Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2021 was +0.25 deg. C, up from the August, 2021 value of +0.17 deg. C.
REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 is +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 21 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.41 0.52 0.57 -0.22 0.41
2020 02 0.59 0.74 0.45 0.63 0.17 -0.27 0.20
2020 03 0.35 0.42 0.28 0.53 0.81 -0.96 -0.04
2020 04 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.35 -0.70 0.63 0.78
2020 05 0.42 0.43 0.41 0.53 0.07 0.83 -0.20
2020 06 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.54 0.97
2020 07 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.44 0.26 0.26
2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.25
2020 09 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.29 0.69 0.24 0.64
2020 10 0.38 0.53 0.22 0.24 0.86 0.95 -0.01
2020 11 0.40 0.52 0.27 0.17 1.45 1.09 1.28
2020 12 0.15 0.08 0.22 -0.07 0.29 0.43 0.13
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.31 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.33 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for September, 2021 should be available within the next few days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
It appears that the running centered 13-month average was not updated since June.
The guy in charge of calculating the red line quit in July.
That may not be a joke.
A while ago they were struggling to find a graduate student willing to maintain the dataset.
I offer the following numbers:
Centered Month – Value
November 20 – 0.24
December 20 – 0.21
January 21 – 0.20
February 21 – 0.19
March 21 – 0.18
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah.jpeg
The Global Box Car line is the same (or very, very nearly) as Roy’s 13 month running mean.
I won’t update that for this month until Roy’s full dataset appears.
Can’t believe I didn’t notice the running average line problem… looks like I never updated the end of the series in Excel when I added 2021. Will fix when I’m back in the office.
I admit to some confusion. Is the 13-month running average line going to be added? As of 19 October, it still does not appear.
Also very curious about that. In my opinion its a very important stat.
I am going to take a wild guess that it will be updated for the last few months on the October update, rather than post a new September update.
So basically .5 or .6 Celsius increase the last 42 years.
Yes.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2022/every/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2022/trend
Linear trend from anomaly -0.4C to 0.2C.
0.6C in 42 years or 0.14C/decade.
“Linear trend from anomaly -0.4C to 0.2C”
Why would a straight OLS line over a limited period tell you anything about the future or the past before it started?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-1.jpeg
Is a much netter picture of the large physical mechanism and how it has responded over the last 42 years that is Earth’s climate I think.
RLH:
I agree with you. Your reasonable averaging indicates about .5C increase over 42 years which is an average of .12C/decade,or 1.2C/century.
Don’t be fooled by this plot. The last few years of his ‘averaging’ curve going down, is not a true average, since there is no data beyond 2021 that would be needed to find an average centered on 2021.
It is misleading. It misleads RLH to think cooling is ahead.
The point of a linear fit is to find the average trend (rate of rise) over the period.
It is not done by eye-balling. A proper fit gives 0.135 +- 0.05 C/decade.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
For comparison, we have RSS also measuring LT temp gives 0.214 +- 0.05 C/dec.
We also have surface trends for the same period which agree with each other better.
GISS: 0.188 +- 0.037 C/decade
Berkeley 0.193 +- 0.031 C/decade
Had 0.188 +- 0.033 C/decade
Berkely:
Climate models also predict average trends. Thus the data can be compared to models.
“Why would a straight OLS line over a limited period tell you anything about the future or the past before it started?”
Why would somebody introduce concepts as if they had been talked about/assumed when they hadn’t?
It can be misleading because the satellite records started near the end of a cooling trend.
A 25-30 year warming trend followed, and it now appears we may be headed back into a cooling trend.
Yeah.
Sure.
Just like it started to cool after the sun went down last night. We must be in a cooling trend.
Sun setting is a fairly good example of a cooling trend. Although a very short trend, at least we know its all natural.
Some think 2016 was the peak of the warming. If so, well get to see how long the next cooling trend lasts.
s,
Or just like it has cooled over the longest possible period – since the Earth was created.
Cherry pick a shorter period if the long term drop in temperature doesn’t suit you.
I will understand,
We’re well into Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere and that has an even larger cooling effect that Day/Night does.
Mind you that means it is Spring in the Southern Hemisphere and that has an opposite warming effect.
Same as day on one side of the planet is night on the other.
So, overall, it is a wash.
We don’t say it often enough: thanks again to Dr Spencer for making these updates available here so promptly every month. Much appreciated.
+1
I agree. If I could upvote a post at all, never mind early and often, it would be TheFinalNail’s.
+1
With the most-thoroughly-discussed topic there has ever been on this blog now settled in the “Non-Spinners” favor, perhaps we can finally get back to discussing “AGW”, if that’s still even a thing? Not sure if anybody believes in that thoroughly debunked nonsense any more.
“The first principle is that you must not cool yourself…and YOU are the easiest person to fool.”
Richard Feynmann
You have fooled yourself into believing that the Moon does not spin and that AGW is not happening. Both beliefs have been thoroughly debunked, but cognitive dissonance blinds you to the evidence.
Ent, exactly how did you “thoroughly debunk” those things?
You’ve got NOTHING.
Is the ball-on-a-string rotating about its axis?
Does more CO2 mean more energy emitted to space?
You may have already forgotten, but you have a poor understanding of science.
Well, other than our ocean is cold and we in ice age, because our ocean is cold {and related to that why did Little Ice Age cool or why has Holocene apparently past it’s peak interglacial average temperature}.
Other than that, why does Earth absorb so much energy.
Though one ask why does Earth emit so much energy- but if didn’t absorb so much energy, and it was somewhere close the equilibrium temperature {which everyone assumes it is} then if didn’t absorb as much as it does, it wouldn’t emit as much as it does.
Related to this, is that Venus absorbs small amount of the Sun’s energy?
In terms of big picture, I have said, and will say again, the reason Earth absorbs a lot sunlight is because 80% of the tropical zone is ocean. And Ocean absorbs a lot more than Land.
In terms of Venus, Venus clouds absorb most of the energy of the sun, and any kind clouds, don’t absorb much sunlight.
I would say venus clouds absorb more sunlight, than Earth’s H20 clouds. Though you could say our cloud reflect more sunlight than Acid clouds. But would not say that reflection is not “all of the story”. Or it is obvious that water cloud are bright to visible light {but also black to more half of the energy of sunlight}.
Clint R
YOU: “Does more CO2 mean more energy emitted to space?”
Most certainly NOT!
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
With Standard Atmosphere looking down if you put the CO2 level to 0 you will get 295.976 W/m2 leaving the Earth system. If you put 400 in the CO2 box the value of outgoing IR (with surface temperature of 288.2 K) drops significantly to 267.842 W/m2.
If you double that it goes down some more to 264.859 W/m2.
So if the Earth surface temperature remains the same increasing CO2 reduces the energy emitted to space.
N,
You wrote –
“So if the Earth surface temperature remains the same increasing CO2 reduces the energy emitted to space.”
Don’t be so dim. Two things – the Earth’s surface temperature at any location constantly changes, and CO2 does not reduce the energy emitted to space.
You may not realise it, but the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
So the Earth’s surface temperature has fallen, and the Earth’s surface temperature has fallen. You are obviously confused about the factthat when thermometers are exposed to sufficient radiation of appropriate energy levels, they indicate higher temperatures!
Do you really want to argue with reality? Go your hardest – the sound you hear will be Nature laughing at you.
Swenson
I do not argue with Nature I just observe your thinking is less than what a brick wall generates.
You bring up the stupid point that the Earth surface was at one time molten and now is not so it has cooled from that state.
Yes, so? It cools rapidly for a time then it stops cooling and reaches a steady state temperature with solar input and GHE.
You have molten rock pouring out of a few volcanoes at this time. The rock rapidly cools but does it just keep cooling? NO, it reaches an steady state temperature with its surroundings and quits cooling.
I am certain you possess zero thinking ability and show no signs of logical progression.
Norman, did you find another link you can’t understand?
No wonder you get so frustrated….
Clint R
The link is well understood by those who know physics so count yourself out. I am not “frustrated” just amazed at how stupid and arrogant you are. I have met many people. Stupid people usually have some humility and realize they are not at genius level. One can educate the humble. You are incredibly stupid, can’t think logically but totally arrogant and confident in your ignorance.
You remind me of a naked person walking around with a terd hanging out of their butt and being proud of it, not ever attempting to wipe it away.
Do not think “frustration” when I respond to your stupid posts. It is more amazement each time you post that you really are totally stupid and maximum arrogant and confident. A rare combo only possible by Internet. I think your mind type may be very rare (thankfully).
N,
You wrote –
“You bring up the stupid point that the Earth surface was at one time molten and now is not so it has cooled from that state.”
You haven’t disagreed with the fact, though, have you?
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. No GHE needed, is there?
You can’t help yourself – rejecting reality in favour of a fantasy.
Just as delusional as people like Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, and all the rest of the climate nutters. Carry on with your strange diatribes. Have you observed the GHE at night yet? Or can it only be seen in bright sunlight?
Hi Norman,
” The rock rapidly cools but does it just keep cooling? NO, it reaches an steady state temperature with its surroundings and quits cooling.”
In fact it MUST keep cooling. The second law of thermodynamics requires it to cool to the colder atmosphere and space above it…
As for global temps… anyone looking for a big cooling is likely to be disappointed as there has been no significant recovery in the ozone layer this year.. (heating will occur wherever that uvb is absorbed ; ) )
ciao!
Norman
“So if the Earth surface temperature remains the same increasing CO2 reduces the energy emitted to space”
You are ignoring a lot of factors. More clouds for one. Water vapors latent heat is tremendous. Do you think the latent heat released thru precipitation must also go through CO2? Do you think thermometers capture this latent energy?
“In fact it MUST keep cooling. The second law of thermodynamics requires it to cool to the colder atmosphere and space above it”
..if there were no sunshine warming the surface.
But there is sunshine!
“you must not cool yourself”: Very true. Cool weather kills far more people than warm or hot weather.
By the way, I doubt that ANYONE who reads this blog “believes” that AGW is NOT happening. We look at the information provided by Dr Spencer and the chart and recognize the rate of about 1.4 degrees per century warming since 1979.
R,
Belief is irrelevant. However, given that between 1900, say, and 2021, global human energy use has increased by a factor of 70 or more, as both population and per capita energy use have increased markedly over that period.
All energy used, from whatever source, is eventually converted to heat of such wavelengths as can not readily utilised to perform work, and is subsequently lost to outer space.
Of course, thermometers respond to radiation emitted at higher temperatures than that of the thermometer as – higher temperatures!
Nothing to do with GHGs or the mythical GHE. Just basic thermodynamics.
The Earth, overall, has of course cooled from the original molten state, and I haven’t seen any serious suggestions that CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a return to its initial condition.
Tell me what effect you expect
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/amo-1.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/pdo-2.jpeg
to have.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
WAITING FOR GODOT ON THE MOON
[K] If the cannonball does indeed rotate about an external axis
[T] But it does not rotate about that axis
[K] Why does the torque about the external axis not cause the cannonball to rotate about the external axis?
[T] Because that is not how torques work!
[K] So torques do not lead to rotation?
[T] You are getting there. A torque (as calculated about a specific axis) applied to an object leads to a change in angular momentum (as measured about that same axis). This may or may not lead to rotation about that axis.
[K] And gravity is not rigid enough a connection for you?
[T] Absolutely NOT rigid enough! Were gravity “rigid”, it would be impossible for a moon to get further from or closer to its planet, it would be impossible for a moon to do anything besides face its planet.
[K] It only needs to be rigid enough that the torque about the external axis results in rotation about the external axis
[T] But it is NOT EVEN THAT RIGID! There are just not enough ways to tell you this. Can you jump? Gravity does not hold you rigidly at a specific distance from the center of the earth. Can you do a somersault? Gravity does not hold you rigidly in a specific orientation relative to the center of the earth.
[K] Gravity just connects the cannonball to the center of the Earth. Not rigidly, but rigidly enough.
[T] it would be fascinating to hear your mathematical definition of “rigid enough”. How you you calculate “rigidness” and what value constitutes “rigid enough”?
[K] Think what you want. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-879002
Yeah, Willard, nobody’s going to understand that when you’ve left out most of the context and half of what was said during the discussion.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Everybody will understand that you’re wrong.
Why? Explain in your own words.
You go first, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-889243
I knew he wouldn’t be able to pinpoint any errors.
The actual context for the discussion was a setup similar to Newton’s Cannonball, but where the cannonball is launched without spin, and thus continues to orbit without spin, the bottom of the cannonball always facing towards the Earth whilst it does so.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Tim recently admitted that the force from the cannon would produce a torque about the external axis (the axis located at the center of the Earth). With rotation occurring about the external axis, but nothing to produce a torque about the ball’s own internal axis, then the cannonball would move as per the “moon on the left” in the below gif:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Tim tried to argue that the cannonball would need to be rigidly attached for rotation about an external axis to occur. However, a string is not “rigid”, but a ball on a string still moves like the “moon on the left”. Gravity is the “string”. All it needs to do is connect the cannonball to the center of the Earth. It does not need to be a rigid attachment.
“Tim recently admitted that the force from the cannon would produce a torque about the external axis” whilst it was physically connected.
As soon as that physical connection was lost, it turned into rotation about its own axis as science dictates.
RLH demonstrates his confusion over what is being discussed.
“Tim recently admitted that the force from the cannon would produce a torque about the external axis “
That is not an “admission” nor is it “recent”. That is the definition of “torque”.
torque = r x F (vectors)
or
torque = rF sin(theta) (scalars)
There is a force. there is a radius. They are not parallel. So there is a torque.
Every force provides torque about an infinite number of axes. That is a completely different question than if there will be “rotation” about any of those axes. IN this case, the cannon ball comes out with no spin relative to the ‘fixed stars’. And it will continue with “no spin relative to the fixed stars” unless some NEW torque acts on the cannon ball.
A string could provide such a torque. A rod could provide such a torque. A MGR platform could provide such a torque. A road could provide such a torque. Train tracks could provide such a torque. But not gravity.
The force from the cannon provides the torque, Tim. Gravity is not providing a torque about either the external or internal axis. Gravity is just connecting the cannonball to the center of the Earth, like the string that connects the ball to the external axis it rotates around.
DREMT demonstrates his confusion over everything.
Push a tetherball from the side and the ball rotates about the central post, not on its own axis. Pretty straightforward.
The string is connected to the surface of the ball, not the center.
“Gravity is just connecting the cannonball to the center of the Earth, like the string that connects the ball to the external axis it rotates around.”
No. Gravity is NOT ‘just like’ a ball on a string. A string attaches to the close side of the ball. it can provide a torque about the COM of the ball. Gravity cannot. This simple but fundamental fact is critical to understanding this whole issue.
The closer analogy is that gravity is like a string on a yoyo — free to rotate with no friction.
What you are forgetting is that we do not need a torque about the ball’s internal axis for the cannonball to move as per the “moon on the left”. All we need is a torque about the external axis. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the “moon on the left”. So your point about the attachment point of the string on the tetherball falls flat on its face.
What you are forgetting is that your explanation is wrong. You can’t see it because you lack any deep understanding of physics. But you simply are wrong. Tour appeal to your own authority for answers does not carry any weight.
We will include “appeal to authority” under the list of things that Tim does not understand.
“An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument.”
DREMT claims his arguments are correct because he says they are correct.
And actually it is closer to a related fallacy: Begging the Question. “The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.”
Because ‘orbiting without rotation’ is what our moon is doing, we know that orbiting without rotation means always facing the earth.
Tim, that is completely ridiculous.
"DREMT claims his arguments are correct because he says they are correct."
Absolutely not. I just make the arguments. Whether they are correct or not depends on the validity of the arguments. I have never claimed they are correct "because I say they are".
"Because ‘orbiting without rotation’ is what our moon is doing, we know that orbiting without rotation means always facing the earth."
Tim, I have never argued that. A total straw man.
> Whether they are correct or not depends on the validity of the arguments.
That’s where Kiddo is wrong once again:
The argument could be incorrect because its premises are unsound, and empirical sciences are not about making valid inferences (they’re mostly ampliative) but good enough to determine the best explanation.
I have never claimed they are correct "because I say they are".
Arguing by assertion works a lot like an appeal to authority, Kiddo.
Sometimes I make statements about things that have been established during previous discussions or that have been supported countless times before, and I do not bother to repeat all the arguments surrounding it or to provide the support again. That is not an argument by assertion, that is just me not being bothered to go through the motions of providing all the supporting arguments or links every single time. It becomes tiresome.
> Sometimes I make statements about things that have been established
See, Kiddo?
That’s begging the question.
It’s also handwaving.
OK, Willard. I acknowledge receipt of your opinion.
OK DREMT. I acknowledge the fact that you are wrong. Always. About everything.
OK, RLH. I acknowledge receipt of your opinion.
OK DREMT. I acknowledge the fact that you are wrong.
OK, RLH. I acknowledge your belief that your opinions are facts.
*sigh*
Boredom is the theme.
Kennui is the Flame Warrior:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
blah blah blah
Ken,
Horror! You must be channeling St. Greta of Thunberg!
Or maybe Binny the Dong.
DREMT has every right to think differently than the universe.
DREMT
Well you managed to ignite the flames once again. Moon rotation has been discussed quite enough! NASA confirms the Moon rotates and uses it when they need to land on the Moon in the correct location. Enough said. You and idiot Clint R are not in charge of anything of value so your stupid endless opinions on the matter amount to nothing. Believe what you want to, it changes nothing and just makes you look like an ignorant and stubborn person. In the 10,000 plus posts on the issue that is the end result. You are ignorant and stubborn. Nothing else of value has come out of these thousands upon thousands of posts on that issue. Hope last post it would have ended but you seem to want it to continue endlessly. Why is that?
I had no intention of discussing it further, but others just cannot leave it alone. As I said, I would like to move the discussion back onto AGW, now that the moon debate is settled in our favor.
“the moon debate is settled in our favor.”
The Moon debate has never been settled in your favor. Quite the opposite in fact.
See? Others just cannot leave it alone.
DREMT started it this time.
Others just cannot leave it alone.
DREMT is obsessed with proving ‘he is correct’. He isn’t.
Others just cannot leave it alone…
DREMT is obsessed.
Others just cannot leave it alone..
DREMT cannot admit he is obsessed.
RLH cannot admit he is obsessed, and unable to leave it alone.
DREMT is so obsessed about the Moon’s rotation he always wants the last word.
RLH said, wanting the last word as always.
debate cannot be settled, it can be won or lost as determined by the audience voting on it
“I had no intention of discussing it further, but others just cannot leave it alone.”
And yet strangely, you needlessly brought it up.
Especially strange given your previous statement that you have the ‘right to think differently’.
An admission that
a. your view is not the conventional view.
b. Others are entitled to theirs.
Of course neither of these is consistent with your ‘it is settled’ nonsense.
Poor Norman. He’s having another bad-hair-day.
He’s so frustrated because all of his childish beliefs are being shattered. He no longer gets to make things up. Every time he tries his nonsense, he gets caught.
Clint R
You are very stupid. I do not have the childish beliefs that haunt your mind. I like facts and evidence. You like making up stupid points, illogical thought problems and you love a ball on a string like maybe a little boy would be fascinated by.
Your mind is so simple it can’t grasp the radiant heat transfer equation. You can’t understand fluxes do add and subtract from a surface. You can test it easily but are either too stupid to set up a test or lazy. Probably both.
You can have one heat lamp pointed at a plate and turn it on. Measure the steady state temperature. Now turn on another heat lamp and see if it gets warmer.
Also fluxes subtract. Turn the lights off and the plate cools because energy is being lost (subtracted) from the plate by a flux.
Flux is no more magic than hoses of water filling a tank and open drains. They can be different sizes and shapes it all works out the same.
The flux of the plate is how much energy per time it gains or loses similar to gallons per minute. A quantity of energy lost or gained in a time frame. W/m^2. The size of the plate does not change so the joules/second can be added or subtracted.
I am certain you are too dumb to understand any of this.
Maybe only Swenson is dumber than you.
N,
The “flux of the plate”? You are off with the fairies again, laddie.
Stop avoiding reality.
Tell me where the GHE may be observed, measured, and documented. If you can’t, you are just another climate crackpot, desperately seeking to be recognised as rational and intelligent.
Maybe too much flux has penetrated your skull, causing some to conclude you are fluxed in the head!
But carry on regardless. If you don’t accept reality – create your own. Just define things as you want them to be – slow cooling is really heating, climate is not the average of weather, and so on.
Have fun.
Swenson
I have already shown you where GHE can be observed and measured. You are too stupid to understand it and will continue to wallow in your pool of idiot mud smearing it all over your posts.
On the previous thread I explained it to you. Just like Clint R or Gordon Robertson you do not possess enough intelligence to comprehend what is explained to you so you continue posting arrogant, but ignorant comments devoid of any value.
Like you say, carry on regardless.
As usual Norman, you’re completely wrong. At least you’re consistent!
The ball-on-a-string is a suitable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It’s even used by your cult, as I’ve linked to. You reject that reality because it destroys your cult beliefs.
And you can’t understand the invalid equation is invalid. You can’t find the temperature of the outer sphere. That should tell you the equation is invalid. But you reject that reality because it destroys your cult beliefs.
You completely miss the point with your heat lamps. Two heat lamps can NOT raise the temperature above the temperature of the hottest filament. The maximum fluxes from both lamps do NOT add.
And turning off one lamp is NOT an example of fluxes subtracting. You need to heat some object, with one heat lamp on each side and show the object will not warm because the fluxes subtract! (Save yourself the effort, it won’t work!)
Your effort to compare flux to water merely indicates you don’t understand flux.
No wonder you get so frustrated and angry. You don’t understand any of this.
The ball-on-a-string is a suitable model of a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.
The ball-on-a-string model gives the cult idiots nightmares.
That’s why RLH obsessively trolls, trying to ignore the reality that his own cult uses the model.
The ball-on-a-string ‘model’ is not relevant to orbital mechanics.
Clint R proved that it was. You are in denial.
No he didn’t so you are wrong.
He provided links to sources that you would otherwise listen to that included a ball on a string in their discussion of orbital mechanics.
Anything that uses a connection to a surface to describe gravity is incorrect.
The connection is irrelevant when it comes to the ball on a string, as explained up-thread.
Clint R
You keep making a stupid point but have no explanation.
You believe an equation designed to calculate heat loss by radiant energy from a hot object should (for reasons known only to you) should allow you to determine the temperature of a sphere surrounding it. Why do you think this equation should do this? You make declarative statements but offer no explanation of why you are so sure you are correct.
The equation Q=(sigma)(emissivity of object)(T^4 (hot object) – T^4(cold object).
It is designed to determine how much heat is lost by the hot object by radiant means. Why do you insist it has to do more, it does what it is designed to do quite well. Why is it invalid if it does what it is supposed to do? You never provide answers. You just make mindless declarations and tell people they are wrong.
That is quite a stupid process!
You Method. Make some declaration. Never elaborate. And call people perverted, cult minded, idiot, etc… Not sure what that is about.
“The connection is irrelevant when it comes to the ball on a string”
1) Is the string connected to a surface. YES.
2) Is gravity connected to a surface. NO.
3) Is the string virtually connected to a center. NO.
4) Is gravity virtually connected to a center. YES.
The string only acts through the center of mass of the ball. There is no need for the string to apply a torque about the ball’s own internal axis. The only torque that needs to be applied to the system is about the external axis. That comes from the force applied to the ball perpendicular to the string, to initiate the rotation about an external axis. The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis and not about an internal axis.
DR EMPTY,
“That comes from the force applied to the ball perpendicular to the string, to initiate the rotation about an external axis.”
Sorry DR EMPTY, but no such force exists.
It does when you push the ball to start it swinging, bob.
“The string only acts through the center of mass of the ball”
The string is attached to the surface. The extension of the line between the internal axis of the whole body is through the center of the ball.
The force the string exerts is therefore applied to the surface of the ball and then, via a lever, to the center of the ball. This is not the center of the whole body that the ball-on-a-string is part of though.
Since you don’t think the ball on a string rotates on its own axis (an internal axis, going through the ball itself), one wonders what your point is.
DR EMPTY<
"It does when you push the ball to start it swinging, bob."
Really, you have to push the ball to start it swinging?
You are stupider than even I thought.
You pull on the string to start the ball swinging, you don't have to touch the ball.
What a moron!
If it is a "model" of the Moon, there can be only one force on the ball on a string.
The pull on the string to model the pull on the Moon due to gravity.
The fact that a ball-on-a-string rotates about an axis that is fully contained with the whole object that it is part of seems to have escaped you.
If it was in orbit then 2 axis exist. One it is orbiting around. The other an axis at its center. Motion about both axis is independent.
I am talking about a tetherball, bob. You push the ball to start it swinging.
DR EMTPY,
No you are not, you are talking about the ball on a string
“The string only acts through the center of mass of the ball. There is no need for the string to apply a torque about the ball’s own internal axis. The only torque that needs to be applied to the system is about the external axis. That comes from the force applied to the ball perpendicular to the string, to initiate the rotation about an external axis. The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis and not about an internal axis.”
No mention of a tetherball there.
What would I expect from a liar?
Pay more attention, bob:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-891751
I await your apology.
“The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis and not about an internal axis”
External to the part, not the whole.
Keep making irrelevant distinctions that change nothing, RLH.
You saying now that internal or external axis are irrelevant?
I am saying that we agree the axis the ball rotates about is external to the ball. It does not matter if you want to group the ball and string together and call it one single object.
Ball, string and pivot are indeed one object. So there is no ‘external’ axis at all.
The axis of rotation is external to the ball. No matter how you want to dress it up.
DR EMPTY,
That wasn’t in the sub thread I was responding to.
You won’t get any apology from me.
Or maybe this one will have to do.
I am sorry you suck at physics, math, and all other sciences.
And still the Moon rotates on its axis, as well as the ball on a string, your my little pony and the chalk circle on the merry go round.
RLH and others would disagree with you on the last three, bob.
You will never have the integrity to debate that with them, though.
DR EMPTY,
If any one wants to debate me on the last three elements, they can look at my proofs that all three things are rotating on their axes.
Or they can do like you and ignore those proofs.
You haven’t provided any feedback that would indicate you even understand what a proof is.
It’s not about my integrity, it’s whether or not you understand the science.
And you are a known liar, so you have no integrity.
bob, you are beyond help.
DR EMPTY,
That’s not a criticism of my proofs that the Moon rotates, your little pony rotates, your precious chalk circle rotates and the ball on a string rotates, all on their own axes through the body of the object in question.
To win you have to play, you are running away and refusing to participate in any meaningful way.
That means you lose again.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Rotation_illustration2.svg
https://answerstoall.com/technology/is-every-rotation-an-isometry/
I am talking about the ball on a string, the wooden horse on a merry-go-round and the chalk circle on the merry-go-round, Willard. I am not talking about the moon.
DR EMPTY,
“I am talking about the ball on a string, the wooden horse on a merry-go-round and the chalk circle on the merry-go-round, Willard. I am not talking about the moon.”
So, and you are showing a graph that shows an object rotating on two separate axes.
Sorry you lose again.
No, bob. As clearly indicated, it is rotating only about point O. One single motion.
DR EMPTY,
Please explain how the green blob has changed orientation with out rotating.
P.S. You can’t, it’s impossible.
You lose again, over and over, crimson and clover.
> I am talking about the ball on a string
You’re actually talking about the concept of rotation, Kiddo.
bob can’t even understand a simple diagram.
Kiddo still does not get Bob’s argument.
There is nobody here commenting by the name “Kiddo”, Willard.
Kiddo enjoys stating irrelevant facts, that’s for sure.
You are on ignore until you call me DREMT, Willard.
DR EMPTY,
There are equations to model the ball on a string or your diagram.
An object moving in a circle, you use x^2 + y^2 = a^2
For the direction the object is pointing use a trig function cos t, using t for time, though pointing inward you would use – cos t
I’ll let you figure out if that is clockwise or counterclockwise.
If you can handle it.
So we have two equations to model two different things, revolving and rotating.
So you are proven wrong yet again.
As clearly indicated, the object in the diagram is rotating only about point O. One single motion.
