zVz
Rotating or not?
Likewise for coin number 2 – https://postimg.cc/tnQKhMTX
That’s all I am asking? Can you at least attempt to answer?
Even a yes or no would suffice, No need for digressions.
miker…”Is coin number 1 https://postimg.cc/kV5q4zVz
Rotating or not?”
You have shown it out of context. No, it is not rotating as you have shown it at the link above because you have removed it from the real context (case A) where it is orbiting the stationary coin and redrawn it to rotate about a local axis. At no time is that coin sitting still and rotating as you have shown it.
In the orbit, it ‘appears’ to be turning as you have shown above but if you following it around the stationary coin, observing it carefully, you will see that it does not rotate around its axis as in your image linked to above.
The cross-hairs do change position through 360 degrees but not about the centre of the coin. They change position due to the constraints of the orbit and you are mistaking that for rotation about its centre.
The lunar orbit is actually a resultant path produced by the linear momentum of the Moon and the force of gravity acting on the Moon perpendicular to that path. Since the Moon’s linear momentum is much larger than the gravitational force, the GF can only bend the path slightly. The summation of those bend is the orbit.
Think of a jetliner following the Greenwich Meridian (0 degrees latitude) flying at 30,000 feet and starting over the North Pole. Gravity is acting to pull it toward the Earth and the jet’s engines move it perpendicular to that force with enough thrust to allow the wing lift to nullify gravity.
As the plane flies from the NP to the South Pole, it’s bottom side always faces the Earth’s surface but it’s nose-tail axis is always pointing in a different direction. At the SP, it is not flying upside-down, as would be required for the kind of rotation about a local axis you are describing but it’s nose is now pointed in the opposite direction it was at the NP.
If it flies back around to the NP, presuming it is refueled in the air, it’s nose-tail axis has changed direction through 360 degrees but the plane has not rotated locally at all.
miker…”Your comment above is unnecessarily complex and you have not made an effort to 1. Illustrate it with a diagram and 2, apply it to both cases”.
I totally dumbed the explanation down to the point where a kid in junior high could understand it. It’s long because I went into a lot of detail to dumb it down and presumed nothing on your part. I made sure every point was covered as simply as possible.
I can see your problem more clearly, however. You don’t focus and allow yourself time to understand. I had years to practice focusing on problems during my engineering studies. Some problems that were assigned to us said barely anything and we had to focus intently till solutions began to appear.
If you give your brain a chance, by remaining with a problem and focusing, it will find solutions through insight. I really had to focus on this Moon problem to see for sure that it is not rotating about its axis once every orbit. It does not rotate at all about a local axis but if you leap to conclusions, as they have at NASA, you will see what you think is a rotation about an internal axis.
You are dealing with an x-y plane with three circles around the origin. How much simpler could I make it? The three circles represent three points on the Moon (or your Case A coin): a point on the near-face, a point on the far-face and a point at the centre.
I am trying to demonstrate that the three tangent lines to radial lines through the Moon must always remain parallel in order for the near face to always face 0,0. Since they are always parallel to the radial lines there can be no rotation about the centre of the Moon/coin.
Your Case B would only apply to a ferris wheel situation where the cars had a pivot point on them that allowed them to always remain vertical. If you applied that to Case A, you’d have to weld the pivot so it could not turn, then the riders would be dumped out at the top as the car turned upside-down.
In fact, that’s the situation with the Moon. I have also used the example of an airliner circling the Earth at the Equator, or even following the Greenwich Meridian. The airliner must have its bottom side facing the Earth at all times otherwise it would cartwheel, tail over nose. That airliner is not rotating about its COG as it circumnavigates the Earth.
The only difference between the airliner and the Moon is that the airliner must supply propulsion to counter the effect of gravity whereas the Moon uses a natural linear momentum. The airliner’s motion is exactly the same as the Moon’s and both keep the same face toward the Earth.