“Not sure if anybody believes in that thoroughly debunked nonsense any more.”
Really? Seems like it is a bigger issue than every, what with the brutal heat in the West this year, and the brutal flooding in the East this year and the warmest summer ever in the US this year. And last year tying for warmest year on record globally.
Yeah, I don’t think you need to worry about AGW dying out as an issue any time soon.
When we talk about the AGW issue dying out, it’s in relation to sane people. We know that the braindead cult idiots will cling to the failed science forever. We’ve seen evidence with every cold snap. They always claim the cold is due to AGW!
If sea ice melts, it’s due to AGW. If sea ice refreezes, it’s due to AGW.
We’ve seen it all before.
AGW is a dead horse. Stop flogging it.
The only people who say otherwise have their brains blotted out by thoughts of blah blah blah.
RI,
And of course the brutal cold in Antarctica or other really cold places.
Climate crackpots claim this is due to excessive CO2 in the atmosphere or something.
It seems odd that Antarctica used to be home to abundant flora and fauna – before they were exterminated by the coming of the ice.
Speaking of the AGW charade. Among the numerous absurd studies from the many infamous “climate science” charlatans, this attempt to explain how an increase from 7 to 8 CO2 molecules per 20,000 air molecules (50ppm) heats the ocean remains my favorite:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351
I especially like the admission that the phenomenon can’t be measured:
“The total calculated volume mean warming is 0.09°C indicating an average change in the surface fluxes of 0.39 W m−2 for the 1955–2010 period over the World Ocean. Such small changes in the average atmospheric infrared (IR) emission incident at the sea surface occurring over decades are not feasible to measure with currently available instruments.”
And the acknowledgement that a 1.5 meter per second change in wind speed dwarfs any potential effect of LWIR on ocean surface temps
“This suggests that as winds increase from 2 to 3.5 m s−1, wind effects start eroding and thinning the TSL through increased levels of turbulence below. For wind speeds below 2 m s−1, the TSL is thicker. This also shows that in order to remove the effect of winds for our analysis, there is a need to focus on data with wind speeds of less than 2 m s−1.”
This Null Hypothesis paper demonstrates that AGW disappears in a 0.2 mph wind (0.1 meters per second).
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf
“Global estimates of ocean evaporation rates show that
between 1977 and 2003 the global ocean evaporation rate has increased from 103 to 114 cm.yr-1 with an uncertainty of ±2.72 cm.yr-1.
This was caused by a 0.1 m.s-1 increase in average wind speed. The ‘clear sky’ upper limit for the CO2 induced increase in evaporation is below the measurement uncertainty bounds. Long term averages of surface air temperatures are ~2 C below the corresponding ocean surface temperatures. This means that there is usually no direct heating of the ocean by the atmosphere, as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The latent heat of evaporation is not released until the water condenses, which is generally at an altitude above 1 km. It is therefore impossible for an increase in downward atmospheric LWIR flux of 1.7 W.m-2 to heat the ocean. The increase in flux is converted by the ocean surface into an insignificant change in evaporation rate. This is buried in the noise of wind induced fluctuations in evaporation and changes in LWIR flux caused by variations in aerosols, clouds and near surface humidity.”
Welcome back, Flop:
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
“impossible for an increase in downward atmospheric LWIR flux of 1.7 W.m-2 to heat the ocean. The increase in flux is converted by the ocean surface into an insignificant change in evaporation rate.”
Not this nonsense again.
As if the extra energy just vanishes?
And ignoring conduction and turbulent mixing.
“Tell me you don’t know what evaporation is without telling me you don’t know what evaporation is”
“With the most-thoroughly-discussed topic there has ever been on this blog now settled in the Non-Spinners favor”
In your dreams. You and your tiny, tiny clique have been soundedly defeated in everything you have said.
Soundedly!?
Typos apart, Yes.
No.
Many supporters of real science have shown you to be wrong. You just repeat the same old tired ball-on-a-string ‘thought experiment’ as though it meant something as regards orbits. It doesn’t.
You have no counter-arguments to what I write. You just declare it wrong, often without understanding, as you demonstrate further up-thread.
“You have no counter-arguments to what I write”
I have loads of counter arguments (as do others). You just won’t accept that things like ball-on-a-string are irrelevant for orbital mechanics.
Except for their obvious relevance.
There is no relevance.
…apart from the relevance that there is.
Which is none.
…apart from the obvious.
What the fact that you are obviously wrong?
No, the obvious relevance of things like the ball on a string to orbital mechanics.
There can be no relevance of a physical connection to a surface and a virtual connection to a center.
…if you ignore what is explained up-thread.
Which fails to deal with the fact that physical attachments to the surface are not the same as virtual connections to the center.
No, it succeeds in dealing with it.
Only in your narrow deluded mind.
OK, RLH. I acknowledge receipt of your opinion.
OK DREMT, I acknowledge that you are wrong.
Yes, I acknowledge that you think that.
DREMT is simply here to troll. He knows full well that there have been many counterarguments that he simply cannot rebut. Particularly those involving physics. He simply dodges answering, declares he’s tired, that he ‘thinks differently’ to physics, and departs the scene.
Then returns later and declares:
“You have no counter-arguments to what I write.”
Even just now. RLH points out that the string is attached to the surface and applies torque.
When the ball is launched without spin, the string pulls the surface attachment into alignment with it, applying torque, and giving it spin. This is obvious to everyone who’ve played the game.
DREMT simply denies that this torque exists.
Once again he is wrong, and a fraud.
“Which fails to deal with the fact that physical attachments to the surface are not the same as virtual connections to the center.”
Here is where this is dealt with, by the way, in case anyone only caught this sub-thread, and did not read through the rest:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-891882
“Here is where this is dealt with”
Denial of a fact is not ‘dealing’ with it.
In volleyball, the ball is served, travels in a straight line, and doesnt aquire rotation along the way.
In tetherball, the ball is served, travels in a straight line, until the string becomes taught and jerks it into alignment. Torque is applied.
So this is the link again, in case anybody missed it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-891882
And as a result of that torque, rotation IS acquired by the tetherball and alignment with the center is guaranteed.
This is an obvious effect of the strings attachment to the surface of the ball, which is NOTHING like what gravity does.
But continue to ignore whatever simple facts dont fit your narrative.
That’s just what you do.
I will just repost that link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-891882
“All we need is a torque about the external axis. Rotation about an external axis,”
This was a failed attempt to use a physics words without understanding. But physicists have pointed out your mistake several times. That torque produces orbital angular momentum and NO orientational change.
You ignore what the actual physics shows, and had no sensible rebuttal. That was when you simply gave up and declared: “I have a right to think differently”
And thats a return to ‘declared truth’.
But lets face it, you are not here to learn or uncover the truth. Just trolling.
Now stop.
That link again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-891882
I remember DREMT insisting that he/she is not the one to restart the endless moon spin conversation in each new article.
The self-delusion is strong in this one.
If you believe it would not restart without me, you are the delusional one.
You’ve also admitted that you troll people because you like the reaction.
It makes it even slimier when you pretend to be anything other than a troll, but maybe that’s the way you like it.
“You’ve also admitted that you troll people because you like the reaction.”
No barry, I have never said such a thing. If deeply unpleasant sociopaths get upset because their beliefs clash with reality, then of course there can be a mild sense of satisfaction in that. When bad people, such as yourself, who have devoted their entire lives to lying on the internet about the relentlessly falsified GHE sub-conjecture, get proven wrong by their intellectual and moral superiors, it can be enjoyable. But I would never get any pleasure from irritating honest, rational human beings.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I write “please stop trolling” because:
1) It amuses me (especially how seriously people like you seem to take it).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2019-0-46-deg-c/#comment-403482
Yep, you provoke people, “especially” because of the reaction it inspires.
That is the definition of an internet troll.
Own it. It’s less slimy than being a troll and denying it.
“People like you”, barry. As I said, I would never get any pleasure from irritating honest, rational human beings.
So by DREMT rules: trolling is perfectly ok as long as you are trolling terrible sociopaths.
How does he identify such people? Anyone who disagrees with his ‘reality’ are, by definition, terrible sociopaths.
Of course that makes most astronomers and physicists terrible sociopaths.
Sure. He clearly admits he is here to troll, but rationalizes it.
He declares a ‘right to think differently’.
But people who ‘think differently’ than him are sociopaths whose beliefs clash with his ‘reality’.
Such people deserve to be trolled.
Last word on the sub-thread.
La Nina 2021-2022.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202109.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Ozone Hole 2021.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
Hi ren,
Yes, no significant recovery in the ozone layer this year, so I suspect global avg temps to remain relatively stable for now..
(temps rise where the solar radiation is absorbed!!)
Sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/3yXHHqn/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
Unusually weak solar activity.
https://i.ibb.co/kMZqdmr/onlinequery.gif
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
Solar update – preliminary
The wrong SC25 start date has been moved back by 6 months to correct for the miss shifted data, the original prediction remains plotted in light-blue
https://i.postimg.cc/W389xZ1c/30cycle25.png
This will be a big surprise for Bindiclowndon who keeps posting his misaligned chart as some kind of proof of higher solar cycle
There is a problem because activity in both hemispheres shows a lack of synchronization.
https://solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.png
By David Archibald
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Solar-Dipole-radial-and-classic-1632439297.3052.jpg
From my humble point of observation… the cannon ball is perfectly stable, and the whole universe is seen to be whipping all over the place around the srationary ball.
The Great Barrier Reef may still be doing very well, thanks to increased upwelling in the Nio 4 area.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
This area is also seeing the impact of increased easterly winds during the increase in geomagnetic activity. I predict further declines due to another jump in solar wind speed. Temperatures will drop even more in November as sea ice begins to melt in the south of Pacific.
Yeah.
Sure.
Just like it started to cool after the sun went down last night. We must be in a cooling trend.
Is that in the Northern or Southern hemisphere and who are you to determine when and where dawn/dust is?
Yeah, studentb. You have to stop insisting that the sun went down last night. Who are you to say that the sun goes down in the evening or any other time?
It confuses RLH, who seems to miss the sarcasm every time.
Interesting to see that the biggest warming was the land near the north pole +1.08C, and the Lower 48 were only +0.33C above the average. Big f-ing whoop. This climate alarmism is a total joke.
“Brutal Heat”. It was totally unrelated to climate change.
“Society needs accurate information in order to make crucial environmental decisions. Unfortunately, there has been a substantial amount of miscommunication and unscientific handwaving about the recent Northwest heatwave, and this blog post uses rigorous science to set the record straight. First, the specific ingredients that led to the heatwave are discussed, including a high-amplitude ridge of high pressure and an approaching low-pressure area that supercharged the warming. Second, it is shown that global warming only contributed a small about (1-2F) of the 30-40F heatwave and that proposed global warming amplification mechanisms (e.g., droughts, enhanced ridging/high pressure) cannot explain the severe heat event. It is shown that high-resolution climate models do not produce more extreme high temperatures under the modest global warming of the past several decades and that global warming may even work against extreme warming in our region. Importantly, this blog demonstrates that there is no trend towards more high-temperature records. Finally, the communication of exaggerated and unfounded claims by the media, some politicians, and several activists are discussed.”
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-cause-of-great.html
It was a hot month, but it seems that 2020 was hotter than this year, right?
Yup. Apparently anomalies (i.e. comparing like to like) are not acceptable unless they show warming.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-temps-since-2016.jpg
“Apparently anomalies (i.e. comparing like to like) are not acceptable unless they show warming.”
You really are letting the politics guide you more of late.
But perhaps you could link an example of what you mean here.
We’ve been on a warming trend for several months.
According to some here, that is simply a fluctuation.
But when several months of cooling happens, those same people consider that to be significant, a sign of things to come.
Thats the essence of magical thinking.
In other news, there is no early evidence that solar cycle 25 is heading to Maunder levels, or even Dalton. In fact early indicators suggest it will be somewhat stronger than 24.
Re sunspots, 22 60+ days so far in SC25, and only 1 to this point in SC24 with only 8 more to be added in the next 4 months. 13-month average about 20% higher so far than the same point last cycle.
Not a massive increase, but the GSM proponents are predicting a massive drop, so way above their predictions. My early guess is that the maximum will be in the 120s, with little chance of going below 100 or above 150.
The only people who got the projection for 24 anywhere close to right were the ones looking at historical cycles. 99% of the projections, similar to climate model projections, were profoundly wrong. I would suggest you retract any projections about 25 because you will end up looking very silly.
It is only an early guess. I am not worried about being way off. Interesting that you felt the need to jump in with such a negative tone instead of making a positive contribution.
D,
Interesting in what way? Or are you just being “woke” for the sake of it?
Why do adopt such a negative tone, instead of making a positive contribution?
Tut, tut!
No idea what “woke” means, so I don’t know how to interpret your comment. Perhaps you could help me with that.
D,
If you understand “woke”., then no explanation is necessary. If you don’t understand “woke”, then no explanation is possible. Maybe you could try looking it up, but I understand if you have no desire to cope with modern English vernacular.
Having settled that, maybe you could respond to my other enquiries.
Or not, as you wish. For all I know, you may be just another climate crank.
Sorry about my previous typo – of course I meant to say “Why do you adopt such a negative tone, instead of making a positive contribution?”
That’s right, I have no real desire to learn modern kiddie (and I’m guessing Yank) slang, especially when you indicate its low relevance by putting it in quotes.
But hey, if you choose to talk cryptically then that’s your right. I hope you don’t mind if I move on to someone who speaks proper English.
Try to be happy – it’s not difficult.
D,
I hope you can understand the following question –
Why do you adopt such a negative tone, instead of making a positive contribution?
Not interested in answering? Why am I not surprised?
You might be one of those wimps who can give it but not take it.
There is no such tone in my comments.
Hope that helps.
D,
You would say that, wouldn’t you?
Just another unsupported assertion. Typical of climate crackpots.
Carry on guessing. Also typical of climate crackpots who call guesses “climate science”!
What’s it like always starting arguments and then forgetting why you were arguing?
D,
How should I know?
You tell me.
[chortles]
Sorry, I can’t see into your head. But it’s interesting to note that you’ve convinced yourself that you weren’t the initial aggressor.
D,
You wrote –
“Sorry, I can’t see into your head. But it’s interesting to note that you’ve convinced yourself that you weren’t the initial aggressor.”
I see. You can’t see into my head, but you can read my mind, can you? You should seek a refund from the swindler who sold you the mind-reading lessons,. They are worthless.
Blathering about an “initial aggressor”! Just like some other fragile climate cranks who bleat about their “feelings” , and start whining about being “insulted”, or “offended”.
I can’t figure out why I am supposed to care about the feelings of such precious souls.
So pretend to read my mind, if you l8e. Or you could read what I write. Or not.
Your choice.
The cry of someone who needs to scream out that he doesn’t care to drown out the fact that he cares enough to keep responding.
D wrote –
“The cry of someone who needs to scream out that he doesnt care to drown out the fact that he cares enough to keep responding.”
And anyone else is supposed to attach importance to your foolish opinion because . . . ?
Others may choose to read my comment. They may take into consideration your silly attempts to put words in my mouth, rather than quoting my written words. They may even come to the conclusion that you are just another delusional climate crank, resorting to psychobabbling wokeism to avoid accepting reality.
Go your hardest, dummy. Your “feelings” are of no concern to me. If you can’t control your emotions, don’t blame me. “Feel” what you like. Why should a stranger care about your “feelings”?
Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up. Grow a pair. Toss a few new facts into the discussion, if you want.
Or you could just whine about your hurt “feelings”, I suppose.
[sniggering]
As our troll-in-residence, Swenson knows only about negative tones.
Climate models have resulted in massively expensive government policies. Those climate models would otherwise have long ago been proven scientifically false.
The youtube is currently filled with financial geniuses projecting the imminent collapse of the US dollar and recommend you buy gold and silver. Being proved wrong daily only seems to encourage them.
COVID models projected hundreds of millions of deaths and resulted in massive lockdowns and stripping of rights. We have never been so at risk of losing our liberties and might only get them back by shedding the blood of a legion of tyrants. Meanwhile the empirical data shows death rates equivalent to a bad flu season.
Basically I am fed up with half wit prognosticators making up projections without any facts to back that up. At last count that includes you. I guess that makes me ‘negative’.
Indeed it does. Glad you agree.
BTW – could you find me another 2-year period in the US in which there have been anywhere close to 700,000 deaths from the flu (not counting the Spanish flu – which should actually be called the US flu).
Ken
I believe you are exaggerating the actual model projections by a considerable degree.
Here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6
It was 2.2 million deaths in US if no measures were taken and 500,000 in UK. How this evolves to hundreds of millions is a mystery to me. Even early on the death rate was estimated to be about 1% of those infected.
Do you have a source (other than for dramatic effect) of any Covid model that projected hundreds of millions of deaths?
My bad. 2 million in population 370 million adds up to 40 million deaths out of 7 billion; not hundreds of millions. Still the Ferguson model has been way out of sync with the factual numbers.
Apparently US deaths from COVID is 14% of global deaths even while population is 5% of global population: something not adding up.
US data isn’t trustworthy: too many stories about deaths being reported as due to COVID where people died while sick with a respiratory illness that may or may not have been COVID even as the cause of death wasn’t COVID.
The egregious example is of someone struck by a bus while sick with COVID being reported as a COVID death.
D,
You wrote –
“BTW could you find me another 2-year period in the US in which there have been anywhere close to 700,000 deaths from the flu (not counting the Spanish flu which should actually be called the US flu).”
Yet another stupid gotcha, asking for a greater number, and disqualifying a known one because it answers your question in a manner you don’t like! Very cunning? Or stupid.
By the way, if you believe that the Spanish flu should be called the US flu, why are you calling it the Spanish flu?
Man up! Have the courage of your convictions! Who cares if nobody else knows what you are talking about – or why.
Ken,
No, COVID deaths are VERY well corroborated.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count
The ‘excess deaths’ (deaths above the average) in 2020 exceed the official number of COVID deaths in the US.
Even more striking, the spikes in excess deaths are contemporaneous with the spikes in COVID deaths. Amazing coincidence!
This holds true for any country that has had a significant number of deaths attributed to COVID.
IOW, there is no doubt COVID has killed so many people.
You can “play” with the propagation of such weak spots (no strong flares).
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/sunspot-regions.html
There has been a change in the way spots are counted and this is apparent, but measurements of galactic radiation near the surface clearly show a weakening of the solar dipole.
https://i.ibb.co/GQyPWCW/onlinequery.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/
Interesting.
I last tuned in to this issue circa 2007, and hadn’t paid much attention since. At that time, the profound slowdown of spot motion was thought to presage a lull.
Now some thinking is for one of the strongest cycles:
https://news.ucar.edu/132771/new-sunspot-cycle-could-be-one-strongest-record
Of course, this would only further muddy the waters of greenhouse gas forcing.
Also muddying is the fact that the best estimates of absorbed solar have increased so markedly over the CERES period of record:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/earth-radiance-trends
You should pay more attention before you start posting your wisdom , that strongest cycle prediction was made by some so called scientists a year ago who got overexcited by one single big sun flare up that totally fizzled since.
So, what do you think will happen?
Someone will have predicted almost exactly the correct sunspot number. It will be attributed to dumb luck. Everyone else will be wrong.
Solar scientists will say they need more grant money to learn how the sun actually works.
The sun will continue to shine for at least a couple more years.
That’s what I think will happen.
The theory has been that the solar magnetic field associated with the earth magnetic field modulated the cosmic ray cloud condensation nuclei. Increased CCN was thought to increase droplet concentration and thus increase cloud albedo and reduce absorbed solar radiance.
This all may be valid, but CERES indicates that for 2000 through 2020 anyway, absorbed solar -INCREASED-. The rate of increase being twice as large as the rate of increase of greenhouse gas forcing for the same period.
The CERES estimates could be off, of course.
Or, other factors ( amount of cloud, height of clouds, other parameters ) could be varying beyond the effect of CCN for which twenty years is still brief.
Would it be safe to say the Tropics have “normalized,” or would that be jumping the gun?
Such a statement is perfectly safe.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_10-day.png
Thanks ren. I noticed that Mercator chart is using 1979-2000 as the normal base, which puts even more of an emphasis on the normalizing of Tropical temperatures today.
This
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/AUGUST2021/202108_Map.png
might give you a clearer picture.
Here is a graph that includes 8 datasets including 2 satellite, 4 traditional, 1 reanalysis, and 1 raob. The composite trend is +0.19 C/decade.
https://i.imgur.com/wL0OqMj.png
b,
And the trend is relevant because . . .?
Even you don’t believe it will continue, do you? Why will it stop, do you think?
No answer?
Go away, you silly climate crackpot!
Mike Flynn, Magisterial Fizz,
You already went away.
But you came back.
Under many sock puppets.
Why is that?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Go away you silly little climate crank.
Mike Flynn,
Marmite Frittata.
Why attempt to use an OLS straight line to show the ‘trend’ when
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-1.jpeg
shows a much better assessment of what the global temperature figures have been for UAH.
I could expand that for the other series but the overall picture would change only a little.
Looking at the 7-year low pass, the 2018 peak resembles the 1989 peak.
By 1990 temperatures had risen from -0.2C to 0C
Can we expect a similar rise from 0.25C to 0.45C by 2030?
“By 1990 temperatures had risen from -0.2C to 0C”
Sorry, should have been
” By 1999 temperatures had risen from -0.2C to 0C”
Why would an OLS straight line represent anything in nature?
I was not using the linear trend, but the 7-year low pass,on your graph.
If you don’t like the 7-year low pass or the linear regression, why put them on your graph?
The increase in CO2 has accelerated over time. The heating effect per increment of extra CO2 decreases logarithmically. Over time the two processes cancel out to a linear increase in heating effect and temperature.
The 7 year ‘trend’ S-G line is showing currently downwards behavior but your words implied otherwise.
I compared the current pattern with a similar pattern thirty years earlier and noted that the earlier pattern showed a short term decrease followed by a larger long term increase.
Why do you expect a sustained decrease this time when no sustained decrease has yet occurred in the UAH record?
“Why do you expect a sustained decrease this time when no sustained decrease has yet occurred in the UAH record?”
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/amo-1.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/pdo-2.jpeg
EM,
When will the “heating” stop, do you reckon? Or does it go on forever?
Do you really believe the seas will boil dry within 10,000 years?
Seems a bit far-fetched to me, but I’ll believe it if you can provide a physical basis supported by reproducible experiment.
Only joking, I know climate nutters are big on faith, not so much on the scientific method.
Carry on dreaming.
Did you notice that the PDO and ALL are out of phase. Since they appear to cancel each other out, where do you get “sustained cooling?”
The ‘direction’ up/down of both PDO and AMO is arbitrary as such. What matters is the movement away from when it was ‘hotter’.
The AMO shows an approximate 60 year cycle rising from a ‘low’ point at the beginning of the UAH data.
That could be coincidence – or not.
There’s also the problem of deciding whether the AMO is a genuine climate cycle or an artefact…
and if it’s real, what’s driving it.
https://redgreenandblue.org/2021/03/30/michael-mann-rise-fall-atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation/
Sure pure co-incidence of other quite random factors just happened to turn into such a nice sine wave.
Almost as good as the hockey stick graphs.
So a cosine weighting applied to the Latitude of a station means that a station at the Poles adds 0% information to the climate data.
That cannot be correct.
Cosine weighting comes from the mistaken impression that you can turn point samples into area or volume ones which cannot be correct.
RLH
Currently I don’t have any access to my data and can reply only by using my lady’s notebook.
Maybe you will reject this comment from me as you did all the time; that however isn’t my problem.
*
1. ” So a cosine weighting applied to the Latitude of a station means that a station at the Poles adds 0% information to the climate data. ”
No one uses latitude weighting outside of area weighting over cell grids. There is not even one use of it in my software, regardless the observed fields (temperature, sea ice, sea level).
Even if you use a 0.25 degree grid, the latitude of your north and south polenearest station averagings won’t lead to zeroed values anywhere.
*
2. ” Cosine weighting comes from the mistaken impression that you can turn point samples into area or volume ones which cannot be correct. ”
So? One more thing you simply decide to be, without any valuable proof for your assertion?
Why can’t it be correct to transform data collected wrt a plane rectangular grid in order to obtain data wrt Earth’s spherical shape?
Why can’t you understand that you can compare temperatures measured in tropical latitude bands with those measured in polar regions only when applying a latitude weighting?
When will you finally manage to process UAH’s 2.5 degree grid, in order to generate time series out of it, and to compare them with Roy Spencer’s monthly file, as I did in 2016?
Then you will understand how wrong calculations of sea ice extent can be when you don’t apply the same latitude corrections to raw data, as then the highest bands become totally overwheighted in a global averaging.
If you believe that stations at the North and South Poles have 0 contribution to climate then you have a problem, not me.
All forms of equal area mapping of a globe say that the area of each climate station has the same contribution as all the others.
How big an area do you actually want a point sample to cover?
Unless you wish to ‘infill’ those areas which do not have actual measurements from stations in them by estimating what ‘should’ be there of course.
Then you are using a model instead of measurements. Not that you will see any problem with that as you already ‘know’ the answer.
And that is just for the area. You don’t want to address the volume calculations as you have made clear in the past.
You even think that the Surface Boundary Layer is less complex than areas above it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundary_layer.
RLH
Are you unable to read anything else than what you yourself post?
I wrote above:
” No one uses latitude weighting outside of area weighting over cell grids. There is not even one use of it in my software, regardless the observed fields (temperature, sea ice, sea level).
Even if you use a 0.25 degree grid, the latitude of your north and south polenearest station averagings wont lead to zeroed values anywhere. ”
Why can’t you understand such a simple stuff?
No one uses latitude and longitude of single stations!
That would indeed lead to having no info about Amundsen-Scott, for example.
Everybody understands that.
So you admit that cosine weighting is used to try and make the ‘area’ weighting more ‘correct’. Even though the actual area on the ground that each station individually covers is roughly the same.
Turning point samples into area coverage is a lot more complex that just doing a cosine weighting (and fraught with a lot of problems that are mostly overlooked).
RLH says: So a cosine weighting applied to the Latitude of a station means that a station at the Poles adds 0% information to the climate data.
That cannot be correct.
It’s not the case that a station at the pole adds 0% information to the climate data.
If this is your understanding of area weighting, it follows that you don’t understand area weighting.
Mark B
What he does not understand is rather the problem of latitude weighting.
Maybe one day he manages to process UAH’s plane grip without latitude weighting, generates a time series over an asymmetric part of the Globe, e.g. 20N-82.5N, and compares the series with that published by Mr. Spencer (it is NH Ext).
He could also try to generate sea ice extent series using HadISST1.
Ah well ah well, Flynnson would say.
Should read ” UAH’s plane grid “.
Mark B
What he does not understand is rather the problem of latitude weighting.
Maybe one day he manages to process UAH’s plane grip without latitude weighting, generates a time series over e.g. 20N-82.5N, and compares the series with that published by Mr Spencer (it is NH Ext).
He could also try to generate sea ice extent series using HadISST1.
Ah well ah well, Flynnson would say.
As Blinny says, I was talking about Cosine weighting where the poles contribute 0 to the information about climate, apparently.
As to area weighting, then if you reduce everything to the actual area that each individual station covers, then they are all equal to each other in fact.
If you want to try and interpolate between those point samples (in a 2d space only), then you run (and only then) into the problems that you describe.
The facts are that any interpolation is only a model, not a measurement as such.
Nyquist had a lot to say about how accurate any interpolation (in 2d) can be.
And if you want to move to 3d (where most of us live) then the complexities of the Surface Boundary layer and its daytime/nighttime behavior need to be taken into account to make a vertical profile. That is also impacted by elevation of the station.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundary_layer
Nyquist is a criteria for complete reproducibility of the signal. That is, if Nyquist is satisfied, one can reproduce the signal precisely at any point in time/space. Nyquist, in the absence of additional information about the signal, is a pass/fail criteria for complete reproducibility. By itself it does not say how good or bad are some signal property of interest might be if the criteria is not satisfied.