Gordon,
These are just rehashes. If you think, in terms of directions, then the answer is that the airliner is rotating on it’s axis once per circumnavigation,
Likewise for the Ferris wheel the occupant’s feet always point down for the the entire journey and they are consequently not rotating on their axes (case B). As you rightly say ,for the equivalent of case A means they are rotating on their axes (pointing in different directions assuming they are secured, dumped out if they are not) as well as revolving around the centre of the wheel.
I am glad you are starting to make sense.
Not sure about your claims about linear momentum in your previous comments. The moon has orbital angular momentum ( and spin angular momentum) according to every physics or astronomical text books (and numerous sites on the internet) that refer to the matter.
Also if NASA has made this amaxing blunder as you claim, then how did the Apollo program succeed in landing on the moon? Just very lucky?
“As you rightly say ,for the equivalent of case A means they are rotating on their axes (pointing in different directions assuming they are secured, dumped out if they are not) as well as revolving around the centre of the wheel.”
No, that’s not what Gordon said at all. Gordon said:
“Your Case B would only apply to a ferris wheel situation where the cars had a pivot point on them that allowed them to always remain vertical. If you applied that to Case A, you’d have to weld the pivot so it could not turn, then the riders would be dumped out at the top as the car turned upside-down.”
In other words, Case A is like a Ferris wheel where the cars are physically incapable of rotating on their own axes…so the cars are not rotating on their own axes whilst revolving around the center of the wheel. Case B is like a normal Ferris wheel, where the cars are free to rotate on their own axes so that they always remain vertical…so the cars are rotating on their own axes whilst revolving around the center of the wheel.
Yes DREM,
In case B, the Ferris wheel carriages are rotating on hinges so that they always face downwards. With respect to the direction of gravity they are not rotating on their axes.
In other words, with respect to the circular supporting framework they are rotating but with respect to the direction downwards they are definitely not rotating.
This is the same scenario for a non rotating moon i.e. With respect to the circular orbit it is rotating, but with respect to directions it is not rotating.
The former is with respect to a non inertial frame while the latter is with respect to the inertial frame.
So ironically this debate has come full circle, with a period of 2 years.
We are back to something from the era 2 B.C. (before Covid).
https://postimg.cc/KRgzyXfT
Replace the dumbbell in the above with the moon, horses, cars, trains, balls on strings, Ferris wheel carriages etc. where appropriate.
MikeR acts surprised that discussions get repeated even though he keeps making the same mistakes over and over again.
He has made zero progress in two years, and seems almost proud of it.
The wooden horse, chalk circle, ball on a string, and Case A Ferris wheel car all physically cannot rotate on their own axes, thus they are not doing so, regardless of how it may appear from a specific reference frame. They are all examples of objects rotating about an external axis (orbiting), without rotating about their own centers of mass.
Yes two years of argumentum ad assertion from DREM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
He thinks directions are totally irrelevant, so I would hate to seem him involved in the design of an amusement park (he could design a vomitorium) or having anything to do with inertial guidance systems which cannot work, according to DREM’s remarkable insights.
Finally after all these years, I think the only way to settle this argument is via a duel that incorporates aspects of the dispute.
I challenge DREM yet again to a duel at dawn. My liege and second Baldrick will slap you in the face with my glove. Feel free to slap him as many times as you like.
Standard rules apply with only a slight variation. Back to back we walk in circles, diametrically opposed, until 20 paces. At the appropriate moment I plan to rotate on my axis and fire. You can choose not to rotate but you better your let your second, Gordon, know about your plan first so he can keep a safe distance.
By the way Alexander Hamilton unfortunately did not believe the moon rotated so you will be in good company.
Maybe DREM, you could amend the US constitution with, the God given, right to be an idiot. You could argue for it personally in front of the Supreme Court. There will be no dissenting opinions.
The usual jumble of false accusations, misrepresentation, insults, and general nonsense from MikeR.
Settle down DREM.
I was just trying to point out, in a light hearted fashion, that there are real consequences to not understanding the concept of directions.
You obviously don’t enjoy my sense of humour. That’s ok.
So DREM continue on with your PSTs .
This has four benefits.