It is not reasonably possible to satisfy Nyquist with temperature through a global space nor is it necessary satisfy the Nyquist criteria to achieve a “good enough for purpose” reproduction of temperature changes over time. The inherent uncertainties attributable to sparse sampling can and have been bounded viathe statistical cross correlation properties across observation sites. This has been well documented in the literature at least since Hansen’s original temperature anomaly series in the late 1980s and numerous times since.
We have a number of temperature anomaly time series that have well documented error analyses. If you can find a real issue with such analyses then you have a scientific point. Arguing “but Nyquist” is simply saying the data isn’t perfect, which we already knew, but all available analysis says it’s good enough.
“By itself it does not say how good or bad are some signal property of interest might be if the criteria is not satisfied”
Incorrect. Nyquist says that if the sampling criteria in both space and time are not observed, then the reproducibility (i.e. in this case the infill accuracy) will degrade. To the point where it is useless if taken to the extremes.
I love it when people say that climate models can be improved by decreasing the grid size but at the same time say that the measuring station grid that we now have is ‘adequate’.
If you are talking about using Nyquist on the ‘free atmosphere’ see:-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Atmospheric_boundary_layer.svg/1920px-Atmospheric_boundary_layer.svg.png
that indeed has a long history of use in weather forecasting. The differences below that are however quite dramatic where Latitude, 24 hour time and year based criteria are always going to be a Nyquist problem.
> To the point where it is useless if taken to the extremes.
That’s your own inflation of Nyquist’s results, dummy.
RLH says: As Blinny says, I was talking about Cosine weighting where the poles contribute 0 to the information about climate, apparently.
As to area weighting, then if you reduce everything to the actual area that each individual station covers, then they are all equal to each other in fact.
Cosine weighting is used as an (approximate) area weighting factor for a lat/lon grid cell. Applying it to a single point is nonsensical.
Agreed. But so is area weighing in that case as each individual stations covers roughly the same physical area of the globe so should be treated equally.
Turing point samples into ‘areas’ is a non trivial problem. Let alone into ‘volumes’.
Some nitwit wrote –
“I have already shown you where GHE can be observed and measured.”
Only in his fantasy, of course. Not in reality.
For example, NASA cannot even define the mythical GHE. Here’s one attempt –
“The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earth’s surface by “greenhouse gases.”
Very informative – not! A “way”, is it? And at night, indoors, in winter, or under a sunshade, the GHE seems to lose its “way”. Maybe the heat trapped in this “way” manages to escape!
That might explain how the Earth has managed to cool to its present temperature over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Elusive concept, this GHE.
There is uncertainty with all global measures.
The system that was designed to measure the energy balance of
earth is CERES.
CERES data indicates that nearly twice as much of energy imbalance since 2000 has occurred from increased absorbed solar as has occurred from greenhouse gas induced radiative forcing.
This would by no means falsify GHG RF, but it does raise questions as to sensitivity.
More here (key image: Figure 2):
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/earth-radiance-trends
Clint, in a frame of reference centered on the ball’s axis perpendicular to its plane of motion, yes, the ball-on-a-string is, in fact, rotating on its axis. That’s second-semester stuff in the statics/dynamics series in undergraduate engineering school. Its rotational period in that frame of reference is identical to its period of revolution, which veritably defines “tidal locking.”
Brent, it’s possible to get many incorrect results by choosing the wrong frame of reference. That’s why the ball-on-a-string is such a good model. If the ball is actually rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it. That’s just basic common-sense stuff any engineer needs.
Orbital motion is not covered under statics/dynamics. Orbital motion is it’s own science.
A ball-on-a-string is only a good model for a ball-on-a-string.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Still wrong. As usual.
Still right. As usual.
DREMTs grip on reality diminishes everyday.
No.
DREMT = Idiot.
Clint, LOL. Dynamics are dynamics, and all frames of reference are arbitrary. You don’t have the prerogative you are claiming, to wit, the prerogative to divorce orbital-motion dynamics from any other dynamics. And learn to use apostrophes correctly.
Brent, the ball on a string does indeed appear to rotate on its own axis from the reference frame you describe…but the reality is that it is rotating about an external axis (an axis that is external to the ball itself), and not about an axis going through the body of the ball. Just “zoom out” and look at the bigger picture. There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string.
A ball-on-a-string is of no relevance to the orbit of the Moon.
"A ball-on-a-string is of no relevance to the orbit of the Moon."
There are people who I would describe as "lost in reference frames" whose training has led them to the erroneous belief that a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis. Many of the major "Spinner" contributors on this blog are "lost in reference frames". Once they are able to see through the illusion of the ball on a string, they may be able to properly understand the moon’s motion.
So…there’s that relevance, for a start.
A physical connection to a surface has no relevance to a virtual connection to a center, so no, it is not relevant at all.
Yet people still think the ball on a string is rotating on its own axis, and you won’t do anything to correct them.
My time is taken up with observing that you are incorrect. As always.
What am I incorrect about?
That the Moon faces the Earth because of its orbit. The 2, like all other planets/moons, are unconnected.
We were talking about whether or not a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis!
We are actually talking about if a ball-on-a-string applies to the Moon. It doesn’t.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-891955
No, that is just what you always, obsessively, want to talk about. If you were to give me a straight and honest answer to the question, “does a ball on a string rotate on its own axis?”, you would say, “no”. That is why you always try to change the subject onto whether it “applies to the Moon”.
A ball-on-a-string rotates about an internal axis of the whole it is physically part of.
Pure sophistry. What you are actually acknowledging there is that the axis the ball on a string rotates around is external to the ball. You have just decided to group the ball and string together as one object, and then say the axis is “internal to the object”. The axis the ball on a string rotates around does not go through the body of the ball itself.
There are moons for other planets that do not always show the same face to the planet. Can we all agree those moons are spinning on their respective internal axes?
A ball on a string, however, cannot spin around its internal axis without winding up the string. Ergo, gravity + moon cannot work the same way as a ball + string because if it did, those other moons couldn’t spin on their axes.
A ball on a string is just a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That is to say, the same side of the object remains facing towards the inside of the orbit throughout. It is not meant to imply that objects cannot rotate on their own axes, obviously they can, and do.
“A ball on a string, however, cannot spin around its internal axis without winding up the string.”
That you acknowledge the ball itself is not rotating on its own internal axis is good enough for me. Anybody that gets that is streets ahead of some “Spinners”.
“A ball on a string is just a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation'”
No it isn’t. A ball-on-a-string is just a model of a ball-on-a-string.
“A ball on a string, however, cannot spin around its internal axis without winding up the string”
If the ‘string’ is attached to the surface which gravity is not.
Brent, yes all frames of reference are arbitrary. That’s why you have to be careful to choose the correct one. And, that’s why the ball-on-a-string is so useful. We know it is NOT rotating about its axis because the string does not wrap around the ball.
And again, kinematics, kinetics, and dynamics do not include orbital motion. Orbital motion is a field of its own. It is NOT my “prerogative” to “divorce” dynamics from orbital motion. That’s science.
“all frames of reference are arbitrary. ”
All but one. The frames you use such as relative to the Earth, the Sun or the horizon are local, ie arbitary.
The only non-local (ie universal) reference frame is the inertial reference frame, against which instruments such as gyroscopes and Foucault pendulum measure rotation.
Entropic Man is thoroughly "lost in reference frames".
That’s why it is necessary to understand orbital motion and choose the frame of reference correctly.
A Foucault pendulum would indicate the ball is rotating. And we know that is wrong.
The pendulum, and “inertial”, and “the stars”, can NOT tell the difference between orbiting and axial rotation.
“A Foucault pendulum would indicate the ball is rotating. And we know that is wrong”
You are wrong and the pendulum is correct.
You don’t understand the gravity of the situation.
Its Madhavi fig. 15 d.
RLH, since you agree that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that is internal to the ball itself, you actually should agree that the pendulum would be wrong.
Since a ball-on-a-string is only part of the whole system, do you agree that the system is rotating about an axis that is internal to the whole system?
The ball itself is not rotating about an axis going through the ball. We both agree. Therefore you should agree that if the pendulum indicates rotation, it is not about that axis. That is the bottom line here.
You should be prepared to admit then that the axis the ball-on-a-string is rotating about is fully contained within the whole body.
It is only an external axis to part of that whole (i.e. the ball), not the whole thing itself.
You should also admit that the Moon is capable of independent rotation about its own axis as every other moon/planet is. And it is that rotation that the pendulum records.
You should admit that the pendulum can lead you to the wrong conclusion, and all that implies re the inertial reference frame.
There are 2 (or 3) axis here.
One is the axis things are orbiting around. The others are the axis through the center of each body. A pendulum on each body will show the rotation of each body independently. They will not show the orbit.
You have admitted that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that passes through the ball, and that the pendulum would suggest it is. Now you try to wriggle out of where those facts inevitably lead…
The ball-on-a-string IS rotating about an axis that the whole of its parts make up which is an internal axis to that whole.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-894354
DREMT = Idiot.
It is amazing to watch the human mind rationalize away obvious truths to accommodate long held beliefs.
Here are two turntables rotating a record on separate axis.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9abwhcqdw0
The outside turntable is rotating the record counterclockwise
The inside turntable is rotating the record clockwise
If you pull back, they are still rotating
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/f4f3poxe0m
Now you put them on a train going around a circular track at the same interval as the revolution of the record
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9ojn60zwh7
Does the inside turntable magically turn off? Does the outside record play too fast?
Now you turn off both turntables.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/etd3coc8e1
You zoom out to see the train.”Spinners” would argue when the train starts, the records start playing…
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/c2ici6krzp
ftop: Most people would say that constantly changing reference frames makes your examples useless.
Most people are innumerate so they are unable to understand what an axis of rotation is and thus get completely lost when there are two axis of rotation depicted by the radians:
alpha = radian that changes length with internal axial rotation
theta = radian that changes length with external axial rotation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid#/media/File:Epizykloide_herleitung.svg
Which makes understanding the geometric proof beyond their grasp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid
A point “p” on an object orbiting (rotating) around an external axis will have to be the closest point and the farthest point to the external axis if the orbiting object is also experiencing axial rotation (which occurs if radian alpha is not constant).
If radian alpha is zero, point “p” will be the closest point on the object to the external axis.
If the object rotates on an internal axis, radian alpha will change and point “p” will no longer be the closest point to the external axis.
Geometry is not fluid and distances are not malleable according to reference frames.
ftop: Except the Moon is not rotating around a surface to create an Epicycloid.
So your ‘explanation’ is about as useful as a ball-on-a-string is for orbits.
Good comments, ftop_t. Don’t expect the “Spinners” to understand, of course.
@RLH
Completely disingenuous reply.
The expression for the location of point “p” (x,y) is not dependent on if l(R) = l(r). That is only relevant for an epicycloid. In all other cases l(R) = k * l(r) where k is a constant for the ratio between the rotational speed and circumference of each rotational arc.
The purpose of l(R) = l(r) for an Epicycloid is strictly to eliminate the variable (alpha) in the proof.
Generally, when there are two axis of rotation, we start with the closest point on the rotating object to the origin – point “p”. When point “p” is on an object that is rotating about both an internal axis and an external axis. Its location is defined by:
x = (R+r)cos(theta) – r (cos(theta + alpha)
y = (R+r)sin(theta) – r (sin(theta + alpha)
This formula is not unique to an Epicycloid. It is universal for two axis of rotation.
If alpha is non-zero, point “p” will vary in distance from the origin.
If alpha is zero, the formula resolves to:
x = R(cos(theta))
y = R(sin(theta))
which will always be the closest point to the origin.
Therefore, if an object always keeps the same point closest to an external axis of rotation, alpha is zero and it is not rotating on an internal axis.
FTOP,
What you are showing is no surprise. That an internal rotation and an external rotation can cancel to produce non-rotation.
Nothing wrong with that. But it has nothing to do with the way Astronomy describes planetary orbits.
Astronomy describes an orbit as a curvilinear translation along an elliptical path thru space.
The orbiting object can ALSO have internal rotation.
These two motions, translation and rotation are independent motions, and never ever cancel out wrt the inertial frame of the stars.
This description works for all planetary orbits.
Don’t expect the “Spinners” to understand, of course.
Do hear a voice responding to me? Odd.
My stalker is so desperate to converse with me he apparently believes I am responding to him any time I merely repeat a previous comment, or talk to somebody else!
> if an object always keeps the same point closest to an external axis of rotation
Big if.
Hmm.
If we look at the entire data set that Dr. Roy has posted, and just lay a straight edge from the firs point to the most recent point, we see a temperature increase of 0.7 deg C in about 42 years, or about 1.8 deg C per century. That’s mighty impressive.
Perhaps its time to take another look at the basic science behind climate change:
https://youtu.be/t-ndSAaqXW4
Cheers!
You cannot claim 1.8 deg C per century until you have a century of data, calling 1.8 deg C per century from 40 years of data is not mighty impressive, it is outright idiotic.
We have 140 years of surface temperature data. GISS, for example, shows an increase of 1.3C over that time or 0.92C/century.
Taking the 42 year period since 1979 the rise is 1.1C or 1.54C/century.
If the rate of change of temperature is accelerating then the rate per century is not particularly useful.
GISS shows quite clearly that the ‘rise’ is cyclic. Why would you use a straight line to deny that?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/giss-1.jpeg
That “cycle” is too small to standout of the noise.
You are seeing what you want to see, a cycle which is an artefact of short term stochastic variation.
Please show confidence limits for that blue line.
How do you create a confidence limit for a low pass filter?
It is a 15 year low pass which will show ALL behaviors that are longer then 15 years.
If you want the residuals I can do those too, but suffice to say it is close to ‘white noise’ (within the bandwidth anyway).
An S-G will produce the same (or similar results) but this is a gaussian filter.
EM,
If the surface temperature increases by even 1 C per century, that is 100 C in 10,000 years.
Oh no! The seas have boiled dry! We’re all dead, shrivelled husks!
Please tell me my arithmetic is wrong, or when and why your GHE is going to magically stop boiling, frying, roasting and toasting us!
I assume you don’t really believe your nonsensical projections, so I can’t see what you get out of promoting rubbish which you know to be incorrect!
Or are you just another delusional climate crank?
I don’t expect the runaway for a while yet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komabayashi%E2%80%93Ingersoll_limit
I don’t expect the runaway at all. Systems have a way of developing different behaviors under different conditions and we are not out of the ‘normal’ ranges yet in any case.
EM,
Who (apart from you) mentioned any nonsensical “runaway”? This is the sort of nonsense that delusional “scientists” like to promote. Sagan, Hansen, Mann – even mathematicians pretending to be scientists, like Gavin Schmidt!
So back on track, if it’s OK with you.
When will the heating stop, and why?
Or do you really think that the seas will boil again – as they did as the Earth cooled.
An inconvenient question, I know. Well, two inconvenient questions. Have you an6 cogent answers?
That assumes that all the rise you have seen will continue on forever upwards. As there will be some (at least) natural movements in there, your estimate is inaccurate.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-1.jpeg
Look at Figure 8.18 here.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/anthropogenic-and-natural-radiative-forcing/
The total warming forcing matches the sum of the anthropogenic forcings.
The sum of the natural forcings is neutral or slightly cooling.
Somewhere in that chapter is an estimate that AGW is turning slow natural cooling into artificial rapid warming.
Sure everything is driven by AGW. Nothing is natural despite there being many examples of natural cyclic behavior.
No doubt you believe that the hockey sticks graphs were correct also.
“Sure everything is driven by AGW. Nothing is natural”
You’ve got it exactly. All the warming we’ve seen in the last 140 years has been due to AGW.
Without AGW we would be cooling.
Says you.
Nature is likely to prove you wrong in the long term. Wait and see.
Mark S. may not understand science, but he sure knows how to make a boring, irrelevant video.
MS,
You wrote –
“Perhaps its time to take another look at the basic science behind climate change: . . . ”
If you can find any, of course.
Climate is the statistics of past weather. If you call this “science”, I’ll call you a climate crackpot.
Fair enough?
Re:
https://youtu.be/t-ndSAaqXW4
He says without greenhouse gases Earth would be 0 C.
Maybe that about right.
The cargo cult says it’s about -18 C
What does Earth look like with average temperature of 0 C?
Well can’t really answer it exactly, mainly because Earth is %70 covered by an ocean. And it’s got a lot of ocean water- you can’t stack even 50% of ocean in polar regions.
Mars has 210 ppm of water vapor, and Mars is not a water planet like
Earth is. Mars has mostly a surface with very little H2O at the surface and Mars doesn’t have anywhere near the amount volcanic activity that Earth has.
If you consider that Earth has same volcanic activity as Mars {Earth is dead} and Earth at Mars distance from the sun, Earth still has most of Earth surface covered with H2O, and would have higher level of water vapor as compared to Mars.
And if Earth remained to have it’s volcanic activity- it have higher amount of global water vapor.
And if Earth was Earth distance from the Sun, and merely had it’s average temperature be 0 C. Earth would have a Lot more Water water vapor. Let’s say more than 1/2 the amount earth currently has.
And if Earth had 1/2 as much water vapor, water vapor would still be the most significant greenhouse gas.
And since Earth has life, for their to be life, one need at 150 ppm of CO2 and with one has to have methane. If Earth Oxygen than it will have Ozone layer.
So greenhouse gases are not reason Earth is not 0 C, Earth’s ocean is the reason.
Even if we accept his silly theory.
But we are in ice age. Earth has icehouse global climates and greenhouse climate. Ice age = icehouse global climate. And in last few million years Earth was mostly not in a icehouse climate, and we have only been in this icehouse climate for about 34 million years. And coldest part of last 34 million was the last 2 million years.
Or even his silly theory was correct, it’s not important: it does not explain our world.
Or at best it’s explaining some world, which is not Earth.
I said: “And in last few million years Earth was mostly..
I meant: And in last few hundred million years Earth was mostly, not in a icehouse climate.
Oh also forget my question:
What does Earth look like with average temperature of 0 C?
And as said it’s difficult to say, basically, because Earth is water planet.
But also easy, because Earth is a water planet.
What happens if Earth ocean had an uniform ocean temperature of 1 C.
So Earth currently has average ocean temperature of 3.5 C and this a lot different than the ocean having uniform temperature of 3.5 C.
In terms oceanic energy it is same. And it require “little amount” of energy to mix the average ocean temperature of 3.5 C into uniform temperature of 3.5 C – but doing so would have huge effect on global surface air temperature.
So we average global surface air temperature of about 15 C.
We have this average temperature, because global land average surface air is about 10 C and global ocean average surface air is about 17 C {and when both are averaged, one gets about 15 C}.
So, if mix ocean to become uniform temperature of 3.5 C, the 17 C air above it, becomes 3.5 C.
But we going make an uniform temperature of 1 C. And there is no easy way to do this. In terms human current capability, there no way human could cause this to happened within one century. But human could make a solar shade within 100 years and cool earth surface below 0 C. They just can’t cool the entire ocean in such short time periods.
So don’t need solar shade, for humans to make the ocean have uniform temperature of about 3.5 C.
And if human did that, it would crash global surface air temperature- AND cause a lot of global warming. We have global warming and we would freeze to death {humans have houses- humans could stay warm, and so mostly kill all other life- which is not a good thing for humans}
So listening to more of this crap.
He says 1/2 of energy from the trace gas of CO2, emits to earth surface.
This would only apply to air near the surface, it’s no where close to 50% if say 4000 km above the surface.
I will listen to more of crap, now.
It turns out Al Gore was right.
{I can’t take this idiocy any more- the hockey stick was Michael Mann, who was another liar. And poor Michael Mann didn’t make nearly as much money AL Bore did, and I don’t think he is living on very expensive beach property nor did he get a D in climate studies.}
Ummm. The thickness of the atmosphere is less than 1% of the diameter of the earth (~0.75% to be more exact). So, my statement that approximately half the infra-red radiation emitted from the greenhouse gases toward the surface of the Earth is correct.
Dr. Mark
MS,
You wrote –
“So, my statement that approximately half the infra-red radiation emitted from the greenhouse gases toward the surface of the Earth is correct.”
And completely irrelevant, if that radiation does not interact with the surface in such a way as to increase its temperature.
If the surface is hotter than the atmosphere, then the surface will cool.
As it does at night, or after the solar input reaches its maximum during the day.
No amount of PR will overcome physics.
Over to you.
The higher you are, further you can see. Or at 4 km horizon is further away.
The radiation is spherical. So sphere with poles and a equator.
North pole is up. North pole which include 20 degrees latitude is small area of a sphere. And small part of it is going straight up.
Equator region, say 10 degree north and south is much larger area, very little of it is going straight or straight down.
Put a global 1 foot above the ground. 1/2 of it is going in direction of the ground, small amount is going hit closest to the ground, or south polar will have higher percent of it’s area going “straight down” and closest to ground. Though entire southern with far more area will far more photons reaching fairly close to straight. When raise it 100 feet the radiation from entire southere hemisphere get wider {traveling more due than greater distance because it’s not straight down. And this aspect is ever increasing when 100, 1000, and 4000 meters. But even when 1 foot off the ground most radiation is going “sideways” rather up or down.
So now at 4000 meter, most is still going sideways and still not much is going straight up or straight.
And you have much thinner air up than down. And betting the random odds, more ends up going up them down.
Or not dealing flat panels, you dealing with spheres.
I could made it simpler.
Have 1 meter diameter brightly glow sphere. Have near ground, then raise it to 4000 km elevation. how far away can see the sphere compare when it was 1 foot off the ground.
And if 100 feet high and standing under how bright compare when it’s 4000 meters above you.
But that doesn’t really address part about thicker atmosphere below it.
But if in orbit, this glowing sphere should be brighter from 4000 meter elevation
“The majority of satellites orbiting the Earth do so at altitudes between 160 and 2,000 kilometers. This orbital regime is called low Earth orbit, or LEO, due to the satellites relative closeness to the Earth. ”
So 4km is not even close to LEO so it would hardly seem any brighter from there.
D^2 remember?
That’s for a point source, for something like viewing the Earth from that altitude you should use a different equation.
Remember?
The warming since Sept. 2008 is 0.48C
P.S. For you knuckleheads that have nothing better to do than argue about the moon’s rotation, why don’t you make it quantitative? What is the exact angular momentum of the moon?
Please give your answer in kg-m^2/sec? If you respond to this without a number, seek professional mental health care immediately.
Surely Shirley, you know that the knucklehead cult idiots will not know the correct answer. Some of them actually believe Moon has both orbital and spin angular momentum. They’re sooooo confused.
So surely Shirley, I will have to answer your question for the knuckleheads — 0 kg-m^2/sec.
“Some of them actually believe Moon has both orbital and spin angular momentum”
It does and Newton thought so too.
Troll RLH makes things up faster then Norman.
No wonder he is the champion troll.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-827783
Clint R is wrong us usual.
shirley…” What is the exact angular momentum of the moon?”
***
Angular momentum = 0 radians/second.
Mean linear velocity about 1.022 km/sec.
“Angular momentum = 0 radians/second”
Wrong. Angular momentum = PI radians per orbit.
In the link below, I took the AR6 solar activity curve, which is fig 2.2a in IPCC report, smoothed it, and then overlaid on top of global temp curve, which is fig spm1 in IPCC report.
https://ibb.co/ZYDHpJg
The hockey stick graph reappears. I thought that was dead and buried long ago.
Only among the denialist minority. In the 23 years since it was first described it has been replicated repeatedly by many workers and many datasets.
So if temperatures decline for the next few months into next year as it looks like they will, what are you going to say? Magic?
Or ‘its not long enough to be a trend’ without saying how long it takes to make a trend.
” How long does it take to make a trend ? ”
Depends on the trend. In general you can see a statistically significant trend when the beginning and end are at least 4 standard deviation apart.
For global annual temperatures the standard deviation is about 0.05C. 95% confidence limits are +/- 0.1C.
To see a statistically significant trend you need a change of 4SD or 0.2C.
At the current UAH warming rate of 0.14C/decade you would need 0.2/0.14 decades, or 14 years.
Only if you take OLS trends for your statistics.
I use, as you know, long period filters, typically of greater than 15 years, which are much closer to the real physical systems that make up climate.
See various graphs under https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
Why 15 years as a ‘corner’? Well Earth’s climate system has a low level of energy at that point (if you run an energy sweep) and it is well below the 30 year climate periods.
An S-G filter of 15 years produces quite interesting data from most long period climate data.
S-G (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter)
are much used in other disciplines to uncover relevant behavior.
“Savitzky and Golay’s paper is one of the most widely cited papers in the journal Analytical Chemistry and is classed by that journal as one of its “10 seminal papers” saying “it can be argued that the dawn of the computer-controlled analytical instrument can be traced to this article””
I just believe it has a role in climate too.
“global annual temperatures”
are a U shaped distribution (i.e. quasi sinusoidal) so how come you are using (improperly) statistics that are best suited to normal or skewed normal distributions and thinking they actually mean (pun) something?
Is it just because ‘everybody else does so’ or do you actually have some ratiocination for that?
Nice one.
Correlates nicely with most of the last millennium, but not the 20th and 21st century warming.
Only if you believe in hockey stick like warming over the period in question.
I don’t believe it, the data shows it.
https://www.countercurrents.org/rahmstorf220913.htm
See Figure 1
Your reading of the data allows very little for nature. Which is a mistake to my mind.
The flat portion is WAY too flat. The climb WAY too steep.
I have loads and loads of Paleoclimate proxies which do not correspond to that in fig1, fig3, fig4, etc.
You known, of course, of my repeating of Steve McIntyre https://climateaudit.org/ who has some interesting views on climate proxies.
Including something that looks suspiciously like your graph.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/15/pages-2019-0-30n-proxies/
These sheister made to order fake hockey charts always crack me up , as real as male pregnancy
It is interesting to note why the ‘flat’ portion of the hockey stick is flat and where the ‘rising’ portion comes from.
It is a FACT that most paleoclimate proxies do not agree with each other and when you ‘average’ them all together they produce a straight flat line.
The rising portion of the hockey stick is caused by adding in things that are not paleoclimate proxies to that flat line to produce the ‘rise’.
USCRN data for Sep 2021
Daily
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values.jpg
Monthly
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-monthly-values.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-contiguous-monthly-values.jpg
Southern vs northern hem anomaly is interesting. I would like to see this graphed and commented on. 90% live in Northern hem. Are we measuring the heat from our collective armpits and calling it climate change?
You might like
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
which does not include this months data (yet) because Roy’s full dataset does not come out for a few days yet.
So disappointed.
Reality does not match with expectation.
The moon.
rotates in one frame of reference but not in another.
The earth can legitimately be the centre of the universe.
But so can any other point in the universe, like the sun.
Accepting this simple point of logic just means saying I’m right and you are right.
Refusing it is simply saying my point of view is more important to me than yours.
As I pointed out a while ago if one wishes to say that the moon is rotating then one has to define what its motion is or appears to be when it is “not” rotating.
This simple example, that it has to be rotating to be perceived as not rotating,should be enough to quell the overconfidence in the one frame of reference that suits my argument theory.
Sadly ignored.
angech, Moon does NOT rotate on its axis
You appear to realize that simple fact, but you’re afraid to state it clearly.
That’s the power of the cult over you.
Pup, you do NOT do the pole dance experiment.
You appear to realize that doing it would defeat your trolling.
Do it. Report.
Again, Willard…nobody knows what you are talking about. Not even you.
Anyone who lifts knows that Moon Dragon cranks are wrong, Kiddo.
Enjoy your body. You only got one, and it’s for a limited time only.
Whacky Wee Will wrote –
“Anyone who lifts knows that Moon Dragon cranks are wrong, Kiddo.”
Oooooh! Cryptic! Oooooh! Obscure!
Does Wayward Wee Willy think that uttering incomprehensible gibberish makes him appear wise and knowledgeable, or does he live in a bizarre fantasy WeeWillyWorld where people actually admire his command of gibberish?
Maybe his deranged comment is just another example of his “silly semantic games”.
Hard to tell.
Bizzare fantasy is the best description.
Mike Flynn,
Muscular Flaw.
“Moon does NOT rotate on its axis”
YES it does.
Clint R: You keep repeating this ridiculous shit.
Thats the power of the tiny, tiny, cult over you.
A “cult” is more than one. Most of the “free-thinkers” you find here are independent thinkers. People like DREMT, Gordon, Swenson, gbaikie, Hunter, myself, and several others all think independently. We don’t always agree, even. But, when free-thinkers agree, watch out!
Your cult of braindead idiots rejects reality. You all strive to do that. None of you is able to learn, or even wants to. You’re content and comforted by a sense of “belonging”. There is no more perfect example than you avoiding the reality that your own cult uses the ball-on-a-string analogy.
The cult you are in is very, very tiny and universally wrong.
angech…”The moon.
rotates in one frame of reference but not in another.”
***
Doesn’t rotate in any reference frame, it is translating with the same face pointed at Earth.
I.e. is rotating wrt the fixed stars.
Speaking of the Moon, Gordo repeats his no spin denialist mantra:
Sorry, clown, the Moon presents different sides to the Sun during it’s orbit, which is clearly visible from the ground, therefore it is obviously rotating in a reference frame with one axis along the Sun-Moon vector. It’s also rotating in all inertial reference frames fixed wrt the stars.
Swanson is still lost in reference frames, unable to see the problem.
DREMT is lost in his own delusions. Unable to see anything else.
Swanson is still lost in reference frames, unable to see the problem. RLH projects his own failings onto others.
pups can’t see the forest for the trees. They still haven’t provided any math model for their delusions, just bleating their lunacy over and over again, defying logic and ignoring the obvious facts.
DREMT is just an idiot with idiotic ramblings.
Swanson is still lost in reference frames, unable to see the problem. RLH should understand, as he gets that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball itself, but the Foucault Pendulum would suggest that it is. However, RLH refuses to think it through, preferring instead to throw lame attempts at insults.
The Foucault Pendulum will correctly observe that the Moon is rotating about its own axis.
It will not record its orbit around a barycenter.
Therefore DREMT is wrong (as is Clint R and a small number of others).
No, you are not thinking it through properly. Keep trying.
It is you who has no logic or thought.
1) The ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball.
2) The pendulum would indicate that it is.
3) The moon is not rotating about an axis that goes through the moon.
4) The pendulum would indicate that it is.
Either you are wrong that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball or you are wrong that the moon rotates on its own axis.
pups continues to prove it doesn’t understand physics. It’s “ball-on-a-string” doesn’t exhibit gravity’s influence, which is necessary for a Foucault Pendulum’s operation. And, the ball can’t rotate freely because the string holds it in one orientation. However, a tether ball, hanging limp, can rotate around the string’s vector.
“It’s “ball-on-a-string” doesn’t exhibit gravity’s influence, which is necessary for a Foucault Pendulum’s operation.”
Swanson lacks the imagination to visualize a big enough ball on a string.
“And, the ball can’t rotate freely because the string holds it in one orientation”
Irrelevant to the point being made.
1) The ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball.
Wrong (sort of). It rotates around an internal axis to the whole it is part of.
2) The pendulum would indicate that it is.
Wrong. The pendulum will not indicate if something is in orbit. Only if it is rotating on its axis wrt the fixed stars.
3) The moon is not rotating about an axis that goes through the moon.
Wrong.
4) The pendulum would indicate that it is.
Correct.
So you do not think the Foucault Pendulum would respond in exactly the same way with a giant, moon-sized ball on a string, compared to the actual moon? Even though they are both moving in (roughly) the same way, with the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit?
“It rotates around an internal axis to the whole it is part of.”
This is just sophistry. The point is that you agree the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the ball itself…but with the moon you think it is.
RLH and others.
Under the influence of gravity, the pendulum will cease to oscillate, and become stationary, with its COG closest to that of the Earth,
Just as the Moon apparently did.
No amount of semantic gymnastics can start the pendulum swinging again, nor the Moon to recommence rotating about its internal axis. Nor will gravity.
This is the delusional realm of perpetual motion believers who do not understand the operation of the force of gravity, or equally delusional GHE crackpots who believe energy from colder bodies can be used to heat hotter ones, while at the same time the colder bodies suffer no loss of energy, and do not get cooler.
Ah, the wonderfully bizarre world of the true believer!
“nor the Moon to recommence rotating about its internal axis”
The Moon will continue to rotate on its own axis wrt the fixed stars regardless of your tiny, tiny, minority opinions.
The Foucault pendulum in question at the Moon’s poles can be restarted if necessary at any time and will continue to show the same behavior (mind you with no air friction to slow it down it will be a LONG time on the Moon between restarts).
RLH,
You wrote –
“The Moon will continue to rotate on its own axis wrt the fixed stars regardless of your tiny, tiny, minority opinions.”
Well no, it won’t, any more than a pendulum will keep swinging forever.
You must be aware that even the Earth’s rotation is slowing, due to – external gravitational influences!
As to my opinions, they are worth exactly as much as you pay for them. Science is not a matter of majority opinions – it is all about facts.
Richard Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”.
Without experimental support, one speculation is as valid as any other, in my opinion. You may disagree. Why should I value your opinion any more than you value mine?
“Well no, it won’t, any more than a pendulum will keep swinging forever”
If the pendulum is in vacuum, the bob weight is high and the support point is low friction, then the time it takes for the pendulum to stop swinging is very, very, long indeed.
“Science is not a matter of majority opinions it is all about facts”
Science is not a matter of minority opinions either. And the facts are that the Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.
RLH found an excuse to avoid answering my questions.
What does this data mean?
On a side note, September could very well be the warmest month if you take into account ocean temperatures, which we don’t know yet until the NOAA report comes out.
UAH produces both ocean, land and the combinations of both.
This is shown in detail when the full dataset is produced (in a few days).
For last months data see:-
Global, land ocean and combined
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah.jpeg
Tropics ditto.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-tropics.jpeg
Southern hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
Northern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
etc.
This months data will be out in a few days. I will post it then.
For those who don’t know already, CTRM is a Cascaded Triple Running Mean, a ‘gaussian’ response filter that has less artifacts than a single simple running mean has.
Ricardo
You are absolutely right: we must wait until surface data is available (NOAA oceans, HadSST).
Because UAH measures temperatures of around 264 K i.e. -9 C, at an average altitude of about 4 km.
These temperatures have nothing directly in common with the surface.
Strange how weather forecasters have been doing just that, i.e. relating the free atmosphere a few km up, to the surface for a few hundred years or so.
I repeat:
These temperatures have nothing directly in common with the surface.
That various surface and lower troposphere weather patterns are highly correlated: only ignoramuses could ever doubt about that.
So any coincidence between satellite and ground stations is just that then – chance. Good to know.
Despite the two series tracking quite closely overall.
Sorted out if your monthly from daily from hourly calculations are more accurate than USCRNs are yet?
The Beaufort Gyre and the AMO have been responsible for the decrease in Arctic Sea Ice. If this was a global warming problem, don’t ya think you would of seen a corresponding ice drop in the Southern Ocean? It hasn’t gotten below 2012 levels yet up in the Arctic. As the Beaufort Gyre reverses and the AMO cools, the Arctic Sea Ice will rebound to 1979 levels eventually debunking all this nonsense once and for all. Of course, before that happens suddenly they won’t be able to monitor it anymore for some made up reason to cover the lies.
kingbum…”The Beaufort Gyre and the AMO have been responsible for the decrease in Arctic Sea Ice.”
***
Don’t forget the Transpolar Drift.
” The Beaufort Gyre and the AMO have been responsible for the decrease in Arctic Sea Ice. ”
Wow. Any source confirming your heavy claim?
” … don’t ya think you would of seen a corresponding ice drop in the Southern Ocean? ”
No.
Because the two sites completely differ:
– north: a sea ice mass enclosed in land masses;
– south: a land mass enclosed in seas, with strong circumpolar currents.
” It hasn’t gotten below 2012 levels yet up in the Arctic. ”
That is true only for the September minimum.
To obtain a correct comparison, you must build yearly averages. For that, 2012 is the very best example, as its ice rebuild phase was pretty good.
” It hasn’t gotten below 2012 levels yet up in the Arctic. ”
2012 indeed is still unbeaten for the September minimum, but 2020 was below 2012 during October.
See
https://tinyurl.com/jmnbp4vm
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l97i–7Y_ZQXgROnNCeC6vlwQbEHTEWi/view
and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
rfhirsch…”I doubt that ANYONE who reads this blog “believes” that AGW is NOT happening. We look at the information provided by Dr Spencer and the chart and recognize the rate of about 1.4 degrees per century warming since 1979″
***
How do you get a 1.4 degree (presumably Fahrenheit) per century warming over 40 years?
How is a positive trend proof of AGW? Where’s the proof? Consensus is not proof.
The pranksters at the IPCC have a mandate to find evidence of AGW. Thus far, they have found none and their mandate prevents them looking at the obvious cause of warming. The Earth cooled between 1C and 2C for 450 years during the Little Ice Age, ending circa 1850. Since then it has been re-warming at the rate of about 0.5C/century, according to Syun Akasofu.
During the LIA, glaciers advanced immensely and now they are melting. Also, ocean levels should have dropped while CO2 in the atmosphere should have dropped, both due to the colder oceans and atmosphere.
The science is there to prove natural variability and not there to support AGW.
Here is wikipedia diagram showing how the earth and the moon orbit the sun. It brings forward the concept that the earth isn’t a stationary point for the moon to orbit around. The interesting bit is that the moons path sometimes puts the moon ahead of and sometimes behind the earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg
This diagram introduces a bit of logic that suggests the moon isn’t like a ball on string orbiting around a fixed point.
The illusion is that the moon is always facing the earth and therefore isn’t rotating. I’m beginning to rethink that bit; the moons path is around the sun and is influenced by the earth. As a result its path is sinusoidal, crossing the earth’s orbit around the sun twice in each apparent orbit around the earth. Since its path is sinusoidal it must be rotating in order to always present the same face to the earth.
Ken, there’s a difference between “learning” and “indoctrinating”. If your goal is to find ways to believe in the cult nonsense, then you’re just indoctrinating yourself. You’re NOT learning.
Anyone familiar with orbital motion realizes Moon is orbiting Earth as Earth orbits Sun. That’s nothing new. If you’re just not learning that, good.
But believing that the ball-on-a-string is a model of Moon’s orbital motion means you have fallen for the indoctrination of the braindead cult idiots. They have tried to use that straw man for months, to confuse the uninformed and uneducated. The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. One side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of the orbit. The ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of Moon’s actual orbital motion, but it proves that Moon is not rotating about its axis.
The fact that one side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit is NOT an “illusion”. Trying to make that claim means you are trying to further confuse the issue to the point of confusing yourself.
You get to believe whatever you want to believe, but you don’t get to pervert reality.
You’re welcome to “rethink” your entire comment.
The Moon orbits the Sun more than it orbits the Earth.
The problem with the concept of moon orbiting earth is that earth is orbiting sun.
If the moon is orbiting earth then the problem is in how it is at one point in its orbit in the path of the earth’s orbit and at the other end is in the trail of the earth’s orbit. That implies moon is speeding up and slowing down so it maintains a constant distance from the earth. Clearly its not changing its velocity. Clearly its path is not looping around the earth; its a sinusoidal pattern around the sun.
Wrong Ken. What is clear is that you do not understand orbital motion. You can not apply kinematics, kinetics, or dynamics to orbital motion.
Your version maybe. In the real world the fixed stars are considered a reference frame against which all others can be measured.
The Sun’s gravity has a greater influence on the Moon than the Earth’s does as any calculation will show.
Not so much a cooling trend as El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo. From personal experience summers of 1985, 1986 and 1993 were cold. Tip – check for massive pyroclastic volcanic eruptions before booking summer holidays.
A cooling phase like this year you see about 10 times in UAH’s history.
The last few years. Still not unique. Yet.
Mark B ran another script count. RLH and Willard are the leading trolls, again.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-892964
Empty brains lead to empty lives. And the funny thing is both RLH and Willard believe they are brilliant!
Clint R is the leading idiot with no shame or thought.
Pup forgot a few things:
Our Dark Trolling Trio had 488 (Kiddo), 223 (Pup), and 108 (Mike Flynn) commments. Together they represented 17% of the comments in that thread. And that’s notwithstanding Gordo, who had 246 comments. Add them and you got more than 20% of the contributions from the Moon Dragon cranks.
He also forgot to do the Pole Dance Experiment.
“Moon Dragon cranks” and “Pole Dance Experiment”?
Mike Flynn?
Woeful Wee Willy’s fantasy world is indeed a curious one.
Mike Flynn, Meaningless Figure,
Thank you for playing dumb.
You’re Mike Flynn:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/#comment-802550
Oh! Oh! Oh!
For the umpteenth time
To write that the Moon ‘rotates with respect to the fixed stars‘ is just wrong and only adds confusion rather than clarity.
Above all: It literally opens up an argumentation highway for the lunar spin deniers, since they can now claim that the Moon only rotates in relation to the fixed stars, but otherwise not at all!
Newton explained a long time ago that the fixed stars merely serve a determination of the rotation time of celestial bodies that is independent of the movement of the observer.
They have nothing to do with the question of whether celestial bodies rotate or not.
As all inertial frames are considered wrt the fixed stars, I am not sure how that adds to any confusion.
With the current decline in solar activity, I predict a long-term La Nia trend.
https://i.ibb.co/qMHtTzf/inino34-daily-2014-2021.png
The largest positive anomaly temperatures are now in the Arctic.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2min_10-day.png
Is global warming limited to the Arctic? Poor seals and polar bears.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/january2021/202101_Map.png
We have just observed the hottest (or joint hottest) October days in recorded history for 4 countries.
Iran 46.0°C (new record)
Morocco 43.5°C (new record)
China 38.9°C (tied record)
South Korea 32.3°C (new record)
s,
You wrote “We . . .”.
That would be you and who else, and why should anyone care?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/10/01/south-pole-coldest-winter-record/
“South Pole posts most severe cold season on record, a surprise in a warming world”
“The temperature at the South Pole at the time of publication of this article on Oct. 1 was minus-67 degrees with a wind chill of minus-101.”
91% of new car sales in Norway this year were electric or hybrid, with well over two thirds of those being fully electric
s,
And more than 91% of new car sales in the parts of the world that aren’t Norway weren’t.
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, you seem both clueless and pointless.
Carry on,
No Norwegian, or no hybrid, has ever won NASCAR.
And nobody drives a real NASCAR race vehicle on the street in their daily commute. Besides, electric cars can exhibit absurd “performance” without all the BS.
21 Tesla Model S, 0-60 = 3.1 sec, 1/4-mile = 10.69 sec
21 Porsche Taycan 4S, 0-60 = 3.8 sec, 1/4-mile = 12.3 sec
Here’s a 2016 video.
And another comparison for your entertainment and enlightment…
No hybrid has ever won NASCAR.
ES,
Or you could buy a tuned Nissan GT-R, which can run the 1/4 mile in 8.9 secs.
An electric car would suit me fine, but my present non-electric vehicle suits me fine as well.
Horses for courses, cars for customers, I suppose. The future probably holds all sorts of surprises.
Fusion power? Anti-gravity? Boiling oceans? Michael Mann a Nobel Lareate? I wouldn’t bet against fusion power.
student…”91% of new car sales in Norway this year were electric or hybrid, with well over two thirds of those being fully electric”
***
I pity them when it comes time to change the batteries, or get even simple maintenance performed.
Global mean sea level (MSL) continues to rise
The latest satellite altimetry data has now been processed through mid-2021
https://sealevel.colorado.edu
The problem is, no one knows what global MSL is SUPPOSED to be.
It has been hundreds of feet higher and hundreds of feet lower.
Maybe we should just panic anyway….
s,
You really are gullible aren’t you?
Do you realise that a thick human hair is about 0.1 mm?
Your idiot MSL measurers use references that claim precision to 0.01 mm! These donkeys couldn’t even measure a stationary rigid object to this precision with the instrumentation they depend on, let alone human hair!
Global sea level?
You should actually read your reference. Here’s part –
“Tide gauges may also move vertically with the region as a result of post-glacial rebound, tectonic uplift or crustal subsidence. This greatly complicates the problem of determining global sea level change from tide gauge data. Differences in global sea level estimates from tide gauge data usually reflect the investigator’s approach in considering these vertical crustal movements.”
Read the rest before you start blathering about “but satellites . ..”.
Off you go now, reject reality and substitute your fantasy de jour. Good luck.
As the short term MSL anywhere on the planet is very dependent on the Moon’s and Sun’s orbits and the Moon’s in particular is being continuously changed by the other planets in the solar system, so deriving the ‘true’ height of the MSL at a particular spot is not as easy as it first seems.
There is a well known ~18.6 year cycle in the Moon’s orbit compared to the Earth/Sun but that is just a fraction of the actual orbital changes that occur.
Added to that is the problem of compensating for vertical pressure differences and ocean basin behaviors which complicates things even further.
Also, at the level of accuracy claimed, there is a need to account for wind/wave surface friction and direction and for the time period over which it acts.
Thanks for the heads up. Colorado used to update a few times a year, but now it can be more than a year between updates.
Someone is apparently interested in knowing the GMSL for a given hour on a given day or something. I’m pretty sure that micropoint interest will give way to something a little more long term as soon as there are a few months where GMSL drops.
While I get more and more bored by these endlessly repeated pingpong comments about ‘orbital motion without rotation’ versus ‘inertial reference frames’ etc etc, I get more and more impressed by the fact that astronomer Tobias Mayer computed in 1750 Moon’s rotation period about its polar axis with the same precision as that delivered by today’s evaluations of lunar laser ranging data.
And what is incredible is that Mayer had, for his observations of a few craters on the Moon, no more than a little telescope, a micrometer with 1 arcmin precision, and a metronome with 1 second precision!
Bindidon, what Mayer was measuring was “libration”. He did not understand, as we do today, that Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
Only you and your tiny, tiny, clique claim quite incorrectly that the Moon is not rotating on its own axis. It is.
RLH,
And only a tiny, tiny, clique claimed that tectonic plates drifted, or that Maxwell’s wave theory was simply wrong in certain ways. Einstein was one of a large clique who totally rejected quantum theory.
Tiny cliques are not always right, and the majority are not always wrong.
Nature cannot be fooled, try as you may.
If you believe that you and your tiny, tiny, clique are of the same inherent quality as tectonic plate scientists then you are very, very deluded and wrong.
RLH,
You wrote –
“If you believe that you and your tiny, tiny, clique are of the same inherent quality as tectonic plate scientists then you are very, very deluded and wrong.”
Which tectonic plate scientists are you referring to?
The vast majority who claimed that continental drift was preposterous, or the tiny, tiny, clique who claimed that it could be fact?
Are you claiming that Einstein was not deluded and very, very, wrong by refusing to accept quantum theory? What has “inherent quality” to do with facts?
History is littered with brilliant men who got it wrong – as it turned out. I don’t accept the caloric theory of heat, as Lord Kelvin did, nor his estimate of the age of the Earth!. I don’t agree with the meteoric impact explanation of the Sun’s heat output, as the brilliant experimenter John Tyndall did, nor his belief in the luminiferous ether.
You might well say that both these brilliant scientists are of far greater “inherent quality” than myself. All meaningless, if they are wrong. As to Sir Isaac Newton, even some of his lunar theory has been shown to be wrong. I’ll let you find out if I’m right for yourself. You won’t need any more “inherent quality” than I possess.
Have fun.
No-one in the days of GPS and the like would claim that the Earth under us is not moving. Both vertically and horizontally all the time.
No-one in the days of lunar ranging and actual landings on the Moon would claim that the Moon is not rotating on its axis either.
It’s a little simplistic to say Einstein rejected Quantum Theory, and even wrong.
Einstein was not in the Copenhagen camp, but that’s not a rejection of the theory, and it looks more and more like the Copenhagen interpretation is not the best.
As always, Clint R is completely wrong.
Of course: my English is somewhat poor, Clint R keeps making fun of it over and over; but if that Clint ignoramus would understand as much German as I understand English, he would immediately see in
https://tinyurl.com/h28489ck
that Mayer’s treatise concerning Moon’s rotation about its own axis has nothing to do with libration.
This word namely occurs only once in the treatise’s 130 pages. Here is the translation:
” Dominicus Cassini finally got into the right lane. It occurred to him to explain this phenomenon, which until then had been called the libration of the Moon, by the rotation of the Moon around its axis. ”
It is not sufficient to read articles written about Mayer by e.g. Eric Gray Forbes, who manifestly was not aware of what was written in Mayer’s treatise.
You have to go deep into the stuff, Clint R.
But… that is exactly what you are unable to, regardless what you write about.
It’s not just your English, Bindidon. It’s your inability to face reality.
We know Moon is NOT rotating, as it always has one side facing the inside of its orbit. The same face always faces its direction of motion, like a horse running on an oval track.
The concept is really easy, except for braindead cult idiots.
We KNOW you are an idiot also.
binny…”I get more and more impressed by the fact that astronomer Tobias Mayer computed in 1750 Moons rotation period about its polar axis with the same precision as that delivered by todays evaluations of lunar laser ranging data.”
***
Mayer was wrong. He missed the obvious while he had his head buried in his spreadsheets, that the Moon’s motion is translation. That’s what you get with a mathematician who is unable to observe objectively.
Lunar ranging has not proved the Moon rotates on a local axis. In fact, it solidifies the obvious, that the same side of the Moon always points at Earth. If the Moon rotated locally the ranging equipment would be broad.casting to space for more than have of the alleged orbital rotation.
The Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit, thus the equipment placed on it always are always facing towards the Earth.
As always, Robertson shows us the real dimension of his ignorance.
In contrast to Robertson, who did not really learn anything and whose ‘knowledge’ is based 100% on Wiki pages and contrarian blogs, Tobias Mayer was an educated scientist with in-depth knowledge of mathematics and astronomy, as well as a clever engineer.
Unlike Robertson and his laughable clique, Mayer has read – and understood – all of Newton’s work, what made him able to start his treatise with a Newton based proof that the Moon’s shape is of sufficient sphericity to allow the use of spherical trigonometry in all his computations.
It is a pity that no one until now was interested in a translation of Mayer’s treatise in English.
*
But the most amazing proof of Robertson’s absolute stupidity we can best see when he denies both Mayer’s genial work and today’s LLR evaluations, though they come to the same result (Mayer’s and LLR’s decimal day values first differ behind the fifth position after the decimal point).
LLR evaluation of Moon’s motion is so exact that it not only delivered the value for Moon’s rotation, but also has shown tiniest irregularities in that rotation, called ‘free physical librations’.
But… as all stubborn people (and there are a lot of on this blog), Robertson will endlessly repeat his denial.
A New Paper Claims Photosynthesis Could Be Possible in The Clouds of Venus
MICHELLE STARR1 OCTOBER 2021
…
“Specifically, the level of solar irradiation at specific altitudes is comparable to solar irradiation on Earth, meaning that airborne photosynthesizing microbes could conceivably survive at those altitudes. Moreover, the thick cloud layer would provide some protection against harmful ultraviolet radiation, and it’s possible that the acidity in those clouds is less than predicted and within acceptable parameters for life.
“Together,” the researchers wrote in their paper, “these photophysical and chemical considerations support a potential for phototrophy in Venus’ clouds.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-deems-life-supporting-photosynthesis-possible-in-the-clouds-of-venus
Linked from https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
{that posted, now,,,}
” If that weren’t bad enough, it’s lander-meltingly hot, with an average surface temperature of 471 degrees Celsius (880 degrees Fahrenheit).”
Hmm, will note no agreement this. But average is like Earth surface is 15 C. Earth is cold and Venus is hot there is wide difference of temperature on both planets, and with Venus apparently less agreement as what is an average temperature {or Venus is getting hotter- you pick}.
“From these and other historic measurements, the researchers were able to calculate the light levels within the clouds, and determined that irradiances in Venus’s middle and lower clouds are similar to those at Earth’s surface, where photosynthetic life is abundant.”
Oh something I didn’t know:
“Current estimates place the concentration of sulfuric acid at 75 percent for the middle clouds and 98 percent for the lower clouds.”
98%!!!
Anyhow, we streams with same acid on Earth and life in it- but not as brutally concentrated. I think such streams is more similar car battery acid concentration. Venus is like “Alien” blood acid concentration
My thoughts on idea. I would tend to pick the dark side on planet and some kind chemical reaction rather than direct sunlight.
And Venus underground. Or there could a lot crustal volume which not molten. Of course Venus has not been explored and idea there could life on Venus, could make harder to explore and/or use.
Space Force says upcoming meeting with industry won’t be business as usual
by Sandra Erwin — October 2, 2021
https://spacenews.com/space-force-says-upcoming-meeting-with-industry-wont-be-business-as-usual/
{from instapundit}
“This will not be a traditional briefing about contract opportunities, Cox said. It’s an attempt to bring the private sector into early deliberations on what capabilities the Space Force will need in the coming years.
“I have never seen an instance where we’ve put this level of work into detailed threat models that industry will now have in their hands to help them understand what kind of threats and targets we need to worry about for the foreseeable future,” he said. ”
Interesting. But if they talk about UFOs- space aliens. Then NOT at all interesting. I don’t much of clue what main points would be, but would not be surprised if some of it was about Space Power Satellites and nuclear rockets. Neither of which seem to me, as pressing concerns.
Space Force?
What’s next – a War on Space? The War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, even the Wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t turn out all that well.
I suppose that fighting in space will take the spotlight away from fighting on land, at sea, or in the air, none of which seem to achieve a great deal apart from wasting a lot of money and killing lots of people who probably preferred to live.
At least the Space Force seem to realise their models are defective, to say the least. Contracting everything out all, at least, absolve them from responsibility if the future doesn’t turn out the way the models predicted. Like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
US has always had space force but it something air force mostly did-
or US military was doing space before NASA was created. And US military space has always had bigger budget than NASA {except maybe in the peak of spending of Apollo Program} Military is why US has a launch capability. Military even helped Musk start SPACEX. But NASA did Saturn V, shuttle, and only recently helped companies such as SpaceX. So Saturn V and Shuttle were not vehicles which explored all planets and ect, these missions were launched US Military developed rockets.
So before Trump was even running, people have wanted the Space to have separate branch of Military [rather various branches doing some space related stuff}. And Trump started the Space Force, and probably take a few more years before really up and running. Or what doing right now get it more organized give more direction to new branch of Military. Or we using airplane in various branches miltary before we got the Air force- same thing. Just late in coming.
In my opinion, one advantage I hope we will get with Space Force is
less black programs {black programs is secret programs- which usually cost a lot money- but I am sure how much money, as they were black programs, or something you find out about 20 or 30 years [or never] later}. I am not fan of these secret stuff, as usually it’s American public that find out them as the last to know. I would limit them or put a 10 year limit on them to be disclosed.
One branch one responsibility would seem to go in that direction.
Space Force is part of the Dep of Defence. What makes you think there will be less secret stuff when the Force is tied to US security?
A rare back-to-back La Nina cycle starting from the end of this year and lasting through the summer of 2022 will likely cause global temps to drop 0.6C~0.7C from current levels of around 0.3C, for a UAH global temp anomaly of around -0.3C~-0.4C by June of next year, providing NINO 3.4 SSTs hits at least -1.5C which looks very plausible.
Moreover, both the PDO and AMO are quickly approaching their respective 30-year ocean cool cycles, which will bring 30+ years of global cooling, as occurred from 1880~1913, and 1945~1979 when the same event happened.
It’ll be hilarious to see the excuses Leftists concoct to explain away 30 years of global cooling, and 30 years of increasing Arctic Sea Ice Extents, despite CAGW’s predictions of a global warming trend of +0.2~0.3C/decade to 2100, and a projected Summer Arctic Ice Minimum of 1 million KM^2 in a few decades.
I can’t believe this silly CAGW scam has been taken seriously for so long and will be delighted when global governments stop wasting $100’s of trillions on this utter nonsense.
Ah but the cooling will produce warming. Or so we are told.
RLH-san:
Yes, ye old “global warming causes global cooling” will be Leftists’ popular refrain.
I’m sure, “the Polar Vortex is causing cooling!” will also be a popular excuse.