1. It illustrates the most intellectual contribution you are capable of.
2. It seems to alienate a large proportion of the climate Change Denial Community.
3. It is convincing evidence that you are a troll that lacks any imagination ( see point 1.) and,
4. Until I get totally bored , I will continue to enjoy responding to them in good humour.
More of the same, from MikeR.
miker…”If you think, in terms of directions, then the answer is that the airliner is rotating on its axis once per circumnavigation”
Rotation is not about direction, it is clearly defined as a mass rotating about an external axis while attached to a rigid arm, a mass rotating about it’s centre of gravity or internal axis, or in the case of lunar orbital motion, as a mass rotating about the centre of the Earth.
If the airliner rotated at all, tail over nose, it would eventually point down vertically then end up flying upside down. Then it would have to right itself to fly in a normal manner. The result would be structural damage and a mighty crash.
What you are calling rotation, because the tail-nose axis continuously points in a different direction, is curvilinear translation. If you held that plane on the ground, on a long absolutely horizontal runway, it would be performing rectilinear translation. If you extend that runway around the planet, still keeping it on the ground, the nose-tail axis would point in different directions through 360 degrees but the plane could not rotate because it’s on the ground, supported on its wheels.
I have just described curvilinear translation, which is the same as rectilinear translation except the moving body follows a curve rather than a straight line. And it’s the same motion as if the plane was circumnavigating the Earth in the air at 30,000 feet.
It’s also the same motion performed by the Moon in its orbit. The fact that the Moon always has the same face pointed toward the Earth’s surface is exactly the same as the plane flying at 30,000 feet or moving on the ground around the Earth.
Rotation is not about direction! Gordon, you really couldn’t find your way out of a paper bag.
You can argue your point with 2pi radians. Your head will be spinning by the end of the argument.
By the way, how are you going with working out whether Coin 1 and Coin 2 are rotating on their axes or not? See –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-538198
It is not rocket science and I thought you would have worked it out by now.
If you are totally stumped, you can ask a friend.
Did you not notice that he has already responded!?
miker…”Rotation is not about direction! …You can argue your point with 2pi radians. Your head will be spinning by the end of the argument”.
No, rotation is not about direction and the fact you think it is about direction is the root of your problem with illusion. Where did you get the idea that a mass pointing in different directions as it moves is a sign of rotation?
Rotation is defined precisely and there is nothing in any one of the definitions about a mass pointing in different directions.
No DREM , Gordon launched into directionless discussions about Ferris wheels related to Case A and Case B,
I just wanted some answers about the simple cases of coins 1 and 2 which are not orbiting.
Maybe give him a hand with –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-538198
He responded here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-538488
Unfortunately Gordon responded as if it was part of another example.
I said to assume neither coin was orbiting!
I don’t know why he is terrified of answering it as a stand alone problem.
Have you got any idea? Maybe you can give him a hand.
From the linked comment:
“At no time is that coin sitting still and rotating as you have shown it.”
So his answer to your first question (re Coin 1) is that it is rotating. From that you can assume his answer for Coin 2 is that it is not rotating. Now you can move on.
Good DREM. I hope you are in agreement with that.
Yes.
miker…”I said to assume neither coin was orbiting!
I dont know why he is terrified of answering it as a stand alone problem”.
Terrified does not apply, your assumption is stupid, a diversion to apply a gotcha. That’s your game, get someone to agree to an unrelated point then claim agreement in general.
dremt…”So his answer to your first question (re Coin 1) is that it is rotating. From that you can assume his answer for Coin 2 is that it is not rotating. Now you can move on”.
Just to prevent Mike using this as a gotcha, Both Case A and Case B are rotating about the stationary coin not about their local centres. I know you know this but Mike is playing a demented game, trying to suck us in to admitting to rotation about an external axis then turning that around to claim it means rotation about a local axis.
Mike thinks a change of direction of a tangential line to an orbit indicates rotation about a local axis. He does not get the example of an airliner circumnavigation the Earth at 30,000 while always keeping its bottom end pointed to the Earth. He thinks because the nose-tail axis continually points in different directions that the airliner is rotating on its COG, which is sheer nonsense.