Leftists are so hilarious…
Scientists don’t care about politics that much.
“Ah but the cooling will produce warming. Or so we are told.
By whom? Link please.
rlh…”“Angular momentum = 0 radians/second”
Wrong. Angular momentum = PI radians per orbit”.
***
You should know better than to throw out a ‘wrong’ without thinking a problem through. I am talking about the angular momentum about the Moon’s alleged axis. There is no reference to such an angular velocity in calculations involving the Moon, only an inference that it rotates once per orbit. No proof is offered to support that claim.
The mistake I made was saying angular momentum = 0 radians/sec, I should have said angular velocity = 0 radians/sec, therefore angular momentum = 0.
The Moon has no angular momentum in its orbit since that would require an angular velocity thus a rigid attachment to the Earth. There is no such mechanical relationship between the two. The Moon is an independent entity with only linear momentum. It is diverted from its linear path gradually by the force of gravity into an orbital path.
That means gravitational force is not enough to move the Moon toward the Earth but sufficient to move it a bit off its linear path.
“I am talking about the angular momentum about the Moons alleged axis”
I am too. And the axis is real, not alleged.
The Moon rotates wrt the fixed stars, therefore it has some angular momentum around its axis wrt to them at the very least.
You can try and claim that is somehow part of the orbital momentum but you would be wrong.
Of course gravity turns a linear motion into an orbital one. But it does not make the Moon turn to ‘face’ Earth as it does so.
The Moon orbits the Sun as much as it orbits the Earth. In fact the Sun’s gravity has a greater effect than the Earth’s does over a year. Why does the Moon not ‘face’ the Sun then as you claim it does to Earth?
Since Moon has NO axial rotation, It has NO spin angular momentum.
The fact that one side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit is due to the fact that it is NOT rotating. Moon orbits Earth while Earth orbits Sun. But, that does NOT translate to Moon is orbiting Sun. People that believe Moon is orbiting Sun don’t understand orbital motion.
Since Moon has an axial rotation wrt the fixed stars, it has spin angular momentum wrt to them..
Imaginary spin creates imaginary spin angular momentum.
How are you with unicorns?
Are you saying that there is no sunrise and sunset on the Moon. Even though they are clearly visible from Earth?
As expected, pups continues to ignore the fact that the Moon rotates wrt the Sun and it’s rate of rotation is once an orbit. The “no spin” cult’s claim can only work if the Earth is the center of the solar system and the Sun rotates around the Earth. That question was settled centuries ago.
That’s funny, Swanson — good one.
Earth receives 29% less SW EM energy from sun than Moon per sq. meter. It is almost a one third less!
With the two thirds of SW EM energy Moon receives, Earth appears to be a much warmer on average surface temperature than Moon planet.
Question:
How it happens Earth receiving only the two thirds of SW EM energy Moon does, for Earth to be a much warmer than Moon planet?
Because no one disputes Earth has 29% less SW EM available energy per sq. meter to interact with than Moon has.
What we observe here is that for 29% less available energy per sq. meter Earth is, nevertheless, a much warmer planet!
Answer:
Earth surface is on average much warmer than Moon because of planet Earth 29,5 times shorter diurnal cycle, which is a result of Earth faster rotational spin.
Also, planet Earth is covered with water, and water has 5 times higher specific heat than the regolith covered lunar surface has.
It is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon we observe here.
It states that planets mean surface temperatures (everything else equals) relate as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
Please also visit my new blog:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/450665358
“Lets assume the planet F spins on its axis Faster, and the planet S spins on its axis Slower.
Both planets F and S get the same intensity solar flux on their sunlit hemispheres. Consequently both planets receive the same exactly amount of solar radiative energy.
The slower rotating planets S sunlit hemisphere surface gets warmed at higher temperatures than the faster rotating planets F sunlit hemisphere.
The surfaces emit at σT⁴ intensity it is the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
Thus the planet S emits more intensively from the sunlit side than the planet F.
There is more energy left for the planet F to accumulate then.
That is what makes the faster rotating planet F on the average a warmer planet.
That is how the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon occurs.”
Pure crap raised to the nth power.
You can tell it is crap if that retard ren approves it.
“Pure crap” would be a propagandist’s term, not science. You have to falsify, and that’s science.
Raise that to the nth plus 1 power.
Such a brave soul.
Hi I am new here,
is it possible to ask a question?
Greetings from Austria.
Yes, you can ask questions here. And they will be answered.
Greetings from Greece.
You are a disgrace to all Greece’s great thinkers of the past.
“is it possible to ask a question?”
You just did!
Is it possible to get stupid answers? Yes of course. Mostly from Clint R and his crew.
You can try but it will highly unusual, people here never ask questions, they already know everything
Ok thx,
I need some help, I have found evidence for a warmth peak about 1780 to 1800 in Europe, some parts in Asia and Australia. About 0,5 °C in 2 decades. Was this a global phenomenon? This peak, at least for some parts of Europa (1793/94), corresponds to the temperatures around 1990-1993. If this is true it is more important than the MWP. Unfortunately noone is interested.
It appears that you have found locations that have anomalously high temperatures for that period, compared to the global average.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
However, there is still some small doubt that the LIA was global. Your results might help corroborate that.
Don’t satellites pick up ozone radiation in the lower stratosphere as troposphere radiation in winter?
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/Current/arctic/plots/T_2021100300_A_150.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2020.png
You idiot. There is no such thing as “ozone radiation”.
Go back to school please.
If you look in a mirror, are you not there?
DMT wrote:
Yes there is. Ozone is a greenhouse gas and both absorbs and radiates thermal IR.
I see.
How does it differ from oxygen radiation,
or nitrogen radiation,
or cheese radiation?
Who cares?
“Since the beginning of 2016 (highest spike in Arctic blue on the left), Global seems to follow the Arctic signal (which is 60N-90N) and has the same profile. The last data point is Oct 2018. [Note: The reference period for this graph is 1981-2010]
Here is my list of questions: (I have no answers — and I hope the readers here can shed some light on the matter)
Why is the Lower Troposphere Temperature in that circle at the top of the world, 60N-90N, behaving so differently than the rest of the world ?
How much does that odd behavior affect the global record?
The DMI modelled Arctic Temperature, for north of the 80th parallel, also shows anomalously warm winters and springs, seemingly confirming that there is something going on, but only since 2005. Why is that?
How is it that the DMI above 80N seasonal graphs show seasonal anomalies from 5-8 degrees, but UAH Arctic Lower Trop shows less than 1.5 as an extreme? Is there some physical measurement error in the DMI figures since 2005? Was there some change in the measurement or model? Or is there something physical happening (sea ice doesn’t change in the same period)?”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/10/uah-arctic-temperature-profile/
What percent of the globe does 60N – 90N represent?
Why post such dumbass questions here?
It’s mostly down to the decrease in sea ice and the observation periods.
During the freeze and thaw seasons there is much more open water which exchanges heat much better than does an ice covered ocean. There was a dramatic change in ice cover around 2005-2012 so the annual temperature profile is notably different than the baseline (1958-2002).
During the Arctic summer the surface air temperature has a hard time going above 0 C because energy is absorbed as ice melt in ice covered areas or because the sea surface temperature is essentially 0 C.
One factor in the UAH data showing less variation is that it uses a more recent baseline (1981-2010 in the linked article, 1991-2021 currently). The UAH baseline thus includes more recent data so observations would be expected to show less seasonal deviation.
Also UAH is a monthly average so it is much smoother than the daily DMI plot.
USCRN in both monthly and daily pictures (yes I know it is only a fraction of the global data).
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-monthly-values.jpg
Sure the monthly is ‘smoother’ but they both show the same overall picture. Would you think that this year is above or below the average (median or mean)?
If I am not mistaken, the LT range reaches over 10 km, when in winter the tropopause over the Polar Circle drops to about 6 km on average, and even lower over the pole.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif
Somebody take this child home please.
Says the idiot who wrote –
“You idiot. There is no such thing as “ozone radiation”.
Go back to school please.”
Nobody except idiots refer to “ozone radiation”.
You obviously have no clue about the topic.
As E Swenson said (correctly) –
“Ozone is a greenhouse gas and both absorbs and radiates thermal IR.”
So who’s the idiot? Rhetorical question, idiot!
So we have those who claim that we have an excess of ground measuring stations and we could safely reduce those that we have and still be able to measure the climate accurately by kriging between them.
So there’s a simple test that will prove that wrong. Withhold 10% of the existing stations, preferably ones of known good quality such as USCRN, and then accurately reproduce what they say from the ones that are left.
So there are 138 USCRN stations currently active in the USA. Reduce that by withholding 14 randomly (or a as group) to make it 124. Then show that you can accurately produce the data that corresponds to those stations from the 124 that are left.
Good luck.
(Mind you those same people will also claim that climate models can only be improved by INCREASING the density or number of grid points without a blink of an eye).
The claim is that one can reproduce certain ensemble statistics (average anomaly, ensemble trend, etc) with a station data set significantly more sparse than that which is available. There is ample evidence for this claim in the literature for anyone inclined to look for it.
Your test is apparently to go in the opposite direction, that is, reproducing some parameters for a deleted station from the remaining ensemble. Ignoring that you haven’t clearly defined what parameters you like to see reproduced it’s not a valid test of the actual claim.
Temperature data (or any other climate data in fact) for the 10% ‘missing’ stations. If it is as easy as you claim there should be no problem with accurately reproducing that data from a sparser dataset.
I dispute the literature as being overly optimistic in being able to do this simple task.
If one were to remove the top or bottom outliers in this dataset
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude.jpg
the results would be biased in one direction or another.
You may claim that the ensemble statistics (say trends) are unaltered by this 10% reduction but that is a supposition, not fact.
In absurdism you could reduce the stations to just one and still be able to predict the rest. Good luck with that.
Knock yourself out
Well as each individual station only covers 1 square mile at best, we already have a sparse dataset. (and only for ~30% of the globe’s surface at that).
Which single station would you like to choose as representative of all the rest?
How about the triangle between Lancashire, London and Bristol?
Does that only contain 1 station? I think not.
Temperature anomalies are well correlated between stations at much greater distances, particularly in the mid-latitudes. See, for instancesHansen/Lebedeff (1987) figure 3.
The math is clear that for the purpose of computing temperature anomalies and trends over climatically relevant intervals the available station data is many times more than sufficient.
And if you mean the CET that is slightly more than a triangle
https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/cet
and I’m not sure you would want that as a full global representative sample.
“Temperature anomalies are well correlated between stations at much greater distances, particularly in the mid-latitudes”
That is definitely true at higher elevations in ‘free atmosphere’ above the surface boundary layer.
The presumption is that the SBL is consistent across that span also. It isn’t.
“A circle of 1200-km radius is drawn around each station”
That’s a pretty big extension of a point sample.
RLH says: The presumption is that the SBL is consistent across that span also. It isn’t.
Correlation coefficients aren’t a “presumption”, it’s standard mathematics applied to real station data. Correlation says averaged station temperature anomalies are well correlated across significant distances.
RLH says: ‘A circle of 1200-km radius is drawn around each station’
That’s a pretty big extension of a point sample.
It’s not particularly intuitive but it appears to be objective reality.
> I’m not sure you would want that as a full global representative sample.
https://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/
“It’s not particularly intuitive but it appears to be objective reality”
The SBL changes by day and night over quite a short geographic distance and is rarely repeatable location to location as such.
I can average all the paleoclimate proxies together to produce a flatish straight line too. Doesn’t mean that they have any reality though.
Decided yet which summary statistics are appropriate for semi-sinusoidal data yet?
Willard: I am sure that the CET is fairly good representation of mid-level northern latitudes to the east of the Atlantic. I doubt it holds for the Tropics, the Poles, or the rest of the world though.
Of course you won’t throw the Auditor under the bus, dummy.
RLH says: The SBL changes by day and night over quite a short geographic distance and is rarely repeatable location to location as such.
Objective mathematical analysis says otherwise.
I can average all the paleoclimate proxies together to produce a flatish straight line too.
If the series are positively correlated averaging them cannot produce a flat line. This follows trivially from the definition of correlation.
Decided yet which summary statistics are appropriate for semi-sinusoidal data yet?
So we’re done with the sparse station topic then?
“Objective mathematical analysis says otherwise”
Averages of random data produces what? Averages of sparse data produces what?
“If the series are positively correlated averaging them cannot produce a flat line”
They are quite randomly different in fact, hence the straight line of the hockey stick. That’s what happens when you average random data I’m told.
“So we’re done with the sparse station topic then?”
No, and there can be more than one observation going at the same time.
Sparse station data can be interpreted many ways. Because it is sparse.
How you turn point samples into a wider area or volume is a lot trickier than just doing some maths or statistics. You can convince yourself of correlations, trends and many other things that are not really there if you try.
Willard: Actually I understand about trying to create wider implications of narrow sub-sets of data. You either don’t or won’t.
You’re new to Climateball, dummy, so of course you don’t or won’t read about the Deming Affair:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/demingaffair
The Auditor finally conceded that Hubert’s cartoon was a cartoon.
Willard is an old hat at being an idiot. Nothing changes there.
Mark B: Do you think that climate models can be improved by shrinking their grid size? If so, how do you reconcile that with not wanting to do the same with measuring stations spacings?
Richard’s a 74 Hall Monitor who, instead of dealing with the fact that once upon a time one of his gurus indeed took Hubert’s graph as authoritative, waves his arms and spits.
Willard being an idiot as usual.
There is a video by Carl Otto Weiss where he uses the long term records from 6 cities in Europe (because there are not other long term records) and compares them to each other.
Then he compares the average of the 6 to the ice core reconstruction from Greenland and finds the pattern of warming and cooling over 200 years is similar enough to draw conclusions that its valid for the entire planet.
The conclusion is corroborated with tree ring and sediment proxy data.
So the argument that there are not enough ground measuring stations from which to draw meaningful conclusions about temperature trends is rather specious.
It would be great if there were more ground measuring stations but there are not.
Here is Carl Otto Weiss video: https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/
Didn’t know you were a Larouche fanboi, Kennui.
“The climate change is due to natural cycles”
Yes, climate change is due to natural cycles. CO2 is a bit player in the greenhouse.
The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles, of which about 33% is desert and about 24% is mountainous. Subtracting this uninhabitable 57% (32,665,981 mi2) from the total land area leaves 24,642,757 square miles or 15.77 billion acres of habitable land.
So if each temperature measuring station on land covers/represents 1 square mile (quite an exaggeration in itself) and is set within that habitable land area then we are more that a few short of a representative sample.
And that only covers the ground, not the volume of air above it.
“The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles”
A prize for the first person to spot the problem with this statement.
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/land.htm
Is that a correction?
If so, that is not the problem.
Have another look at what you wrote.
I forgot to put where I got that quote from (and include the quote marks). That is all. Are you claiming that they are wrong? If so, what is the figure that you prefer for land surface area?
I’ll downgrade the area that a temperature measuring station covers to 100m by 100m if you like, so give to us m * m.
RLH – you haven’t a clue have you?
A scientist can see the problem quite easily.
You are obviously a scientifically illiterate amateur or, even worse, an engineer.
Are you saying that the point samples that the climate stations cover is a significant fraction of the Earth? I thought not. Idiot.
RLH,
They are not point samples.
A point even less so than a single molecule or atom, can’t have a temperature.
dmt,
You are a lying swine. There is no prize, is there?
You are just being stupid.
Honestly, we have reached the bottom of the barrel in this thread in record time.
Says the idiot who wrote –
“You idiot. There is no such thing as “ozone radiation”.
Go back to school please.”
Nobody except idiots refer to “ozone radiation”.
You obviously have no clue about the topic.
Did you really just refer to ozone radiation?
To throw him a bone, I’m going to pose DumbAss’s position in terms of the more precise question he should have asked himself in order for his answer to be correct.
“Does the moon rotate in a frame of reference whose coordinate system is fixed to the vector from the earth’s center of mass to the moon’s center of mass?” No (approximately). If the only valid measure of the moon’s rotation is whether or not it rolls up an imaginary string between the two bodies (it isn’t), then that is one way to frame his premise in reasonably precise, mathematical terms, and no, the moon does not rotate in that frame of reference.
If, however, we ask a different question, say about the face the moon presents to the sun, then that implies an altogether different frame of reference is appropriate.
All that to say: Clint, there is no single frame of spatial reference that is universally “correct.” The “correct” frame of reference, if one exists, is implied by the particular question being asked. That’s what we mean by “arbitrary.” SMH
FFS!
Brent, that’s why the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string is so useful. If the ball is rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it. If Moon were rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
And don’t get confused by Sun. Moon orbits Earth. Trying to somehow mix in Sun makes it appear you’re just trying to confuse the issue.
The Moon orbits the barycenter of the Moon/Earth which in turn orbits the Sun.
The Sun has a greater influence on the Moon than the Earth does.
No worries, pups. The Moon isn’t connected to the Earth with a string (or any other solid link). The Moon rotates once an orbit, causing the lunar illumination cycle.
> If the ball is rotating about its axis
You always forget the tne who holds the ball, Pup.
You also always forget that the string is not attached to the center of the ball.
You also always forget the stars.
Why is that?
RLH, Swanson, and Willard have formed a comedy trio!
They were unable to solve the simple problem about the barbell. They know NOTHING about orbital motion, as they continue to demonstrate.
A trio of braindead cult idiots.
Funny.
On the contrary, orbital mechanics are well known to those outside Clint R and his tiny, tiny clique.
Please see the trajectory of the moon and earth around the sun. Explain how ball-on-a-string applies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg
Ken, the reason you can’t understand that the ball-on-a-string is only a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is that you may be a braindead cult idiot.
Alternatively Clint R is the member of a cult whereas everybody else is not.
Clint R
Did you ever think about the fact that while the amount of people you ignoramus dare to name ‘braindead cult idiot’ permanently increases, the amount of people agreeing to your ignorant nonsense decreases?
Stipulated.
You still haven’t explained why ball-on-string applies given the moon’s trajectory around the sun.
Ken proves braindead Bindidon right. Ken can NOT understand the simple analogy is only about “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Five simple words, and they can’t understand.
That’s what is called “braindead”.
‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ means that there are no sunrise or sunset on the Moon. As there are, it is obviously not true for the Moon.
I keep saying these idiots have no clue about orbital motion. And they keep proving me right.
No wonder this is so much fun.
Clint R keeps proving he is an idiot.
I’m learning not to respond to RLH. He not only is a braindead cult idiot, but he’s mentally deranged. That’s why he makes far more comments than anyone else, without being able to contribute any intelligence.
The reason Moon has “day” and “night” is due to it’s orbit around Earth. It always keeps the same side facing the center of its orbit around Earth, but presents different sides to Sun.
RLH has now mentioned several times that the calculated value of gravitational attraction is greater for Moon/Sun, than Moon/Earth. This has been known for over a century, but RLH just learned it. I’ve been watching to see where RLH would go with his new info, but he clearly doesn’t understand the implications. Orbital motion does NOT fit with the other sciences of kinematics, kinetics, and dynamics. Orbital motion is a field of study all its own. It’s fun to watch RLH flounder about, cluelessly making a fool of himself.
RLH will respond with something inane and juvenile, but I will just let it go. I don’t have time to deal with a braindead idiot that comments more than 40 times a day!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-894795
I thought for a while that ball on a string is good analogy but it assumes earth is center of the universe and that is clearly not true.
I’m beginning to think balloon on a string might be a better analogy.
Try a yo-yo with an axle that spins freely, without creating a torque on the yo-yo.
“I thought for a while that ball on a string is good analogy but it assumes earth is center of the universe and that is clearly not true.”
Yes, it is clearly not true that the ball on a string analogy assumes Earth is center of the Universe.
It is nearly as daft as that though.
It is not daft at all.
If it’s not daft, you are.
No, all you have to remember is, if the string is always taut, the attachment to the surface of the ball cannot apply a torque about the ball’s internal axis.
A string attached to a surface is nothing like gravity acting on a center.
All you have to remember is, if the string is always taut, the attachment to the surface of the ball cannot apply a torque about the ball’s internal axis.
A string attached to a surface is nothing like gravity acting on a center..
Actually, gravity acts on the whole object. Every part of the moon is attracted to the Earth. It is only “on average” that it acts on the center. So there is a way in which a string attached to a surface is something like how gravity operates.
In any case, all you have to remember is, if the string is always taut, the attachment to the surface of the ball cannot apply a torque about the ball’s internal axis.
“Global monthly sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were above the 20th Century average for the 544th consecutive month.”
The coming La Nina will make that harder to sustain.
544 months are about 45 years.
The probability that the 2021/22 Nina signal power reaches any of the strongest ones since 1979 (2010-12, 2007-09, 1998-2000, 1988-1990)
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
is not so terribly far from zero when we
– compare it to these, and
– look at even the worst forecast for 2021/22 (that of NOAA).
Thus… wait and see, as usual.
Wait and see if others are correct means that you are never wrong. Go it.
Looking at HadSST the 50 year trend line is more than 0.6 C above the 20th century mean. Historically large deviations from that are on the order of 0.3 C. To go under the 20th century mean at this point seems really improbable in the absence of a large scale volcano or some such.
This is how the 25th solar cycle goes – after a momentary increase again a strong decrease in solar wind speed.
https://i.ibb.co/Y3gh09R/latest2day.gif
ren
Are you in between so incredibly dumb that you even don’t see that this graph represents solar data for only FOURTY EIGHT HOURS ?
Number of spotless days per year
During periods of low solar activity, the Sun can be devoid of any sunspots and thus be spotless. This is a frequent occurrence in the years around and during solar minimum. The graph below shows how many days during a specific year that the earth-facing side of the Sun had no sunspots.
https://i.ibb.co/P5ZDDgP/spotless-days.png
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle.html
“Over the course of a solar cycle the solar wind modulates the fraction of the lower-energy GCR particles such that a majority cannot penetrate to Earth near solar maximum. Near solar minimum, in the absence of many coronal mass ejections and their corresponding magnetic fields, GCR particles have easier access to Earth.”
https://i.ibb.co/Bty2swR/onlinequery.gif
ren
Why are you still speaking about spotless days as if we still were in 1947?
Never heard of solar flux at 10.7 cm?
Even on spotless days, it is never zero.
Here is the current situation, ren.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QDIH1i34iyU4cQgkhwoUDYTYAA2Qx-7v/view
I can’t update it for the moment – holidays!
And should you not know, or have some ‘skepticism’ about how SSN and F10.7 correlate:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view
This winter we are seeing a pronounced negative stratospheric temperature anomaly below the -60th parallel.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2021.png
The solar flux is not the solar wind. It is the solar wind’s magnetic field and GCRs that have the greatest impact on changes in high latitudes.
“These charged particles travel at a fraction of the speed of light and have enormous energy. When these particles hit the atmosphere, large streams of secondary particles are produced, and some even reach the ground. The Earth’s own magnetic field also acts to protect the Earth from these particles by largely deflecting them away from the equatorial regions, but providing little or no protection near the polar regions or above about 55 degrees latitude (magnetic latitude and latitude vary due to the tilt and shift of the Earth’s magnetic field away from its geographic center).”
I remind you that changes in secondary radiation in the form of neutrons are measured near the Earth’s surface.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/galactic-cosmic-rays
This is what UV radiation now looks like in the bands that produce ozone.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
F10,7 cm Radio Flux
https://i.ibb.co/Qj6vsnD/solar-cycle-progression.png
ren
Are you really so naive to believe people like me would trust in such an anonymous private blog like spaceweatherlive.com?
Are you kidding us here, ren?
Well if I had to choose between a non-profit based in Belgium or you with regard to solar conditions….
“SpaceWeatherLive is an initiative of Parsec vzw, a non-profit organization from Belgium which consists of several websites about astronomy, space, space weather, aurora and related subjects”
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle.html
I trust SILSO’s SSN (Belgium) and Space Weather’s F10.7 (Canada).
Here is F10.7:
ftp://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
Feel free to evauate it…
You don’t need to trust me! What would that mean for me?
Until now, you were still not able to admit that my daily mean/median/average evaluations of USCRN’s hourly data are correct, let alone would you be able to prove them incorrect!
That, RLH, is pure dishonesty.
If you were a honest person, you would generate the same three daily time series out of USCRN’s hourly or even subhourly data
– with two digits after the decimal point
– excluding all incomplete days
for e.g. AK_Kenai_29_ENE.
Then we could compare your result with mine when I’m back from holiday.
But you won’t do that because you then would have to finally admit that I did nothing wrong.
You prefer to woefully insinuate without proof I did it wrong.
That, RLH, is pure cowardice.
“Until now, you were still not able to admit that my daily mean/median/average evaluations of USCRN’s hourly data are correct, let alone would you be able to prove them incorrect!”
I believe that USCRN are more accurate in their published data than your poor reconstruction of their figures from already rounded data.
Mean and median of sinusoidal data are not a very good statistic to use.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/uscrn-monthly-values.jpg
“You prefer to woefully insinuate without proof I did it wrong”
I insinuate nothing. Merely observe that using already rounded data in any subsequent calculation without any form of qualifications has always been a wrong approach.
” Merely observe that using already rounded data in any subsequent calculation without any form of qualifications has always been a wrong approach. ”
Completely wrong.
USCRN’s rounded hourly data was good enough for a mean/median/average comparison.
You are too much a coward to prove the contrary on this blog.
*
Of course the USRCN daily data is better! No one did ever pretend the contrary.
But… again and again and again: their wonderful daily data has mean and average, but no median data.
That medians which you claimed some months ago to be the best averaging method evah, suddenly no longer interested you anymore, is not my fault.
*
And such an arrogant guy names me an ‘arrogant twat’…
Jesus.
Great wisdom and insight from Dr. Patrick Moore, ex-President of Greenpeace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEOLKEc5eRM
Except that Pat wasn’t elected:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)#Presidency_of_Greenpeace_Foundation_in_Canada
After this debacle Patrick had to found Greenpeace Canada. And even then that presidency was not rosy.
He did not found Greenpeace as he falsely claims, btw.
And you’re a liar and a propagandist. So who do we believe?
And, you didn’t refute anything he said.
He’s been refuted on his nonsense many times. Eventually you just give up on this kind of hooey.
Solar update final
The wrong SC25 start date has been moved back by 6 months to correct for the miss shifted data, the original prediction remains plotted in light-blue
https://i.postimg.cc/yxtvfP8f/4cycle25-prediction.png
This will be a big surprise for Bindiclowndon who keeps posting his misaligned chart as some kind of proof of higher solar cycle
Eben
How often will you post graphs without publishing the source you got them from?
Why do you dissimulate that all the time?
*
Do you understand what these graphs mean?
Well: I think you don’t.
*
They do anyway by no means contradict what I wrote about this comparison of F10.7 cm for SC24 vs. SC25:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QDIH1i34iyU4cQgkhwoUDYTYAA2Qx-7v/view
And the source of my evaluation I mentioned, as opposed to you, all the time:
ftp://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
*
You may be convinced that the Moon rotates, Eben.
But apart from that you behave like Robertson, Clint R and others.
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/10/01/price-living-near-shore-is-already-high-its-about-go-through-roof/
With all due respect, Clint, you are completely missing the point even after the way you frame the question has been put into its proper context. The way you defined “rotation” is in a particular frame of reference that you have privileged over all other possible frames of reference. By asking a certain question (“does the moon roll up the string?”), you privilege one of many frames of reference. That’s OK, but at least you should be intelligent enough to admit it…and its implications. Because: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A UNIVERSALLY “CORRECT” FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR ALL POSSIBLE QUESTIONS IN MECHANICAL DYNAMICS, orbital or otherwise.
Like Ken, Brent STILL can’t understand the simple analogy. And he’s so braindead, he’s even claiming I said things I never said!
Now, he’s off creating the straw-man “UNIVERSALLY correct frame of reference”!
He’s just another desperate braindead cult idiot. In fact, I suspect “Brent” is really that idiot Folkerts. They both attempt the same type of subterfuge.
It’s so easy staying lightyears ahead of the idiots. That’s why this is so much fun.
I agree. You being an idiot is fun for the rest of us.
brent…”The way you defined rotation is in a particular frame of reference that you have privileged over all other possible frames of reference”.
***
What you don’t get, Brent, is that frames of reference are irrelevant to whether the Moon is rotating about its axis. Rotation about an axis requires an angular momentum about that axis. If it’s not there in one FOR it’s not there in any frame of reference. The requirement that the Moon keep the same face to the Earth rules out local rotation.
The Moon does not rotate locally, it’s change of orientation throughout its orbit is caused by translation, like an airliner flying around the Equator at 35,000 feet.
“The requirement that the Moon keep the same face to the Earth rules out local rotation”
But there is rotation wrt the Sun therefore it has angular momentum wrt that at least. And no, that is not the same as orbital momentum which is wholly different thing, both wrt the Sun and the Earth.
“But there is rotation wrt the Sun…”
…but not about the moon’s own internal axis.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
If I stand at the Moon’s poles, the rotation is clearly around that.
That would be one way to delude yourself. You would see the stars moving over time, but that would be down to the orbital motion.
pups, “orbital motion” only applies to the path of the CM around the orbit. The Moon’s rotation is not related to it’s orbit and it’s well defined axis of rotation is not perpendicular to orbit plane.
Wrong, Swanson. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement like the “moon on the left”, in the gif below. You believe it is as per the “moon on the right”.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
pups still doesn’t understand dynamics.
There is nobody here commenting by the name “pups”, Swanson.
You’re a nobody? Who would have guessed?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Gordo repeats his failure to understand physics:
For a body in space (a “free body”), rotation must be defined in a non-rotating coordinate system, i.e., an inertial reference frame. When measured against an inertial reference frame, (the far distant stars), the Moon obviously rotates. The Earth-Moon vector represents a rotating reference frame and can not be the basis of determining the Moon’s rotation or it’s angular momentum.
“When measured against an inertial reference frame, (the far distant stars), the Moon obviously rotates…”
…but not on its own axis.
Repeating declared ‘truths’ such as these is simply argument by assertion, and pointless trolling.
Just stop.
Nate says:
”Repeating declared truths such as these is simply argument by assertion, and pointless trolling.
Just stop.”
Nate makes an assertion with pointless trolling. DREMT’s point is both correct and relevant to Swanson’s error in making a spinner argument completely devoid of any logical validity.
Swanson’s argument arises out of putting one hand over one eye to blot out a cherry-picked 50% of the horizon.
Rotation around an external axis is exhaustively described by Dr. Madhavi. . . .put one hand over one eye to blot out the external axis and it does indeed appear the moon rotates on an internal axis. . . .but that is just another conclusion arrived at by spinners out of complete and self-imposed ignorance.
“Rotation around an external axis is exhaustively described by Dr. Madhavi.”
Yep.
Both Madhavi and the Brown University Lecture Notes on Rigid Body Kinematics make it absolutely clear that DREMT is not using the correct definition of rotation.
Our Moon is in an elliptical orbit. Both sources are unambiguous that this type of motion cannot be described as rotation around an external axis.
Why do you guys insist on making up your own facts?
Our Moon librates significantly. It has significant axial tilt.
Neither of these can be explained WITHOUT rotation around its own axis.
That’s right, bill, but most of them don’t even agree that a ball on a string is rotating around an external axis, without rotating on an internal axis. They keep making arguments that the attachment to the ball applies a torque about the internal axis, hence they (you would assume) must believe it is rotating about an internal axis. Even though in the next breath half of them will acknowledge that a ball on a string would be a textbook example of what Madhavi would describe as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis…
…then the other half of them believes that the ball on a string is rotating about an internal axis because that is how they think Madhavi defines it! Just look at Ball4 and bobdroege, for instance. There is a huge amount of disagreement between the Spinners, and a huge amount of confusion and contradiction within some of their arguments individually. Until they sort all this out, there is no reason to take any of them seriously.
Both Madhavi and the Brown University Lecture Notes on Rigid Body Kinematics make it absolutely clear that DREMT is not using the correct definition of rotation.
And thus his model for the Moon’s motion is proven completely wrong.
What to do?
Return to the trusty Ball-On-A-String faulty analogy!
"Rotation around an external axis is exhaustively described by Dr. Madhavi…"
…and some of them want to make an exception for the moon, and orbits in general, because orbits aren’t circular! They want to argue that rotation about an external axis has to happen in a perfect circle! The desperation is laughable. So why can you find multiple sources that describe orbits (which we are all well aware are not perfectly circular, but elliptical) and revolution in general as "a rotation about an external axis"!?
Another fact that they have to deny in order to keep their beliefs going…they have to just pretend that these sources are wrong, or do not really exist, or are really talking about something else. Even though they use perfectly clear language such as:
"If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. There is no fundamental difference between a “rotation” and an “orbit” and or "spin". The key distinction is simply where the axis of the rotation lies, either within or outside of a body in question. This distinction can be demonstrated for both “rigid” and “non rigid” bodies."
It’s just crazy, bill.
“Its just crazy, bill.”
Apparently DREMT thinks Brown University and Madhavi get rotation wrong.
It is just crazy.
“Another fact that they have to deny in order to keep their beliefs goingthey have to just pretend that these sources are wrong, or do not really exist”
Yep. To keep the argument going, DREMT does EXACTLY that!
So now Nate’s argument is the moon doesn’t rotate around the earth because it doesn’t go around in a perfect circle. That argument boils down to Madhavi only teaches interesting little conceptual tidbits that have zero application in the real world as no perfect circles exist. ROTFLMAO!
But this is the crux of DREMTs argument, that our Moon’s orbit is a pure ROTATION.
It is at best, a semantic argument.
But if it relies on twisting basic Kinematic definitions, then even the semantic argument falls away.
Beyond semantics, our Moon librates significantly, and it has significant axial tilt.
These things can be EASILY explained with axial rotation and conservation of angular momentum.
WITHOUT the Moon’s rotation around its own axis they are impossible to explain, beyond vague hand-waving.
But feel free to try again to explain them. No hand-waving. Specifics please.
“but that is just another conclusion arrived at by spinners out of complete and self-imposed ignorance.”
It is really hard to believe that you think that the universal descriptions of planetary motion that have worked well for Astronomy, Astrophysics and engineering for > 300 y, are somehow ‘self-imposed ignorance.’
Science needs revision when it fails to predict what is observed. Are there specific failures you can point out?
Nate it is laughable to try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist. All you have is an unsupported claim that Madhavi makes clear that DREMT has an incorrect definition of rotation.
you seem to believe that Dr Madhavi’s teachings in kinematics with perfect circles and a 2 dimensional world is the be all end all teachings of kinematics. You are of course completely wrong about that as in the real world one can extend those concepts into the 3 dimensions and work with various materials to pull off some amazing pieces of engineering. but you are such a total novice you haven’t even yet imagined such an engineering much less seen and recognized one.
if you are confused by that in short what it says is you are wrong.
“try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist.”
Where have I done that? Im not claiming that.
Madhavi and Brown and every other Kinematics course explain non-circular motion as General Plane Motion. Which is described as a combination of Translation of the COM plus Rotation around the COM.
It is an approach that has worked perfectly well for 300 y. It applies universally to all orbits….even nearly-circular ones.
It works perfectly for our Moon in its moderately elliptical orbit. It worked well for NASA and others to send spacecraft to Orbit and land on the Moon.
Again, I ask, can you point out where this standard model has produced errors? Nothing offered so far.
Again I ask you to account for axial tilt and libration with your model? Nothing offered so far.
If you guys want to model elliptical orbits as approximately circular, to enable you to then be able to call them ‘pure rotations’, then you can certainly do so for self-gratification.
But you will never land a spacecraft on the Moon with that model. You could miss it by as much as 22,000 Km.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Hunter still can’t comprehend that kinematics does not apply to a free body moving in a gravitational field. The result is some form of an elliptical orbit with six degrees of freedom, i.e., three translation and three rotation vectors. Kinematics does not depend on the velocity of the elements but dynamics does.
Nate says:
October 17, 2021 at 6:21 AM
try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist.
Where have I done that? Im not claiming that.
————————
You have argued that the elliptical orbit of the moon and its resultant librations disqualifies the earth’s center of gravity as an axis of rotation.
In the real world everything librates and all rotations follow imperfect circles. Its the same thing as arguing that tidal movements on the surface of the earth disqualifies the axis of the earth as an axis of rotation. You may as well be a science denier by not recognizing the difference between concepts and reality.
—–
—–
———
Nate says:
”Madhavi and Brown and every other Kinematics course explain non-circular motion as General Plane Motion. Which is described as a combination of Translation of the COM plus Rotation around the COM.”
Wrong! Did you even read Madhavi?
She describes a translation as: 1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.
and adds:
It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the body move along parallel paths. If these paths are straight lines. The motion is said to be a rectilinear
translation (Fig 1); If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation.
No example of a general plane motion given by Madhavi includes a rotation being described as merely a translation. She in fact warns the reader: ”Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”
and adds that general plane motions include ”other types” of plane motion. That would be multiple axis situations where a non-rotation is combined with a rotation on a different axis.
You have to be dork to run roughshod over Madhavi’s carefully laid out hierarchy of motions and try to claim her explanations as the source of your argument.
—–
—–
———
Nate says:
”It is an approach that has worked perfectly well for 300 y. It applies universally to all orbits.even nearly-circular ones.
It works perfectly for our Moon in its moderately elliptical orbit. It worked well for NASA and others to send spacecraft to Orbit and land on the Moon. Again, I ask, can you point out where this standard model has produced errors? Nothing offered so far.”
———–
LMAO. Its your claim Nate that NASA only uses rotation models for a COM axial spin of the moon.
You haven’t proven thats the case.
Where I think you really go wrong is in your assumption that the axial rotation you imagine was derived from some remnant of a pre-orbital axial rotation. It is now well recognized that the motion of the moon derives from an adequately rigid connection to an external axis.
You simply rely on archaic astronomical assumptions that predated that knowledge. . . .assumptions that astronomy doesn’t have a grant or need to fix as they aren’t yet in the business of creating worlds.
One might be deceived into thinking the earth is in general plane motion but the non-concentric movement of the earth’s particles is due to there being two rotations on two different axes simultaneously. That isn’t a general plane motion.
Finally, as DREMT has clearly shown there is no unanimity in astronomy or science that an orbit is not a rotation.
But that doesn’t deter Nate he will claim like he does elsewhere that there is a consensus of all scientists he is right without providing a shred of evidence.
—–
—–
———
Nate says:
”Again I ask you to account for axial tilt and libration with your model? Nothing offered so far.
If you guys want to model elliptical orbits as approximately circular, to enable you to then be able to call them pure rotations, then you can certainly do so for self-gratification.
But you will never land a spacecraft on the Moon with that model. You could miss it by as much as 22,000 Km.”
———
Again Nate completely ignores Madhavi’s carefully crafted differences between rotations, translations, and general plane motions and starts making stuff up, completely without a shred of scientific support, to distinguish between them.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter still cant comprehend that kinematics does not apply to a free body moving in a gravitational field.”
——————-
Source please for this claim!
May as well say kinematics doesn’t apply to anything IMO. You need to provide a source that specifies what it applies to and does not apply to. Yet all you do is provide links to NASA rotational models that suggest otherwise. Even the scientists call orbits rotations and Swanson claims here otherwise without evidence. I am sure DREMT has tired of providing you proof of scientists calling orbits rotations and having you ignore them.
Your argument seems to devolve down to the three monkeys who hear, see, and speak no evil.
“Wrong! Did you even read Madhavi?”
Yes and I Never denied any of it. So where am I wrong?
“She describes a translation as: 1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
Where do I disagree?
“It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the body move along parallel paths. If these paths are straight lines. The motion is said to be a rectilinear
translation (Fig 1); If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation.”
When do I disagree?
“No example of a general plane motion given by Madhavi includes a rotation being described as merely a translation.”
I never said any such thing!
“She in fact warns the reader: ‘Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.’
Yes, that is a warning YOU should heed. An orbit on an elliptical path is NOT a rotation, as she makes ABSOLUTELY CLEAR!
It is a curvilinear translation.
Nate says:
“She in fact warns the reader: ‘Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.’
Yes, that is a warning YOU should heed. An orbit on an elliptical path is NOT a rotation, as she makes ABSOLUTELY CLEAR!
It is a curvilinear translation.
———————-
You are wrong because the defining element is concentricity. You are trying to make the defining element eccentricity and you do it via grasping at the most limited definition of words used by scientists that are irrelevant to the actual point they are making but use the word only for the sake of simplicity of concepts.
this type of making up of limiting conditions is a problem with greenhorn scientists whose egos drive them to elevate the simple forms of their education over the complex substance of real world problems.
So are you going to take the stand that kinematics of rotation has no meaning except for ellipses with an eccentricity of precisely zero? If so that’s pretty stupid of you. And if that is not your stand you need to quantify what is your stand.
This is same problem you have when you claim an orbiting body depending upon gravity to hold it in place has zero rigidity.
I will agree that an object in rotation around an external axis where the paths of the individual particles are not concentric has another axis somewhere. If the motions of the particles are concentric it does not. Thats why concentricity is the only element of an ellipse that matters.
Thats why concentricity is the only element of an ellipse that matters. . . .in the defining of a location of an axis.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
and some of them want to make an exception for the moon, and orbits in general, because orbits arent circular! They want to argue that rotation about an external axis has to happen in a perfect circle! The desperation is laughable.
Its just crazy, bill.
———————-
Indeed DREMT.
It is born of desperation like a bible thumper relying upon narrow definitions of every word uttered in the bible.
As you have repeatedly shown orbits are described as rotations by many scientists and to my knowledge there are no orbits that are perfect circles.
And of course that would be stupid if one actually did make such a claim because the eccentricity of a elliptical orbit doesn’t change any of the energies or rigidities necessary for an orbit.
Talking about minds that live in hermetically sealed inculcation boxes, learning only by inculcation and devotion to the words of their Gods!!! Appeals to God work for stuff we don’t understand. But we do understand the physical manifestation of gravity and in that realm they have absolutely zero to support their argument.
I guess they are just a bunch of science deniers.
Nate “Yes, that is a warning YOU should heed. An orbit on an elliptical path is NOT a rotation, as she makes ABSOLUTELY CLEAR!
It is a curvilinear translation.”
–
Bill sez: “You are wrong because the defining element is concentricity.”
I am simply taking what Brown and Madhavi say at FACE VALUE.
IDK how you are arriving at your quite different interpretations.
“Madhavi
Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration. Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.
Brown:
“Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.
General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
Neither of these is consistent with an elliptical orbit.
Here is another nice one that agrees with the others
http://courses.washington.edu/engr100/me230/week6.pdf
See fig 16-1
A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars but travelling on an elliptical orbit is clearly consistent with the motion described as Curvilinear Translation.
A body in elliptical orbit AND changing its orientation wrt the stars can only be described as General Plane Motion.
Nate says:
Bill sez: “You are wrong because the defining element is concentricity.”
I am simply taking what Brown and Madhavi say at FACE VALUE.
———————-
Right! A face value that ignores Kepler’s laws.
Thats what I said about you Nate. You treat the words of scientists as the words of Gods with zero skepticism and full of artificial conceptual limitations of a rote learner like a boot licking sycophant.
So we are in agreement on what you did.
BTW, circular is a word that includes ellipses.
Hunter again fails to comprehend the physics of gyroscopic motion. He also ignores the fact that the rotational momentum of a free body is conserved. The Moon’s rotation around an axis passing thru it’s CM results in an astronomical angular momentum, the magnitude of which does not change when revolving around it’s orbit. As a result, the Moon’s axis points toward a fixed point in the stars, just as the Earth’s axis points to another point in the stars. Both experience precession, due to the effects of gravity.
“Right! A face value that ignores Keplers laws.”
??? You’re just not making any sense, Bill.
“Thats what I said about you Nate. You treat the words of scientists as the words of Gods with zero skepticism and full of artificial conceptual limitations of a rote learner like a boot licking sycophant.”
Now you are just tossing out gibberish and ad-homs.
You seem frustrated that you have no science facts to back up your views.
Nate says:
Now you are just tossing out gibberish and ad-homs.
You seem frustrated that you have no science facts to back up your views.
===================
LMAO! Nate science is a process of hypothesis and proof. You are using a definition in place of that. You simply just believe everything a scientist says and what you read in a book or a study.
An auditor cannot rely on such evidence as it has no value as evidence. You have to actually read everything in the book or study and determine that indeed a hypothesis and proof was offered for what you want to believe to be science. If its not there or there isn’t a reference you can trace to real evidence elsewhere you have to assume the words you want to believe are based on nothing but ignorance.
People ignorant of science on a topic tend to automatically form an opinion based on nothing but ignorance. The difference between you and I is I conceptually understand the concept of rotation, control of rotation, and source of the energy of that rotation which defines an axis.
You rely on conjecture about such stuff as residual energy after a force slowed an existing rotation down to one turn per orbit. But that is stupid because what happens if the spin was in the opposite direction of the orbit?
The forces that can slow down a rotation to one turn is a force that can create a new rotation. So all objects in the universe are destined to become tidally locked on external axes.
Finally kinematics is about efficient machine/apparatus design. Rotation in a sufficiently rigid system has a specific characteristic that is linked to its true axis or variations on a rotation linked to more than one axis.
Tesla got that. DREMT gets that. I get that. Many others get that like Madhavi who is simply not dealing with astronomical phenomena and has no need to consider that orbital ellipses are identical in all energies to a corresponding circle.
Kepler’s laws establish that identity. And unless you can come up with a credible source with a mechanical real world body of evidence that says otherwise, one should consider the moon’s primary external axis to be the COM of earth the mean position of which is identical to the barycenter related to the earth moon system.
Madhavi provides the logic and the engineering of such.
Kepler provides the laws that extend the concept to any orbital ellipse to a corresponding circle.
And the defining characteristic of the correct axis is the source of energy that creates the rotation.
If you want to stick with stuff of taking words at FACE VALUE you need to elevate your game from just being a bootlicking sycophant to actually being able to present a physics argument that properly identifies an axis whether it be internal or external or involve multiple axes.
If you can actually do that then you could perhaps effectively argue that you are NOT a bootlicking sycophant. I would actually hope that you are not because if you are not perhaps you could teach us all something. . . .and I love nothing more than learning something new.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter again fails to comprehend the physics of gyroscopic motion.
=========================
why is it Swanson that you are always presenting arguments that apply to all rotations no matter where the axis is?
Hunter wrote:
That’s because in physics, the location of the axis is defined by the rotation of a free body. The rotation of a symmetrical free body in space is a three dimensional vector which points toward a point in the celestial sphere. In the case of General Plane Motion which you “no spin” yo-yos keep alluding to, the motion of a rigid body can be pictured as an instantaneous rotation about an external point in a 2-D plane, but that no longer applies when there is continuous motion in 3-D and there’s no expectation that said rotation-around-an-external-axis would continue about that point as a body moves in an elliptical orbit.
As I demonstrated in previous calculations, the assumption of the Moon rotating about an external axis leads to impossible consequences. Not that my demonstration would deter a dedicated yo-yo from spouting reams of nonsense, since none of you guys appear to be able to put pencil to paper and actually do some math.
“orbital ellipses are identical in all energies to a corresponding circle.”
Gibberish.
Then you mention Kepler again and again?
Youve completely lost your mind, Bill.
“Madhavi provides the logic and the engineering of such.”
Initially you wanted us to pay attention to Madhavi description of Rotation. Then when it didnt fit your POV, you decided Madhavi’s description of rotation should be ignored!
Thus facts and logic are expendable!
“Kepler provides the laws that extend the concept to any orbital ellipse to a corresponding circle.
And the defining characteristic of the correct axis is the source of energy that creates the rotation.”
Kepler discovered that orbits were elliptical, NOT circular. As such planets speed up and slow down in their orbit. Thus their positions on any future date could be accurately predicted for the first time.
The difference between elliptical orbits and circular orbits are quite real. Elliptical orbits are not pure rotations. Basic kinematics. Basic geometry.
Your insistance that these differences can be ignored is…ridiculous, and magical thinking.
Nate says:
“orbital ellipses are identical in all energies to a corresponding circle.”
Gibberish.
——————–
Thanks Nate for continuing to show your religious devotion.
I realize you have no source for your claim ”Elliptical orbits are not pure rotations. Basic kinematics. Basic geometry.” but thought I would point that out anyway.
If you think you do perhaps while you are at it perhaps you can also demonstrate Swanson’s claim of an ellipse leading to impossible circumstances for a rotation, since its obvious he cannot either.
The two of you are simply the two biggest nutcases in this forum running around like monks repeating yourselves and never providing any evidence of your claims for why your point of view is correct.
You simply cannot arrive at a cause for the moon’s tidal locked condition that does not involve the external axis it rotates around. OTOH, the non-spinners have done that thousands of times that you have just chosen to ignore.
“You simply cannot arrive at a cause for the moon’s tidal locked condition”
This has been explained countless times.
Before Newton could explain the cause of motion via forces and his laws he needed a universal way to DESCRIBE motion in terms of translation, velocity, acceleration, rotation, etc.
That is Kinematics. He got it largely from Galileo. It makes no attempt to find the cause of motion.
Thus astronomy’s description of orbits in terms of translation and axial rotation is simply giving the motion in a form that can be most easily explained.
Newton found that he could account for the translation of planets along elliptical paths with gravity, independently from rotation or orientation.
His equation explains the PATH thru space of a planet’s COM. It has nothing whatsover in it about orientation or rotation rate.
One can go on to include spin-orbital coupling, tidal locking and perturbations from the sun and other planets to explain synchronous orbits, orbital precession and axial precession.
But none of that changes how orbits are universally described.
“I realize you have no source for your claim ‘Elliptical orbits are not pure rotations.’
You mean other than the unambiguous definitions given by Brown, Madhavi, and UW?
Have you gone over to the Pure Troll side? It seems so.
Nate says:
blah blah blah
”One can go on to include spin-orbital coupling, tidal locking and perturbations from the sun and other planets to explain synchronous orbits, orbital precession and axial precession.”
Go on to? LMAO! Pull your head out of your arse thats the only discussion that has been going on. The rotation of the moon is caused by the COM of earth. That is the correct way to describe the cause of that rotation and the physical nature of that rotation. If you choose to ignore that you must argue that the moon’s rotation is coincidental, has nothing to do with forces from the COM of earth, and above all you must describe how this rotation came about in a way that none of those other criteria are to blame.
Nate says:
”But none of that changes how orbits are universally described.”
I aren’t talking about how orbits are described universally or not. And they aren’t described universally. . . .Tesla and this forum and other examples show that definitively. Any way how something is described tells you nothing about the physics of the system unless the description is that the moon rotates around an external axis then it does describe the physical reality of the situation.
hunter wrote:
Hunter ignores the implications of the math I presented, providing no critique to support his comment. He still fails to offer any math to describe the “no spin” model of motion, which is easily captured in the math of an elliptical orbit with the Moon rotating once each orbit. Hunter displays no understanding of gyroscopic motion of a free body in space, which involves the basic principle in physics, conservation of angular momentum. The Moon’s rotational axis has been proven to point in a direction which is not perpendicular to it’s orbital plane, therefore the no-spin mental model is grossly flawed. The Moon can not rotate about two different, non parallel axes at the same time.
I can’t claim to understand how the Moon became tidal locked with the Earth, but the “no spin” yo-yos hand waving and cartoons don’t work either.
“The rotation of the moon is caused by the COM of earth. That is the correct way to describe the cause of that rotation and the ”
Notice YOUR source Madhavi, as well as Brown and UW dont discuss what CAUSED the rotation or translation AT ALL.
Because thats NOT KINEMATICS.
Yet here you are talking about a theory of what may have been the cause of the present motion, millions of years ago. As if that changes the KINEMATIC description of the motion.
Why would it?
E. Swanson says:
Hunter ignores the implications of the math I presented, providing no critique to support his comment.
——————-
Why should I critique your math Swanson? The math is the same if the moon rotates coincidentally and synchronously or if it rotates due to the forces of gravity of earth.
Your math simply removes the radius of the orbit for the portion of the problem associated with Lspin. This formula is simply a derivation of a formula that determines the sum of an infinite number of point masses rotating around the earth. Another way it could be done would be to start with a spinning disk the diameter of the orbit and with a thickness the diameter of the moon (like an mgr disk they mount the ponies on). Then you remove all but the globe of the moon. It is merely conicidental that the math can be devolved down into two simple calculations. The math doesn’t have a life of its own where you can start describing physical realities to the object you are calculating as the math can be determined in many ways and the physical reality doesn’t change depending upon the mathematical approach you select.
Multiple models can be built and they all end up with the same result Swanson. Once you grasp that you will discontinue talking about different models and unique gyroscopic motions that simply ignore the reality of the earth and moon relationship.
——–
———-
———-
E. Swanson says:
The Moon’s rotational axis has been proven to point in a direction which is not perpendicular to it’s orbital plane, therefore the no-spin mental model is grossly flawed. The Moon can not rotate about two different, non parallel axes at the same time.
———
Yes it can. That is simply a unique quality of gravity is that the moon can rotate around the earth, and be influenced by other strings of gravity from the sun, the other planets, and the stars without having its strings get tangled up. Evidence of that is the moon is not significantly tilted in respect to the ecliptic plane, which is the earth’s solar orbit plane.
——–
———-
———-
E. Swanson says:
I can’t claim to understand how the Moon became tidal locked with the Earth, but the “no spin” yo-yos hand waving and cartoons don’t work either.
————
When you can’t explain something it should serve notice to you that you are ignorant about something important regarding what you are talking about . . . .leading to ignorant opinions. Science is not confused about how the moon got tidal locked. Perhaps you should do some more reading.
Nate says:
The rotation of the moon is caused by the COM of earth. That is the correct way to describe the cause of that rotation and the
Notice YOUR source Madhavi, as well as Brown and UW dont discuss what CAUSED the rotation or translation AT ALL.
Because thats NOT KINEMATICS.
Yet here you are talking about a theory of what may have been the cause of the present motion, millions of years ago. As if that changes the KINEMATIC description of the motion.
Why would it?
———————
Nate what is it about the concept of an external axis that you don’t get?
Hunter continues to display his failure to understand physics. The Moon’s orbit can not be modeled as a spinning disk because the orbit is not circular and because the Moon is not attached by a solid link. Removing all the mass from the disk except that of the Moon can not describe the Moon’s rotation about an axis which is parallel to that of the initial disk, since the measured axis is tilted relative to the orbital plane. Gyroscopic rotation which describes the axis of a rotating body is not “unique”, it’s a fact of physics.
Tidal locking of the Moon is a fact. How it happened doesn’t change the other facts that the Moon is a free body and rotates once an orbit wrt the stars. You yo-yo’s still can’t figure out that all rotations are defined in inertial space.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter continues to display his failure to understand physics. The Moons orbit can not be modeled as a spinning disk because the orbit is not circular and because the Moon is not attached by a solid link. Removing all the mass from the disk except that of the Moon can not describe the Moons rotation about an axis which is parallel to that of the initial disk, since the measured axis is tilted relative to the orbital plane. Gyroscopic rotation which describes the axis of a rotating body is not unique, its a fact of physics.”
—————-
You just ignored everything I said about the tilting and the link and did so with terms that have no meaning in physics. So who doesn’t understand physics. The real choice of an axis is between and axis that has a physical controlling link to the rotation and one that does not. By selecting the one that does not you are effectively claiming no control over the rotation.
——–
———-
———
E. Swanson says:
”Tidal locking of the Moon is a fact. How it happened doesnt change the other facts that the Moon is a free body and rotates once an orbit wrt the stars. You yo-yos still cant figure out that all rotations are defined in inertial space.”
————–
So does your claim boil down to that from a distant star you can’t see the moon rotating around the earth?
Nate says:
”Notice YOUR source Madhavi, as well as Brown and UW dont discuss what CAUSED the rotation or translation AT ALL.
Because thats NOT KINEMATICS.
Yet here you are talking about a theory of what may have been the cause of the present motion, millions of years ago. As if that changes the KINEMATIC description of the motion.