In other words, Mike’s MO is to win an argument using any means possible.
https://i.postimg.cc/tRyd8FpB/Tangents.gif
In Case A, the coin is orbiting the stationary coin and not rotating on its own axis. In Case B, the coin is orbiting the stationary coin and rotating on its own axis in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, at the same rate.
Other than that, I agree with you – MikeR is getting pretty desperate! As time goes on, his tactics get more and more underhanded.
Excellent news! All three of us are in agreement that coin 1 is rotating on it’s axis and coin 2 is not rotating at all.
p.s. SURPRISE! I have some bad news. I was lying. Both coins were orbiting.
With that piece of information, has coin 1’s rotation suddenly come to a grinding halt? Has coin 2 suddenly decided it is time to rotate?
Some would describe this as “magical thinking”. However there is an explanation that does not require magic. I will let you guys stew on that.
Good night.
If the coins are orbiting, then this applies:
“You have to look at the whole orbit to determine whether or not an object is rotating on its own axis. A good rule of thumb is to follow the orbital paths of the particles making up the object. If they form concentric circles, the object is orbiting but not rotating on its own axis. If the paths criss-cross, the object is orbiting whilst rotating on its own axis.”
So no, in that case Coin 1 was not ever rotating on its own axis, after all. It only appeared to be, from the inertial reference frame. Coin 2 was always rotating on its own axis, despite how it appeared, from the inertial reference frame. It’s not that rotation has suddenly come to a grinding halt, or decided to start. It’s just that we now know the correct context from which to judge the axial rotation.
I have a much,much simpler explanation that doesn’t require any magic or any other context.
It goes by the acronymn “WYSIWYG” (What You See Is What You Get).
i.e. The moving coin rotates on its axis irrespective of it’s orbit. Likewise the non rotating one doesn’t rotate, again irrespective of it’s orbit.
For the sake of completion, both coins in the one gif.
https://i.postimg.cc/VshBgw7Q/WYSIWYG.gif
I think the following is straightforward enough:
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Sorry DREM, ten fold repetition of something incorrect just means it is ten times as wrong.
You have had one October surprise already. Here is another.
Stick this in your pipe and smoke it.
https://i.postimg.cc/zXQVgXX6/Surprise.gif
Yes, that shows it nicely, thank you.
Thank-you DREM for being so agreeable. I am glad the depiction cleared up your confusion.
Maybe you really aren’t as dumb as you try to make out.
The depiction confirms:
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
DREM,
I didn’t realise that you also deaf? You surely must play a mean pinball.
OK, MikeR.
The pinball wizard is also dyslexic. Mixes up “with” and “without”.
Incorrect.
miker…”It goes by the acronymn WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get)”.
The jetliner I described is performing the same motion as the Moon in its lunar orbit but I don’t see it turning upside down at any point as would be required if it was rotating tail over nose while rotating about it’s COG.
WYSIWYG!!!
BTW…the coin in Case A is doing the same…NOT rotating about its axis while keeping the same face pointed to the centre of the stationary coin.
miker…”All three of us are in agreement that coin 1 is rotating on it’s axis and coin 2 is not rotating at all”.
More of your deluded thinking, you can’t even read without seeing illusions. Neither Dremt nor I have agreed that coin 1 is rotating on its axis.
Boy Gordon’s confusion is rampant. One minute Coin 1 it is rotating, then not rotating and presumably vice versa for Coin 2.
DREM re Gordon’s comment – “From the linked comment:
At no time is that coin sitting still and rotating as you have shown it.
So his answer to your first question (re Coin 1) is that it is rotating. From that you can assume his answer for Coin 2 is that it is not rotating. Now you can move on.”
MikeR in response “Good DREM. I hope you are in agreement with that.”
DREM- “Yes.”
So has Gordon changed his mind (good idea as the old one is definitely kaput) or has DREM misinterpreted?
Irrespective of that, according to DREM Coin 1 is rotating on it’s axis and I agree. Gordon, if you now disagree, take it up with DREM.
Yes, MikeR…until you said that both coins were orbiting.
If you are going to try to sow as much confusion as possible, do not be surprised if people get confused.
DREM, you underestimate Gordon.
He has shown that he is quite capable of being totally confused without the assistance of anybody.
Not at all. The only one here still confused is you.
miker…”DREM, you underestimate Gordon”.
Dremt summed it up nicely…
“Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation”.
We both agree based on the physics. No need for over-estimation or under-estimation.
mike r…”So his answer to your first question (re Coin 1) is that it is rotating. From that you can assume his answer for Coin 2 is that it is not rotating. Now you can move on.”
You are even more stupid than I thought. If me and Dremt agree that coin A is rotating about the stationary coin, you presume that means it is rotating about its own axis. Your proof for that is that a radial and or tangent line drawn on the moving coin keep pointing in different directions. That is not proof of rotation about a local axis.
Proof of rotation about a local axis requires the measurement of an angular velocity about that axis. That’s not possible with the Moon, the coins, or the jetliner because, with respect to the surface of the Earth or the stationary coin, three concentric circles representing the near-side, the far-side, and the centres of each orbiting object have tangent lines moving parallel to each other. That rules out any angular velocity about the centres of each hence it rules out rotation about a local axis.
But here’s where you really get stupid. You know what would happen to a jetliner if it rotated tail over nose as it was in flight. Even if it barrel-rolled it would break up and crash, yet you cannot find it in yourself to admit you are wrong. You’re notion that the change in direction of an axis in an orbiting body represent s rotation is beyond stupid.
DREM and Gordon.
Now that you guys have fallen for the sucker punch and are pinned against the ropes, it is time to deliver the knock out punch.
With respect to the depictions,
Coin 1- https://postimg.cc/kV5q4zVz
Coin 2- https://postimg.cc/tnQKhMTX
I have admitted above that coins 1 and 2 are actually orbiting .You now have reversed positions to when you thought they were stationary i.e. you now believe that coin 1 is not rotating on it’s axis, while coin 2 is rotating on it’s axis.
Consequently if your theory makes the slightest bit of sense , then you must be able to tell me what is the exact orbital period of each coin.
So what are they? (You can relate the orbital period to the rotational period of coin 2)
Word of advice, the coins may not necessarily orbiting at the same rate.
Once I get yor answer(s) I will reveal all.
Can DREM or Gordon duck and weave out of this one? Their credibility is on the line. Stay tuned..
Sorry MikeR, I have no idea what you are talking about. You appear to have lost your mind. You cannot tell anything about the orbital period without seeing the object orbiting. Obviously.
DREM, You implied you could!
i.e. you said the coins were rotating or not rotating depending on whether they were orbiting or not.
So if you could tell coin 2 was rotating because it was orbiting then you should be able to tell what the orbital rate is.
DREM, because you seem thoroughly confused , I will now make it extremely easy.
Coin 2 is orbiting. You say it is rotating.
What is the rotation period of coin 2?
https://postimg.cc/tnQKhMTX
How will DREM evade? Can he stagger to his feet before he is counted out? Stay tuned again..
Because I am feeling very generous this morning, I will explain how to DREM how to determine the period of a rotating object.
You count how long it takes to rotate 360 degrees.
No need to refer to orbiting.
DREM start counting.
No, you said they were orbiting and so I assumed the context for their motion was:
https://i.postimg.cc/tRyd8FpB/Tangents.gif
Case A for Coin 1 and Case B for Coin 2.
Is that not the correct context for their motion?
Maybe, maybe not.
Are you still counting?
You need to see the object orbiting to determine the orbital period.
No,, I asked for the rotational period of coin 2!
Try the counting method. It’s worked for centuries.
miker…”I asked for the rotational period of coin 2!”
No…you’re trolling and trying to sucker us in to making a statement on a specific case which you will generalize into a general case. You have no idea what rotation means, you’re that stupid.
Gordon,
What does rotation mean to you!?
🧭⬆️↗️➡️↘️⬇️↙️⬅️↖️⬆️
No, you originally asked for the orbital period. Now you want the rotational period. Either way, you need to see the object orbiting to be able to answer.