Why would it?”
—————————
Well it is clear as a bell that if the moon had no rotation before entering orbit, or at any time during its orbit; the gravity of the earth will cause a tidally-locked rotation. But it in orbit with a spin and it will do the same thing but it might take longer.
That is precisely why they teach kinematics to engineers.
Hunter wrote some more silly stuff, including:
To quantify rotation for a free body in space, one simply must use a coordinate system which is fixed against the stars which thus does not rotate. Such a coordinate choice is called an Inertial Reference Frame. This isn’t about the view from space, it’s that the reference frame must point toward fixed spots in the celestial sphere.
E. Swanson says:
To quantify rotation for a free body in space, one simply must use a coordinate system which is fixed against the stars which thus does not rotate. Such a coordinate choice is called an Inertial Reference Frame. This isnt about the view from space, its that the reference frame must point toward fixed spots in the celestial sphere.
———————–
Fixed spots? The moon does not stay in a fixed spot in space!
So your strategy is to zoom in so close so as to eliminate the view of the planetary system for the purpose of just seeing the moon, then putting the viewer on a oscillator that moves the lense in an elliptical pattern so as to continue to focus on the moon and not allow any other part of the planetary system into your field of view. . . .then judge which axis the object is rotating upon?
And that is required by the laws of physics?
reference please. . . .sounds like you have over imagined all this.
Hunter wrote:
I gave you a reference which yu appear not to have bothered to read. Here’s a quote:
“The state of motion (i.e. the velocity) of any object is always defined with respect to a reference frame/b>.
…
Newton’s first law, also called the law of inertia, defines a special class of reference frames, called inertial frames. It states that, when viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion continues in motion with constant velocity unless it is acted on by an external net force.”
Note that an Inertial Reference Frame is also not rotating. All the “no spin” arguments fail because the yo-yo clowns keep using a rotating reference frame, such as one based on the vector from Earth to the Moon.
In engineering, the need for a celestial reference frame can be ignored, since the problems are low speed/acceleration and the time frame is short. It’s unlikely that engineers would even think of using an inertial reference frame, unless they are working on aeronautical or satellite problems or shooting long range artillery.
Wrong, as always, Swanson. From an inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
pups, Select 3 inertial reference frames, the origin of one fixed in the CM of the Earth, the second fixed at the Moon’s CM and the third fixed at the barycenter. Fix one axis for each parallel to the orbit’s semi-major axis and the second parallel to the Moon’s orbit plane. The third would be orthogonal to the first two, using the right hand rule. With those three coordinate systems, the axes would all be parallel and using them would show that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
From an inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
“Well it is clear as a bell that if the moon had no rotation before entering orbit, or at any time during its orbit; the gravity of the earth will cause a tidally-locked rotation. But it in orbit with a spin and it will do the same thing but it might take longer.
That is precisely why they teach kinematics to engineers.”
Again, you seem to miss the point. This WHOLE argument has been about how to properly describe the motion of the Moon. That is precisely what Kinematics does.
Madhavi, Brown, UW, and all other courses describe motion as rotation or translation or a combination of the two.
They don’t give a sh*t how that motion came about. They don’t use the words force or torque or gravity. Because no matter how it came about, the description of the motion is unchanged.
Thus your statement above, speculating about the Moon’s prior state of rotation, and what cause it to change, is completely irrelevant to deciding how to properly describe the PRESENT motion.
It is interesting to astrophysics to explain the causes of the motion. But FIRST it needs to be described in terms that are universally understood. That’s why they teach Kinematics to scientists and engineers.
Thats why they teach Kinematics to scientists and engineers, BEFORE they teach them about forces and torques and how those produce translations and rotations.
So you guys cite the Kinematics authority of Madhavi, Brown and UW.
But when the Kinematic rules they teach contradict your prior beliefs and intuitions, you end up breaking those rules, as DREMT does repeatedly, then of course you come to nonsensical, contradictory conclusions, as he does again here.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Wrong, as always, Swanson. From an inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.”
And of course DREMT is correct here and Swanson wrong.
Swanson has improperly cherry picked the reference frame he wishes.
As pointed out in his own source which he apparently didn’t read himself it says:
‘The frame fixed in the airplane moving with constant velocity v and the frame fixed on the ground are inertial frames.’
One can add additional frames for the sun, solar system, and distant stars.’
From the distant stars one can see the moon rotating around the earth, Swanson simply wants to ignore much of the moons motion so as to artificially specify it as a motion around its own axis.
Hunter, As I pointed out, there are some situations where it is convenient to use a local coordinate system as if it were actually an inertial frame. That would apply to many problems on Earth, but the Earth both rotates and is accelerated by the gravity of the Sun, so there are problems for which this does not work. Gyroscopic motion is one such situation. Orbital mechanics and attitude control of spacecraft are others.
Nate says:
blah blah blah blah blah
”Thus your statement above, speculating about the Moons prior state of rotation, and what cause it to change, is completely irrelevant to deciding how to properly describe the PRESENT motion.”
Then more blah blah blah
—————————
I agree:
”Kinematics is the branch of classical mechanics that describes the motion of points, objects and systems of groups of objects, without reference to the causes of motion (i.e., forces ).”
And while kinematics doesn’t refer to causes ”Both kinetics and kinematics are areas of study in physics that deal with the motion of an object, but the difference between them is that only one also addresses the causes of that motion. Together, they help a physicist to understand both the “what” and the “why” questions related to moving things.”
Since you don’t know how the various parts of physics fits and you misclassify the motion of the moon’s points you would never ever be able to divine the what and why questions as detailed above.
Madhavi makes it clear that this classification is necessary as a student moves into actual designs for various axes.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter, As I pointed out, there are some situations where it is convenient to use a local coordinate system as if it were actually an inertial frame. That would apply to many problems on Earth, but the Earth both rotates and is accelerated by the gravity of the Sun, so there are problems for which this does not work. Gyroscopic motion is one such situation. Orbital mechanics and attitude control of spacecraft are others.”
Sure a frame that ignores the movement of earth is just fine for looking at the earth which does rotate on its own axis. But that would not apply to the moon which doesn’t. . . .that is other than to tell you doesn’t after you have already accounted for the orbital rotation.
“without reference to the causes of motion (i.e., forces )”
You agree. Good. Then you agree that discussion of the causes of the Moons motion is irrelevant to deciding how to describe it.
Only Kinematics is needed.
Then lets simply ask how Kinematics whether DREMTs repeated declaration:
“the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.”
is consistent with Kinematics.
Madhavi, Brown, and UW are all absolutely clear:
“Madhavi
Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along CIRCLES centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration. Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”
Brown:
“Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in CIRCULAR paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.
General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
So it is they are absolutely clear. An elliptical orbit does not qualify as a ‘rotation about a fixed axis’.
DREMTs repeated declaration does not agree with Kinematics. It is is simply wrong.
Then why does he repeatedly cite Kinematics (Madhavi) as a basis for his argument, then turn around and ignore Kinematic definitions?
Because that is the only way he can keep this argument going indefinitely and continue to troll based on it.
Earlier you had noted that “it is laughable to try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist.”
Right no perfect circles exist in planetary motion. In science we use approximations when they give us answers with an acceptable error.
Thus when the Earth or Moon rotate on their axes, all the mass parts are moving in circles around the axis, with an error of a couple of meters. That is an acceptable error. GPS works just fine in locating these points using that model.
Whereas, for the Moons elliptical orbit, a circular approximation would be off by as much as 22,000 km. That is not an acceptable error for landing spacecraft on the Moon.
Nate says:
Only Kinematics is needed.
————————
Indeed and instead motion is divided into classes. You just screw up what the classes are.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
Then lets simply ask how Kinematics whether DREMTs repeated declaration:
“the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.”
is consistent with Kinematics.
—————
Yes it is.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
“Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in CIRCULAR paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.”
————–
Circular equals elliptical. Kepler’s 2nd law.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
”General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
——————-
The moon travels in a pure rotation. . . .evidence is the lack of reality of the value denoted for your claim of a non-rotating curved translation. The orbit is a single indivisible motion as far as angular momentum is concerned and possesses an axis. One can only separate the motions conceptually via a mathematical derivation.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
”So it is they are absolutely clear. An elliptical orbit does not qualify as a ‘rotation about a fixed axis’.”
—————————–
But it is and you declaring otherwise doesn’t make it so.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
DREMTs repeated declaration does not agree with Kinematics. It is is simply wrong.
—————–
DREMTs and Tesla’s and many others view of this matter is supported by math of real motions of real objects. Your math is only supported by unreal motions of an unreal object (point mass)
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
Earlier you had noted that “it is laughable to try to limit what Madhavi teaches to perfect circles since no perfect circles exist.”
Right no perfect circles exist in planetary motion. In science we use approximations when they give us answers with an acceptable error.
—————–
No perfect circles exist. . . .period. And per Keplers law the answer doesn’t change due the elliptical nature of the moon’s orbit. e.g. no error remains. . . .per Kepler.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
Thus when the Earth or Moon rotate on their axes, all the mass parts are moving in circles around the axis, with an error of a couple of meters. That is an acceptable error. GPS works just fine in locating these points using that model.
—————–
The earth has a far greater tidal bulge due to its independent daily rotation that exposes different sides to the moon and moves around the earth. If the moon were not tidal locked its tidal bulge that moved around the moon would be much greater than earths tidal bulge due to the moon. So you are just babbling nonsense and ignoring evidence.
——————–
—————-
—————
Nate says:
Whereas, for the Moons elliptical orbit, a circular approximation would be off by as much as 22,000 km. That is not an acceptable error for landing spacecraft on the Moon.
———–
Indeed but that isn’t a determination of what a rotation is and is not. the fact you think you need to mention this is just desperation because of the weakness of your other arguments.
Non-spinners have the brilliant Tesla, Kepler, kinematics, and a single motion identically similar to a ball on a string or a chalked circle on a merry-go-round deck.
Spinners are alone in their arguments attempt to break Kepler’s law (denying equality), rely upon undefined words, unilaterally narrow definitions of words that are not explicitly narrowed in science, deny an orbital rotational axis, rely upon an unquantified concept of adequate rigidity that changes from claim to claim, and deny Tesla without evidence.
Hunter continues to ignore reality. The axis of rotation of a free body is defined by the fact that the body is rotating.
He has agreed that the Moon does exhibit an axis of rotation and that said axis is tilted wrt the orbit’s plane. For General PLANE Motion, all rotations exhibit axes which are perpendicular to the plane and this must also apply to the “no spin” yo-yos claim that the Moon rotates around an external axis.
It should be obvious that a body can’t possibly rotate around two axes at the same time, especially one with a rotational inertia as large as the Moon. Hunter’s confusion is so complete that he can’t see the conflict presented in these facts and is left to repeat his usual delusions without facts, references or supporting math.
The Moon rotates once an orbit wrt inertial space.
“Yes it is.”
Ok so argument by assertion, is it.
Straight up denialism is the way to go?
“Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in CIRCULAR paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.’
Circular equals elliptical. Keplers 2nd law.”
No. You are not even trying to live in the world of facts!
There are circular orbits and elliptical orbits that have the the same energy. That is ONE property that is equal. All other properties are NOT equal.
The MOTION is NOT the same.
That is why Keplers discovery of elliptical orbits and Newton’s explanation of them was such a big deal.
Im glad you are not in charge of landing things on the Moon.
"For General PLANE Motion, all rotations exhibit axes which are perpendicular to the plane and this must also apply to the “no spin” yo-yos claim that the Moon rotates around an external axis."
General plane motion is what the "Spinners" are arguing the moon is doing, Swanson, not the "Non-Spinners".
Nate says:
”Im glad you are not in charge of landing things on the Moon.”
———————-
Landing a vehicle on the moon or the disk of rotating merry-go-round has absolutely no relevance to kinematics Nate. It is ridiculous for you claim it is relevant. Produce a source that supports that viewpoint!
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter continues to ignore reality. The axis of rotation of a free body is defined by the fact that the body is rotating.”
—————–
the moon is not a free body Swanson it is a captured body enslaved to its orbit around earth due to earth’s gravity. I think a grammar school kid should know that.
————
———-
———
E. Swanson says:
”It should be obvious that a body cant possibly rotate around two axes at the same time, especially one with a rotational inertia as large as the Moon.”
——————-
the earth does dude! There aren’t many kids in grammar school that don’t know that. You guys have gotten so desperate you are now babbling nonsense.
————
———-
———
E. Swanson says:
”The Moon rotates once an orbit wrt inertial space.”
————-
Yes indeed it does. . . .around an axis defined by the COM of earth. You finally got something right.
“Landing a vehicle on the moon or the disk of rotating merry-go-round has absolutely no relevance to kinematics Nate.”
You think the shape of the Moon’s orbit has no relevance to landing things on it?
Again, you guys are free to approximate the Moon’s elliptical orbit as circular, so that you can then call its orbit a ‘rotation’ and thus continue to believe that the Moon doesnt spin, and feel like you won ‘something’.
But if you expect NASA or astronomers or aerospace engineers to adopt such a POV, and thus to give up a huge amount of predictive accuracy, just so that a small cult of morons can feel better about themselves, you will be very disappointed.
“Whereas, for the Moons elliptical orbit, a circular approximation would be off by as much as 22,000 km. That is not an acceptable error for landing spacecraft on the Moon.
Indeed but that isnt a determination of what a rotation is and is not. the fact you think you need to mention this is just desperation because of the weakness of your other arguments.”
Yes it is according to our Kinematics textbooks! Are you saying that we can ignore those definitions, because…why? Because any definition that doesnt work for you can be dismissed as invalid?
“Non-spinners have the brilliant Tesla, Kepler, kinematics, and a single motion identically similar to a ball on a string or a chalked circle on a merry-go-round deck.”
Kepler and kinematics do not agree! A ball-on-a-string is a mantra, but not helpful for the real moon.
“Spinners are alone in their arguments attempt to break Keplers law (denying equality)”
Nobody has suggested ‘breaking’ Kepler’s Law, loser-troll.
“rely upon undefined words”
That is YOU GUYS.
“unilaterally narrow definitions of words that are not explicitly narrowed in science”
It’s right there in black and white in Kinematics textbooks. Sorry but you lose that one!
An ellipse is not a circle. Nor is a square or a triangle a circle.
Even though there are no ‘perfect’ circles, that doesnt mean that ellipses or squares or triangle can be considered equivalent to circles.
That is moronic.
A child can discern the differences between these shapes. Categorizing shapes is useful.
“deny an orbital rotational axis, ”
Orbital axes are not denied. YOU are erroneously adding the word ‘rotational’ to it.
“rely upon an unquantified concept of adequate rigidity that changes from claim to claim”
This like the circle thing again. There are no infinitely rigid objects. And yet the concept of a Rigid Body is quite useful in science and engineering!
How can that be? Because people can often easily categorize rigid and non-rigid bodies.
The Moon-Earth system is clearly not in the Rigid Body category!
“and deny Tesla without evidence.”
Discussed the logical flaws in his argument in great detail a half dozen times. Where were you?
Why do you defer to one person’s Authority?
Clearly state the logical basis of his argument, then we can discuss it.
Nate says:
Kepler and kinematics do not agree!
——————–
Really? where are your references? if there is a disagreement it just shows you to be wrong about there being agreement in physics on this topic. So that argument doesn’t help you.
——–
——-
——-
Nate says:
“unilaterally narrow definitions of words that are not explicitly narrowed in science
Its right there in black and white in Kinematics textbooks. Sorry but you lose that one!
——————
Sorry but you just believe this because of poor reading comprehension skills on your part. 1st Brown uses the word ”circular” which is used more often for paths that aren’t the shape of a perfect circle.
2nd Madhavi uses the word ”circle” improperly if she intends the geometric definition of the word. She says:
”Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation. For example, the
plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles. ”
A good reader would realize she is not talking about perfect circles nor near perfect circles but is instead distinquishing between concentricity vs parallel paths for the individual particles.
She is just using the common concept of curves often in common language noted as a circle or circular vs the geometric definition of a perfect circle.
And of course in the study of kinematics dealing with real world objects then there is no such thing as a perfect circle rendering the discussion as irrelevant to physics without an accompanying quantification of how perfect something needs to be. Do you have a reference for us on this? I didn’t think so.
——–
——-
——-
Nate says:
An ellipse is not a circle.
————-
Indeed all circles are ellipses. so if a circle equals a circle then it also true a circle equals an ellipse. And in common language circle is used more often improperly than the word ellipse. But with the addition of the words parallel and concentric the meaning she is getting at becomes clear and your argument looks more and more like nitpicking.
——–
——-
——-
Nate says:
Even though there are no perfect circles, that doesnt mean that ellipses. . . .can be considered equivalent to circles.
That is moronic.
A child can discern the differences between these shapes. Categorizing shapes is useful.
——————-
OK provide a reference that specifies how out round and circle can be to not be considered a circle. You allow for imperfections. How did you arrive at the idea the lunar orbit isn’t within that allowance? Source please so I can apply this test to all circles. Either that or admit you just pulled the idea out of your arse.
But I guess it suits your penchant for obfuscation to not support your argument.
——–
——-
——-
Nate says:
deny an orbital rotational axis,
Orbital axes are not denied. YOU are erroneously adding the word rotational to it.
—————-
LMAO! I am far from the only one Nate. How many references can you find that states that orbits are non-rotational?
——–
——-
——-
Nate says:
” ”rely upon an unquantified concept of adequate rigidity that changes from claim to claim”
This like the circle thing again. There are no infinitely rigid objects. And yet the concept of a Rigid Body is quite useful in science and engineering!
How can that be? Because people can often easily categorize rigid and non-rigid bodies.”
—————–
We are in agreement here Nate.
But the typical way to do such categorizations is to determine if it is rigid enough for it to dependably perform its function.
I think the moon qualifies on that score since its been doing it for a billion years or so. If you disagree you should state why.
——–
——-
——-
Nate says:
Why do you defer to one persons Authority?
————-
Do I? I happen to agree with Tesla based upon the preponderance of the evidence. the only evidence you have offered falls rather neatly into the class of nit picking (e.g. circles about .05 away from being perfect)
So far you have merely projected what you believe from Madhavi’s use of the word circle as a strict geometric definition when in fact it is not used that way saying both translation and rotational motions move in circles.
Since that is true then the differentiation comes down to the modifier adjectives. There you clearly lose and what I have been telling you over and over the issue is concentricity vs non-concentricity.
Nate says:
” ”Landing a vehicle on the moon or the disk of rotating merry-go-round has absolutely no relevance to kinematics Nate.”
You think the shape of the Moons orbit has no relevance to landing things on it?”
Sheesh Nate take a course in reading comprehension for Gods sakes!
I didn’t say the moon’s orbit has no relevance to landing things on it. I said landing things on the moon has no relevance to kinematics!
“Indeed all circles are ellipses. so if a circle equals a circle then it also true a circle equals an ellipse.”
You fail at basic logic, Bill.
‘All circles are ellipses’ does not equal ‘All ellipses are circles’.
If you dont get that, then you are a moron.
Madhavi’s, Brown’s definition of ‘Rotation’ is unambiguous. Your efforts to spin it in your favor is laughable.
You lose on that point. Move on!
Asking me for ‘sources’ to explain standard geometric facts to you, is ludicrous trolling.
Aint gonna work with me.
At this point you are just wasting words defending indefensible nonsense.
Hunter wrote:
No, it’s a free body moving in a gravitational field. It’s rotation follows the laws of physics and it has rotational momentum defining an axis which is not perpendicular to it’s orbital plane. Because of this well known fact, the Moon can not also be “rotating” around the Earth’s CM (or the Earth-Moon barycenter).
For the Earth, there’s no doubt that it’s rotational axis is not perpendicular to the ecliptic plane as it revolves around it’s orbit of the Sun. Revolving around an orbit is not rotating around an axis.
You need to go back and study physics, especially regarding gyroscopic motion and the conservation of angular momentum.
Nate says:
Madhavi’s, Brown’s definition of ‘Rotation’ is unambiguous.
===========
i agree its unambiguous. but you can’t use a perfect circle as a determinate for rotation when she uses a circle as an example for both rotation and for a translation.
E. Swanson says:
No, it’s a free body moving in a gravitational field.
——————
you can’t call it a free body when its movement, particularly its rotation is controlled by that gravitational field
“i agree its unambiguous. but you cant use a perfect circle as a determinate for rotation when she uses a circle as an example for both rotation and for a translation.”
Demonstrating that you dont know what ‘unambiguous’ means!
Your ongoing use of the word ‘perfect’ suggests again that categorization in the real world is pointless and cant be done.
Which is obviously FALSE!
“you cant call it a free body when its movement, particularly its rotation is controlled by that gravitational field”
Controlled by???
At best weakly influenced by. So weak that millions of years required to see its influence.
This is again a ‘perfection fallacy’. The idea that in the real world there are no ‘perfectly’ free bodies, thus nothing can ever be put into that category.
Hunter, Did you again use the word “rotation” to refer to the Moon’s orbit?? There are two main components of that gravitational field. That of the Sun causes the Moon’s orbital precession and, as you’ve noted several times, the Moon’s rotational axis is close to perpendicular to the Ecliptic. So, the Sun is also “controlling” the Moon’s rotation.
From Wiki article: “The Sun’s gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of Earth’s on the Moon”.
Nate says:
Your ongoing use of the word ‘perfect’ suggests again that categorization in the real world is pointless and cant be done.
Which is obviously FALSE!
————————
Nate you have been doubling down on stupid for months. All circles are out of round to some extent and that includes ellipses. I have stated the word circle is a particular concept of an ellipse with certain properties that ease calculations when calculations don’t have to be perfect. It doesn’t serve as unique identifier of motion as you have been wrongly maintaining for months.
The only reason you have doggedly held to that argument is you didn’t do your homework and read what you should have read.
A circle is used to describe both translations and rotations. Thus it is also describes general plane motions. It is not as you have stupidly maintained a unique quality of rotations.
You need to come up with an entirely new argument.
Nate says:
”Controlled by??? At best weakly influenced by. So weak that millions of years required to see its influence.”
——————
Controlled by not in how long it took to gain total control by the fact the moon has been under adequate control now for an estimated greater than a billion years.
Thats a lot longer service time than any device that an engineer has built in compliance with kinematic principles.
———————-
—————–
—————
Nate says:
”This is again a perfection fallacy. The idea that in the real world there are no perfectly free bodies, thus nothing can ever be put into that category.”
————————–
Its all too obvious this criticism applies to the standard of control you are claiming Nate.
And your claim that nothing would qualify, thats a strawman. Most of the objects it seems in the universe would qualify to some extent, such as the diurnal spin of the earth – that is not controlled. It is merely in the process of falling under control.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter, Did you again use the word rotation to refer to the Moons orbit?? There are two main components of that gravitational field. That of the Sun causes the Moons orbital precession and, as youve noted several times, the Moons rotational axis is close to perpendicular to the Ecliptic. So, the Sun is also controlling the Moons rotation.
From Wiki article: The Suns gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of Earths on the Moon
—————-
It should be readily apparent to you Swanson that you can’t name a lunar motion that isn’t under gravitational control. But one can name one for the earth. Its daily spin.
“Nate you have been doubling down on stupid for months. All circles are out of round to some extent and that includes ellipses. I have stated the word circle is”
As Bill quadruples down on stupid and very weird.
So a theme is appearing here: since nothing in the real world fits ‘perfectly’ in a category, there really are no categories or boundaries between categories that cant be distorted, relaxed as needed.
Circles. There are no perfect circles in the world, thus any closed curve is pretty much a circle.
Rigid body. Since there are no perfectly rigid bodies, any material, even vacuum with a gravity field can be called a Rigid Body.
Free body. There are no truly free bodies in the universe. Everything is controlled by some galaxy far far away a long time ago. So its pointless to apply free body physics to anything.
What else? Kinematics..might as well blur the lines between it and Dynamics.
In Bills universe, all facts are flexible.
Nate, A circle is used to describe both translations and rotations. Thus it cannot be used as a unique qualifier for rotations.
what other argument do you have?
” circle is used to describe both translations and rotations. Thus it cannot be used as a unique qualifier for rotations.”
Both rotation and translation are unambiguously defined. Yet you are still confused.
Lets see the quote that is confusing you.
You have argued that an elliptical orbit is also a ‘rotation’ even though it doesnt satisfy the Kinematic definition.
Give us your alternative definition of ‘rotation’ then.
It must be clear and unambiguous.
Nate says:
” circle is used to describe both translations and rotations. Thus it cannot be used as a unique qualifier for rotations.”
Both rotation and translation are unambiguously defined. Yet you are still confused.
—————–
Thats correct if the particles move in concentrically its a rotation and if they don’t its a translation.
thus the moon’s orbit is a rotation.
“Thats correct if the particles move in concentrically its a rotation and if they don’t its a translation.”
So your definition of rotation is ‘all particles must move in concentric somethings around a fixed axis’ ?
Concentric what? Any shape ok? Square shape ok? Highly eccentric ellipse ok? Any close curve? What if not a closed curve?
Nate says:
” ”Thats correct if the particles move in concentrically its a rotation and if they don’t its a translation.”
So your definition of rotation is ‘all particles must move in concentric somethings around a fixed axis’ ?
Concentric what? Any shape ok? Square shape ok? Highly eccentric ellipse ok? Any close curve? What if not a closed curve?”
————————
Hmmm, I think we are in agreement, or at least close. ‘all particles must move in concentric imperfect circles around a fixed axis’ So yes it could be an ellipse. The moon’s orbit is only a bit more that .05 eccentric, very low. But I see no reason for the relationship to change because of eccentricity.
As to a square, thats a lot more complicated. I would not rule it out. I don’t hold an opinion on this and it doesn’t seem to be directly addressed by Madhavi. However she does mention that uniform rotation and uniformly accelerated rotation are frequently encountered forms of rotation. That would suggest the non-uniform rotation/acceleration of a concentrical square motion could possibly be considered a rotation that might not be frequently encountered. IMO, if such a mechanism was encountered it would be useful to study its dynamics very closely.
“As to a square, thats a lot more complicated. I would not rule it out. I don’t hold an opinion on this, it doesn’t seem to be directly addressed by Madhavi. ”
All sounds very vague.
Madhavi addresses it quite directly when she defines rotation as all mass moving in circles around the axis. Squares need not apply for that job.
What is your clear, unambiguous definition of rotation? And do you have a source that agrees with you?
In science we need clear definitions that everybody understands and uses, and not left to the whims random opinion.
“So yes it could be an ellipse. The moons orbit is only a bit more that .05 eccentric, very low. But I see no reason for the relationship to change because of eccentricity.”
For a Moon in a circular synchronous orbit, where the moon keeps a face oriented, (to the center), is unambiguous. Thus all its mass moves in concentric circles around the center. It is unmabiguous, and can be called a pure rotation.
For a Moon in an elliptical synchronous orbit like ours, it will not always keep the same face to the orbit center– it has libration. And it will not have all mass moving in concentric ellipses. It will not satisfy Madhavi’s or even your proposed definition of rotation.
For a Moon in a quite eccentric elliptical orbit, the libration becomes extreme. We see the Moon wobbling back and forth so much that we will see all sides of it. And the mass will fail in the extreme to move concentrically.
Nate says:
”For a Moon in a circular synchronous orbit, where the moon keeps a face oriented, (to the center), is unambiguous. Thus all its mass moves in concentric circles around the center. It is unmabiguous, and can be called a pure rotation.”
——————
hmmmmmm, Making up conditions on the fly Nate? How about a source to back up this condition of the face being required to always point precisely at the same point?
You seem to be arguing with yourself. That condition will not be met with any imperfect circle; yet you argued vehemently for imperfect circles qualifying. You ought to make up your mind as to what the conditions are, provide source material for each condition, and ensure they are not contradictory to the wide variety of arguments you employ.
As to a square I have no disagreement with you and stated clearly I had no position on the matter. how did you arrive at a position here?
“hmmmmmm, Making up conditions on the fly Nate? How about a source to back up this condition of the face being required to always point precisely at the same point?”
Bill, your hopelessly confused by simple sentences.