Yes I did, but I have now made it much simpler.
https://postimg.cc/tnQKhMTX
Start counting now.
⏰⏳
Either way, you need to see the object orbiting to be able to answer.
To make it even easier, you can calibrate using your non-rotating case.
https://postimg.cc/kV5q4zVz
I get about 9 seconds for the rotational period. What do you guys get?
If the context for Coin 1 is Case A then that would make its orbital period 9 seconds. Obviously if the context for Coin 1 is Case A then it is not rotating on its own axis.
Cannot work out the orbital period or rotational period for Coin 2 until we see the object orbiting. Unless the context for Coin 2 is Case B, in which case we could just look at Case B and count how long it takes to complete an orbit, and rotate on its own axis.
No ,not necessarily it coud be orbiting (or not orbiting) as, you have agreed may times that, the rotation around an axis is independent of the orbit.
It might be tidally locked , it might be orbiting clockwise or anticlockwise. Knowledge of its orbit is totally irrelevant of course to whether the coin is rotating or not.
Best to use Occam’s razor and just measure it directly by counting “cats and dogs ” or more accurately using a stop watch.
Axial rotation is independent of the orbit as in it is a separate motion to the orbit, yes. In order to correctly separate it from the orbital motion you still need to see the object orbiting. As you would know if you understood our position.
Yes DREM, 100% agreement again!
“Axial rotation is independent of the orbit as in it is a separate motion to the orbit”.
As they are totally independent, they can be measured independently.
Basic logic 101.
In order to correctly separate it from the orbital motion you still need to see the object orbiting. As you would know if you understood our position.
DREM,
There may be little point continuing this discussion as you won’t even address one of the basic tenets of scientific logic, that independent parameters can be separately and independently measured.
I will leave you with another depiction that illustrates this. We can discuss this later, but it should be obvious that this is just another example that exposes the flaws of your reasoning.
https://i.postimg.cc/1RVYkWyk/October-Surprise.gif
I fully expect your standard response will be that I am incapable of understanding your insight.
I think I do, as your insight is indicative of a primitive understanding, that neglects frames of references and directionality.
Finally , I really believe that you cannot be as unsophisticated as you make out ( I don’t think I can make the same argument for Gordon) and the reason you diggedly persist has an emotional basis that precludes reason.
Goodnight.
You could just as easily have programmed the motion of the coin to completely freeze when the orbit stopped. That you choose to program these motions a certain way proves nothing except that you build your own bias into what you do.
The axial rotation is independent of the orbital motion, but because the orbital motion already involves the object changing its orientation whilst it moves relative to an inertial frame, you need to see the orbiting object in full in order to separate out the axial rotation correctly and decide if it is rotating on its own axis or not, and how many times per orbit, etc. You cannot do it from looking at the inertial reference frame you choose. You need to zoom it out so you can see the full orbit.
Just remember:
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
DREM. This is just another, in a long line of examples, at least a dozen , where a test of your hypothesis results in abject failure.
“The axial rotation is independent of the orbital motion, but because the orbital motion already involves the object changing” .
This is self contradictory. It either does, or does not, incorporate “changing” (presumably you have trouble with using the word “rotation” in this context).
Either,
1. If it does incorporate rotation then the motions are not independent.
2. if it doesn’t then the motions are independent.
You also say I “set you up” with my example by not freezing the rotation at the same time as freezing the orbital motion. Yes I could have easily done that. ( I could have also got it to to do the fandango). That would have been far less educational with regard to the motions being independent.
Anyway the point with hypothesis testing is, if you can find just one example where it fails ,the whole thing falls in a heap. I have provided at least a dozen.
An object that is orbiting, whilst not rotating on its own axis, points through e.g. N, E, S and W whilst it moves.
Axial rotation is then separate of that motion. I am not sure how much more simple I can make it for you, MikeR.
An object that is orbiting, whilst not rotating on its own axis, moves like a ball on a string.
Axial rotation is then separate of that motion.
There does not seem to be much point in continuing this discussion if you still do not understand what our position is.
miker…”“The axial rotation is independent of the orbital motion, but because the orbital motion already involves the object changing” .
You have obfuscated this debate into a format that cannot be recognized. Here is the original statement proposed well over a year ago: “The Moon does not rotate on it’s axis”. It was made clear that the axis in reference was the local axis, not the external axis around the Earth.
You have tried to break the problem down into parts and investigating the parts out of context. You have isolated the moving coin and given it properties it does not have in orbit. You based your logic on the mistaken notion that a body changing directions in orbit must be rotating about a local axis.
Until you understand this, and I doubt if that interests you, you will go on presenting red-herring arguments to get around the real physics.
BTW…the Moon’s external axis is a formal axis only, for analysis. The Moon is a rigid body with it’s own linear momentum, meaning it is always trying to move in a straight line. That makes the Moon different than a ball on a string, where the ball’s momentum and altitude is entirely dependent on the string.
It also explains why a N-S axis imposed on the Moon seems to be rotating. It’s not rotating, it is a result of the constant effect of Earth’s gravity acting on the Moon’s linear momentum to nudge it into an orbit.
DREMT,
Good try (actually not really). It is the orientation of the object which is relevant i.e. that in case B (that is rotating in your view) demonstrates that orbiting per se, does not result in pointing through e.g. N, E, S and W whilst it moves.
https://i.postimg.cc/tRyd8FpB/Tangents.gif
Similarly for case A the rotation (or not) is important irrespective of whether the coin is orbiting or not. See again –
https://i.postimg.cc/1RVYkWyk/October-Surprise.gif
Try reading my last comment again, MikeR. You obviously misunderstood.
And what might that be? No need to be coy.
Gordon – “mikerThe axial rotation is independent of the orbital motion, but because the orbital motion already involves the object changing” .
You have obfuscated this debate into a format that cannot be recognized”
Gordon, I was just directly quoting DREM! No wonder it confused you!
Gordon -“Here is the original statement proposed well over a year ago: The Moon does not rotate on its axis. It was made clear that the axis in reference was the local axis, not the external axis around the Earth.”
Yes well understood from day 1 , two years ago by all parties.
Gordon – “You have tried to break the problem down into parts and investigating the parts out of context. ”
When you are dealing with independent motions you don’t need any context other than an inertial frame of reference which, of course, is common to both motions.
Gordon -“You based your logic on the mistaken notion that a body changing directions in orbit must be rotating about a local axis.”
Yes it is. See –
https://i.postimg.cc/Z57x0HVs/Rectangular-plate-pivot.gif
and
https://i.postimg.cc/3NBjt1f4/Tesla3.gif
and
https://i.postimg.cc/J4r5swtb/Pizza-Gate4.gif
and treating the earth moon system as a rigid body. Which it isn’t of course, but Tesla fan boys may be lurking.
https://i.postimg.cc/tJN70C67/Moon-Earth.gif
I really can’t be bothered with the linear motion b.s. as it has been covered more than adequately before.
You really are quite dense.
Stop calling Gordon dense. He is a lightweight.
dremt…”You really are quite dense”.
It’s a question as to whether he really is that dense or whether he is trolling in an attempt to get by his denial. We have presented sufficient proof to convince an intelligent mind that the Moon does not rotate on its own axis, it is has one.
GorDREM
Just two points,
1. With regard to hypotheses testing. Do you have any real world examples, rather than theoretical musings, where the conventional theory about the moon’s rotation has been falsified?
2. What difference would it make in any practical sense to anything at all, if this incredible theory had any basis in truth? Would merry-go-rounds have to be redesigned? Would the plans for future moon landings have to be revised?
Where I come from, people who proudly advocate theories that have no practical implications at all, are just a bunch of ….. (rhymes with merchant bankers).
The discussion continues…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-535318
Thanks for this in-depth review. I was looking for information about this but didn’t get any information what exactly
I am looking for. Fortunately, I come across to your website and it helps to make my decision.
It’s really made my day.
Thank you again for this great article.
No new interpretation, Svante, just experiments.
https://www.caringoflife.com/how-to-get-sharpie-off-skin/