I said ‘For the given situation’ you get pure rotation.
Nothing made up about it!
“You seem to be arguing with yourself. That condition will not be met with any imperfect circle; yet you argued vehemently for imperfect circles qualifying.”
The ONLY ONE who argued for that was YOU, dimwit-troll!
“As to a square I have no disagreement with you and stated clearly I had no position on the matter. how did you arrive at a position here?”
Squares are not circles, moron!
I have been consistently in agreement with Kinematics in this discussion, that Rotation involves all mass moving in concentric CIRCLES.
Where did you get a different idea?
Nate says:
October 27, 2021 at 5:22 AM
“hmmmmmm, Making up conditions on the fly Nate? How about a source to back up this condition of the face being required to always point precisely at the same point?”
Bill, your hopelessly confused by simple sentences.
I said ‘For the given situation’ you get pure rotation.
Nothing made up about it!
“You seem to be arguing with yourself. That condition will not be met with any imperfect circle; yet you argued vehemently for imperfect circles qualifying.”
The ONLY ONE who argued for that was YOU, dimwit-troll!
————-
Liar!
you argued: ”Your ongoing use of the word ‘perfect’ suggests again that categorization in the real world is pointless and cant be done.
Which is obviously FALSE!”
I said a circle was a concept of a perfect ellipse and didn’t have an analog in the real world. You took strong exception to that which is a vehement argument for imperfection.
———-
——-
——-
Nate says:
October 27, 2021 at 5:26 AM
“As to a square I have no disagreement with you and stated clearly I had no position on the matter. how did you arrive at a position here?”
Squares are not circles, moron!
I have been consistently in agreement with Kinematics in this discussion, that Rotation involves all mass moving in concentric CIRCLES.
Where did you get a different idea?
——————
Why do you have so much difficulty reading Nate. I said twice now I have no position on that matter. To arrive at a position for me isn’t just accepting authority as it is obviously for you. You are a born sycophant. I may well agree with you but to arrive at that I would need to see a sample mechanism and then I would limit my opinion to that mechanism. You though just ignore that circles are not being used as a unique qualifier even by Madhavi.
And when you accept that then you may begin to understand that kinematics is a branch of dynamics and that its classification system is based on dynamics. And it might even come to you at some point after you accept that, that the use of a word isn’t a law in kinematics, but instead is just a sample. These are the things that experience teaches you once you start using the tools taught to you as a kid.
“you argued vehemently for imperfect circles qualifying.”
Real world circles qualify. Circles with imperfections that are within an acceptable error is what i said.
Ellipses with 5% deviations from a circle, 20,000 km are well outside a tolerable error for most applications of astrophysics or space science need.
If you thought i agreed with you that elliptical orbits qualify as ROTATIONS then you have not been paying attention. No surprise.
So becoming an expert at a subject like physics, then using it correctly is, to you, being a sycophant.
Whereas, not really studying a subject, instead using intuition, and thus getting a lot of it wrong, is being an independent thinker!
Right?!
Ok so I never bothered to study or learn Auditing theory or practice, but by winging it and using intuition, I should be able to out do you!
Riiight?
“The moons orbit is only a bit more that .05 eccentric, very low. But I see no reason for the relationship to change because of eccentricity.”
so here you are making it quite clear that even an ellipse of extreme eccentricity, not remotely circular, should qualify as a ROTATION.
Then you need STILL need to define ROTATION in a way that works for such cases, but not for squares because.
Concentricity won’t work for our Moon, its mass is not moving concentrically.
For extreme ellipses, the paths of various parts of the moon may even cross each other.
And AGAIN, whatever your definition, show us a source that agrees with it.
We’ve seen three sources that insist ROTATIONS are circular motions.
If you continue to argue that there are no perfect circles so we can’t use CIRCULAR as descriptor in the real world, then you will need to argue it out with Brown, Madhavi, UW, and most of humanity.
The point is this.
Since Kepler we have understood that describing orbits as elliptical is a BETTER and much more accurate description of the motion than circular. in fact some orbits, like comets, have high eccentricity, and approximating them as circular is ludicrous.
They needed a Kinematic description of orbits that is universally applicable. Thus orbits are not considered rotations because in general they are not circular.
Orbits are thus described as translations on an elliptical path. Axial rotations are separate parameters.
IDK why that bothers you guys so much, given that you cannot point out instances where it has failed.
Nate says:
Real world circles qualify. Circles with imperfections that are within an acceptable error is what i said.
==================
So what the heck Nate are you the arbiter of what is ”acceptable”? If not then provide a source.
And there is no application in astrophysics that demands a kinematic description of the moon’s rotation around the earth. Navigating to the moon doesn’t change a nit by properly identifying the axis. Perhaps you could come up with something relevant. . . .though I suppose you don’t understand what would be relevant.
Nate says:
”If you thought i agreed with you that elliptical orbits qualify as ROTATIONS then you have not been paying attention. No surprise.”
—————
Nope! you agreed that imperfect circles qualified.
Now we are waiting for a rationale that applies to kinematics that would establish how imperfect, though, Madhavi certainly didn’t create any limitations.
Nate says:
So becoming an expert at a subject like physics, then using it correctly is, to you, being a sycophant.
————————–
Perhaps Nate. Actually most physicists do only what they are instructed to do.
Nate says:
Ok so I never bothered to study or learn Auditing theory or practice, but by winging it and using intuition, I should be able to out do you!
—————————–
Out doing someone can occur many ways. . . .like coming in on budget. But to be an auditor Nate you would have to develop an attitude of skepticism to have a prayer of even getting the job done no matter how long you took.
Nate says:
Concentricity wont work for our Moon, its mass is not moving concentrically.
—————–
That would be incorrect.
”For extreme ellipses, the paths of various parts of the moon may even cross each other.”
——————–
That also would be incorrect.
Nate says:
Weve seen three sources that insist ROTATIONS are circular motions.
—————–
Circular is not a science term it applies to tracks of all sorts of shapes. Synonyms for circular: circuitous, indirect, roundabout.
this is a problem you have with virtually everything you post where you read stuff written by a scientist and you impute a precise meaning to every word in the study that simply isn’t referenced or proven anywhere in the study. If you actually had any real world experience as a scientist you would be aware of what you are doing.
Nate says:
in fact some orbits, like comets, have high eccentricity, and approximating them as circular is ludicrous.
——————
Says who?
“Circular is not a science term it applies to tracks of all sorts of shapes. Synonyms for circular: circuitous”
If you really think that then no wonder you are confused.
This is a good example of you winging it and using (bad) intuition rather that real science.
A circle has precise geometric definition. And no doubt Rigid Body Kinematics courses are using that one!
Just stop with ridiculousness.
“Actually most physicists do only what they are instructed to do.”
You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. And your constant anti-science bias is not appealing on a science blog.
Maybe go troll elsewhere.
Nate you simply are too inexperienced to understand the purpose of kinematics. At this point in time you have failed to express anything that has anything to do with dynamics that are the basis of kinematic classifications.
You want to use language of your personal Gods as the defining characteristic of a dynamic concept. . . .when in fact they are based on their dynamic nature instead.
Madhavi rules nothing out except motions that upon inspection are not due to the controlling nature of the axis of rotation.
I expressed this many months ago. I have experience in structural engineering and get it. In this case ‘control’ is the main characteristic. Madhavi expresses that indirectly with a large number of examples of rotating lever arms, with the axis being the point around which the lever operates.
Control for the moon is manifested in its axis at the COM of earth, not at its own COM axis. If it did have some spin on that axis it would require its own positive force to put it in motion and would be additive to the forces responsible for motion of the moon.
You guys even realize that in some of your awkward arguments for example when you claim the moon’s motion is the residual of a more rapid spin sometime in the past.
But thats a poor excuse because that could only occur if the present spin was in the same direction as the historic spin. . . .a 50/50 proposition assuming the historic spin was either directly in line with the current spin or directly opposed to it. . . .a proposition that has infinite possibilities of a historic spin on an axis pointing in a different direction. Thus the probability of such a condition is incredibly small. Synchronous rotation by coincidence has such a low probability one can just discard the idea.
And even if it were in the same direction and in line with the current axis you would have to ignore the axis of control. You go to great lengths to ignore the dynamics of the moon’s motion in order to satisfy your sycophantic reverence to the words of your heroes of bygone times. . . .you are like a Bible thumper reading every word in the Bible as the word of God.
No sorry Dude but that so naive and so ignorant of the concept of dynamics its actually laughable.
“Nate says:
in fact some orbits, like comets, have high eccentricity, and approximating them as circular is ludicrous.
Says who?”
Edmond Halley.
Nate it is just plain ignorant to state that the moon’s elliptical orbit is a condition that supercedes the rigid body dynamics that exist between the pull of earth’s gravity and the motion of the moon.
You wish to allow for imperfections and in fact there is no breaking of the dynamic relationship of the earth/moon system that results from earth’s gravity on the moon and the moon’s gravity on the earth. So by definition those imperfections are in fact tolerable.
Flexibility by real world scientists must be factored into every design. You though obviously studied the topic but never learned the context within which it is applied, thus you elevate form over substance and when challenged on it you will make whatever allowances you personally deem appropriate and continue to deny the dynamic relationship that clearly exists.
Then worse you are willing to lie that somebody else supports your viewpoint.
Sad sad sad sad! You have zero credibility and zero integrity.
Hunter continues to ignore basic physics, claiming that Madhavi’t lecture is proof that the Moon rotates around the Earth’s CM (actually, the common barycenter). But, to quote Madhavi:
Hunter fails to recognize that Madhavi’s examples are motion in a plane, i.e., 2-D, with rotation defined around axes perpendicular to that plane. The Moon’s rotation is well known to not be perpendicular to it’s orbital plane, thus the claims of 2-D rotation around an earth centered axis are clearly false.
Hunter claims:
Hunter again demonstrates that he completely fails to understand gyroscopic motion and conservation of angular momentum. There’s no need for a “positive force” (does he mean torque?) to keep the Moon rotating, once it started spinning. That the rate of rotation is tidally locked to the Earth does not disprove rotation of the Moon around an axis thru it’s CM.
Most of what you post is vague and indecipherable, Bill. It thus cannot be falsified, and maybe that is the goal.
Its pointless to complain about the standard definition of Rotation in Kinematic textboks without offering a clear alternative.
Show us YOUR definition of Rotation, and how it can work for our Moon and an eccentric ellipse, but not a square.
Swanson says:
”Hunter again demonstrates that he completely fails to understand gyroscopic motion and conservation of angular momentum. There’s no need for a “positive force” (does he mean torque?) to keep the Moon rotating, once it started spinning. That the rate of rotation is tidally locked to the Earth does not disprove rotation of the Moon around an axis thru it’s CM.”
Once again Swanson’s mind goes off the physics road. Angular momentum is always conserved in absolutely any rotating device. We saw that in this discussion months ago of a vinyl LP flying apart from being spun at an excessive speed. The point you are making is correct but you can’t see that it has absolutely zero weight in defining axes. You need to bone up in a big way on your kinematics dude!
Your argument on tidally locked is not supported by evidence. Kinematics is a study of motion and a tidally locked moon qualifies in every way to have its rotation to be a result of its orbit around earth. If you can make a different argument founded in dynamics be my guest. Until you decide to tackle that, however, your arguments are irrelevant, without evidence, and without logic.
Nate says:
Most of what you post is vague and indecipherable, Bill. It thus cannot be falsified, and maybe that is the goal.
Its pointless to complain about the standard definition of Rotation in Kinematic textboks without offering a clear alternative.
Show us YOUR definition of Rotation, and how it can work for our Moon and an eccentric ellipse, but not a square.
——————–
I have already answered that many times. I took no position on a rotation in the shape of a square. That is because at the moment I can’t think of how I would design a machine to move something in a square without creating a parallel pathway for it, making it a translation.
But that’s the beauty of imagination simply because I can’t off the top of my head think of a way to do that, doesn’t amount to proof it can’t be done. That is an argument from ignorance. Seems you love arguments from ignorance and love to substitute an argument from authority at a drop of the hat. I don’t. If I am going to do that I need a reason to make such an uninformed decision when science is lacking.
I have taken a position on the moon, but only after careful deliberation and observation of the system itself that results in the motion. What dynamic facts amount to the motion. Well there is an axis and that axis is connected to the moon via gravity. Another way is to look at from the standpoint of how one would build a machine to do what the moon does. It would be much different than a machine to do say what the earth does. thats just more evidence you are all wet behind the ears on this.
Hunter wrote:
I’ve presented such arguments before and you “no spin” yo-yos simply ignore the physics.
First off, the Moon’s motion and rotation occurs in three dimensions. Your kinematics arguments only work in 2-D.
Second, considering rotational dynamics in space requires the use of an inertial reference frame, not any arbitrary set of coordinates. That’s because angular rotation and momentum can only be properly defined wrt inertial space. In inertial space, the Moon rotates and it’s axis is not perpendicular to the Moon’s orbit, which would be necessary if the Moon actually rotated around your cult’s external axis.
Third, describing the Moon’s motion mathematically can most easily be described as a translation of the CM in an elliptical orbit coupled with an angular rotation once an orbit. That’s the way NASA (and the courses in dynamics I received) approaches the orbital problem. You yo-yos have NEVER provided any math which can describe the real motions, including librations, as measured over hundreds of years.
Your “no spin” cult refuses to provide ANY MATHEMATICAL MODEL of the Moon’s motion. It’s your responsibility, not mine, to provide a complete analysis of the “no spin” conjecture, given that the rest of the physics world disagrees with you.
E. Swanson says:
”First off, the Moon’s motion and rotation occurs in three dimensions. Your kinematics arguments only work in 2-D.”
———–
thats just an advance complication beyond your entry level knowledge of kinematics. The path is actually two dimensional in regards to total gravitational influences that govern its rotation. In no case do any of those influences and motions originate from the COM of the moon.
”Second, considering rotational dynamics in space requires the use of an inertial reference frame, not any arbitrary set of coordinates. ”
——————
A view of the solar system from a distant start is an inertial reference frame from which it is easy to see the moon rotating around the earth. You simply are ignorantly and unnecessarily placing your hand over one eye so as to not see that. . . .the evidence being the diagrams you have submitted from time to time omitting portions of the dynamic orbital system.
”Third, describing the Moon’s motion mathematically can most easily be described as a translation of the CM in an elliptical orbit coupled with an angular rotation once an orbit.”
—————–
One cannot impute an angular momentum to a translation, yet. . . .it is done for the moon’s angular momentum.
”Fourth, Your “no spin” cult refuses to provide ANY MATHEMATICAL MODEL of the Moon’s motion. It’s your responsibility, not mine, to provide a complete analysis of the “no spin” conjecture, given that the rest of the physics world disagrees with you.”
Complete nonsense! You have never provided a mathematical model that specifies the axis must be at COM moon.
Bill,
You clearly are unable to come up with a clear dedinition of Rotation that works for your beliefs.
Its just gut feelings that you know it when you see it. You ‘know’ an elliptical orbit is a rotation and you ‘believe’ that a square path is not a ‘rotation’.
That aint science, and probably aint good Auditing practice.
Hunter, Your repeated posting of red herrings doesn’t change the facts. From Madhavi’s lecture notes:
Your standard “no spinner” claims are based on a kinematic model which assuming the Moon exhibits “rotation” around the Earth’s CoM while revolving in the orbital plane. As you have previously agreed, the Moon actually exhibits rotation around an axis which is tilted wrt it’s orbital plane.
Sorry, guy, these facts can not be ignored as it is obviously impossible. As a result, the “No Spin” cult is clearly wrong.
Furthermore your comment:
displays a complete misunderstanding of inertial reference frames, which are coordinate systems which do not exhibit acceleration or rotation. While not necessary, such coordinates might have the origin placed at the CoM of the Earth or the Moon. When measured against any inertial reference frame, the Moon clearly rotates once an orbit.
“One cannot impute an angular momentum to a translation, yet. . . .it is done for the moon’s angular momentum.”
Of course one can, showing you lack a basic understanding of angular momentum.
Here’s an example. A kid is running in a straight line on a path tangential to the outer edge of a stationary Merry-Go-Round on a playground. He is only Translating and not Rotating.
Now as he passes the edge of the MGR, he jumps up onto it. What happens? He and the MGR start rotating! They have angular momentum.
How can Conservation of Angular Momentum be satisfied, unless the kid had angular momentum BEFORE jumping on the MGR?
Because of course he DID have angular momentum wrt to the center of the MGR!
Simply by translating tangentially at a distance r from a point, a mass has L = mvr of angular momentum wrt that point.
One should be careful tossing around terms that one doesnt fully understand.
Nate says:
”You clearly are unable to come up with a clear dedinition of Rotation that works for your beliefs.
Its just gut feelings that you know it when you see it. You ‘know’ an elliptical orbit is a rotation and you ‘believe’ that a square path is not a ‘rotation’.
That aint science, and probably aint good Auditing practice.”
———————————–
Well since you don’t have clue one regarding good auditing practice let me educate you.
Broadly auditing is about getting to the substance of an issue and not getting distracted by the form it is presented in. That rules out relying upon words, definitions, and anything symbolic like circles, etc.
In the current case non-spinners have presented definitions relentlessly and you either don’t understand them or you just out and out reject them and instead deem to rely upon symbolic definitions (e.g. words) mostly born of perfect concepts for which you are totally unprepared to argue for what is ”perfect enough”. That is what all bad auditors get caught up in they begin to confound ‘official’ form for substance.
So what is the substance of a rotation? The first step is to recognize that this is a branch of dynamics.
”dynamics is a branch of physical science and subdivision of mechanics that is concerned with the motion of material objects in relation to the physical factors that affect them: force, mass, momentum, energy.”
Rotation is a condition of revolving around an axis to which there is a physical connection whereby materially the axis is fixed and particles move concentrically around it. One can imagine an axis in the middle of a chalked circle on the deck of merry-go-round but where is the dynamics in that? the particles that move concentrically around this imagined axis aren’t affected by physical factors that produce the rotation, thus that isn’t a real axis in fact it can’t be as this circle is solidly bonded to a rotating disk that provides the perception of a rotation about the axis in any chalked circle.
Its actually pretty simple if you don’t let your senses be confused by rigid concepts (forms you were taught) and you doggedly seek out the substance of the rotation.
The wheel rolling on a road has an axis in the middle of the wheel based upon substance. Thats because you can observe that the rotation of the wheel is being caused by the friction of the tire on the road.
In the case of the Madhavi 2(a) curvilinear translation there is no rotation as particles are not materially moving concentrically. the only particles moving concentrically are the connecting arms and a lack of rigidity exists in the connection to the moving plate.
So the substance of the dynamical relationship must be examined and conclusions drawn about dynamic connectivity and the nature of the motion of particles in the moving object. So its not a simple definition that can be described exhaustively for every possible shape. Its a definition born within the study of dynamics. What is the substance of the motion and its connections to a cause of motion. Its an empirical definition for which there are many possibilities. Beside auditing I have spent many years building stuff both professionally and as a constant hobby when working as a consultant or an auditor. I have a particular fascination of gearing systems. A field that hardly a day goes by where somebody doesn’t come up with a better idea to accomplish something that has not been accomplished before. Defining the limits of that? LMAO!! Experience teaches you to not be so moronic.
Swanson I am bored with responding to all the declarations you make without you providing a single reference or shred of logic. You simply focus on forms you have been taught without an apparent shred of having had to put anything at risk that the substance of what you say has any grounds.
When you do offer a reference it has nothing to do with the substance of your declaration (i.e. specifying an axis of rotation).
So unless you change your ways and actually move away from random and inapplicable declarations I won’t be responding to you any more.
“So what is the substance of a rotation? The first step is to recognize that this is a branch of dynamics.”
Uhh no.
Kinematics is the branch that describes motion, like rotation. That is self evident from Madhavi and Brown
Dynamics is connecting that motion to forces and causes.
How bout you stop making up your own alternative facts, in a field you dont understand.
“Rotation is a condition of revolving around an axis to which there is a physical connection whereby materially the axis is fixed and particles move concentrically around it.”
Ok so heres a definition that we can check and falsify.
First there is no material connection between the Moon and Earth. Nor is one required for a Rotation according to Madhavi. So that is wrong.
For an elliptical orbit, its not possible for all particles on a moon in that orbit to move concentrically, and satisfy conservation of angular momentum.
Example Halleys comet orbit. A moon in thst orbit spends ~ 75 y on one side of the sun and far from it, and about 3 months on the other side and near the sun.
If synchronous, it must rotate once in 75 y, and at a uniform rate to conserve momentum.
So for the 3 month portion on one side of the sun, it only rotates about 1 degree. That means the paths of front side and back side cross each other. IOW not concentric.
Nate says:
October 29, 2021 at 1:07 PM
“So what is the substance of a rotation? The first step is to recognize that this is a branch of dynamics.”
Uhh no.
—————-
uhh you are wrong again nate
http://tornado.sfsu.edu/Geosciences/classes/e465/handouts/Kinematics.htm#:~:text=Kinematics%20%2D%2D%20The%20branch%20of,to%20force%2C%20momentum%20or%20energy.
Nate says:”First there is no material connection between the Moon and Earth. Nor is one required for a Rotation according to Madhavi. So that is wrong.”
again you rely on an irrelevant formula (form/symbolic definition) as opposed to the real world substance of a connection. That states you are inexperienced, inculcated, and relying upon rote memory vs understanding. There isn’t a discipline I am aware of where this distinction isn’t the greatest barrier to success for a student transitioning to a professional. All inventors make this transition and learn to think outside the artificial symbolic boxes that the tools of your education give you more than intended and undesirably so.
And 3 months of 75 years gives you the equivalent of just over 1 degree of a rotation. so whats your point?
not to speak of allowing yourself to fall into the same kind form over substance trap whereby concentricity speaks to the connection with the axis where as in a translation either no axes exist or multiple ones do. kepler’s 2nd law relates angular momentum to an orbit. angular momentum is a rotational element and thusly an orbit cannot be a translation unless there is another axis that is influencing the movement of particles of the orbiting body. . . .e.g. multiple axes.
however i would argue that in the case of orbiting spinning objects the angular momentum is a pair of vectors as opposed to no angular momentum. but that is just an argument for which i don’t have evidence.
Bill,
The overall field is Mechanics.
Kinematics and Dynamics ore sub-branches of that field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics
Kinematics-“describes the motion of point, bodies (objects), and systems of bodies (groups of objects) without considering the forces that cause them to move.”
Dynamics- “, is concerned with the relationship between motion of bodies and its causes, namely the forces acting on the bodies and the properties of the bodies, particularly mass and moment of inertia.”
“again you rely on an irrelevant formula (form/symbolic definition) as opposed to the real world substance of a connection.”
What irrelevant formula? What real world substance?
In the real world, there is no substance between Moon and Earth. What ‘real world’ do you inhabit?
What psychedelic drugs are you on, Bill? Id like some, pls.
“rely on (form/symbolic definition)”
Yep, and no apologies for that.
Science, and most fields really, not just me, rely on clear definitions.
Science and engineering has evolved to put laws, principles in mathematical form. It has worked well.
No apologies for that!
“That states you are inexperienced, inculcated, and relying upon rote memory vs understanding.”
This is just more pointless ad-homs in the place of facts, science, or a real rebuttal of the science in my post.
It is loser talk.
“There isnt a discipline I am aware of where this distinction isnt the greatest barrier to success for a student transitioning to a professional.”
More loser talk from someone who doesnt know what they are talking about, and gets many things wrong in a field outside their expertise.
Good example is above, you declaring facts about angular momentum that were simply incorrect.
“All inventors make this transition and learn to think outside the artificial symbolic boxes that the tools of your education give you more than intended and undesirably so.”
How is it that getting facts about angular momentum wrong is going to HELP you invent something?
Understanding basic physics and math is essential to invention of new technology in the modern world.
That is why all engineers are taught it. This approach to educating engineers has evolved over a couple of centuries for good reasons.
It seems to work. Buildings and bridges and infrastructures of various kinds, in general, dont fail. Innovation continues at record pace.
Your notions that educating people in basic science is somehow a bad thing are bizarre and unsupported by any evidence.
Bill,
“And 3 months of 75 years gives you the equivalent of just over 1 degree of a rotation. so whats your point?
not to speak of allowing yourself to fall into the same kind form over substance trap whereby concentricity speaks to the connection with the axis where as in a translation either no axes exist or multiple ones do.”
This is substance based argument, so I thought you would understand.
The substantive point is that 1 degree of rotation is happening when the Moon must make a nearly 180 degree U-turn along its orbital path at the perihelion.
That means that on the ingoing path as it passes the sun, a point on the moon, 1, is facing the sun. A point 2 on opposite side is facing away from the sun.
On the outgoing path, the orientation of the moon has changed 1 degree. So point 1 is now facing directly away from the sun, and point 2 is facing the sun.
The paths of point 1 and point 2 cross each other. No concentric motion here.
FTOPs demo illustrates what Im talking about well.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fgwe7dsr1m
For our Moon in an elliptical orbit, you can see the paths of the two points will not be concentric.
Nate says:
”The overall field is Mechanics.
Kinematics and Dynamics ore sub-branches of that field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics”
——————–
LOL! A Wikipedia scientist you are. LMAO! Who are you going to believe? Wikipedia or the University?
Read your own description below and you can see the relationship.
”Kinematics-describes the motion of point, bodies (objects), and systems of bodies (groups of objects) without considering the forces that cause them to move.”
”Dynamics- , is concerned with the relationship between motion of bodies and its causes, namely the forces acting on the bodies and the properties of the bodies, particularly mass and moment of inertia.”
It is clear your definition of dynamics includes the motion of bodies (kinematics)
I would add from Britannica’s Science/Physics definitions: ”kinetics, branch of classical mechanics that concerns the effect of forces and torques on the motion of bodies having mass. … They include under dynamics both kinetics and kinematics (the description of motion in terms of position, velocity, and acceleration, apart from the influence of forces, torques, and masses).”
https://www.britannica.com/science/kinetics
Britannica notes some authors reduce the hierarchy by leaving out kinetics. Which might be appropriate in some particular situations. But it doesn’t include Madhavi despite your belief it does.
You probably shouldn’t rely on Wikipedia. Its a great beginning source for the expansion of a study but its not always accurate. In this case your dismissal of Madhavi on the premise its Kinematics is simply ignorant. Consider if you will the title to Madhavi’s work that we have been talking about for months. ”Dynamics of Rigid Bodies”
Madhavi’s Dynamics of Rigid Bodies is a limited look at the most common of situations. A broader look is what you have to learn to do when after you pass her course and become a real scientist and have to confront real world complexity. As a graduate you are but a pre-apprentice. Going to graduate school never replaces an apprenticeship it just shortens the length of it as you get more playtime with your tools.
So a rotation is a large group of motions with a particular dynamic relationship. Its not limited to circles. . . . it is limited only in being not a translation.
I will repeat translation does not have an angular momentum around a dynamic/mechanical axis.
But we know that the moon is considered to have an angular momentum (angular momentum being a rotational element) around the COM of earth. You can’t apply a rotational element to a non-rotation. You may be able to apply an angular momentum to a translation but it will not be calculated on a dynamic axis (e.g. an axis providing the force/momentum/energy for the rotation) because if it is its a rotation.
So out the window goes all your arguments of the past several months and all you have managed to do is to show how limited your knowledge is on this topic. My knowledge is limited, especially from an academic perspective. However it is experience rich and I can read the title of Madhavi’s paper.
Nate says:
”The substantive point is that 1 degree of rotation is happening when the Moon must make a nearly 180 degree U-turn along its orbital path at the perihelion.”
You do understand you can draw a curve with a 1 degree arc like a shallow bowl and put an object in it that the rims of the bowl are higher than the top of the object (like putting a cornflake in the bottom of bowl with one degree of arc.). FYI, that is not a U turn.
You seem attached to overly simplified arguments when the important dynamics argument is the purity of the motion in regards to rotational elements like angular momentum as established by Kepler.
Hunter’s reply shows his determination to ignore reality, writting:
I’ve quoted Madhavi and NASA, among other references. You and the other “no spin” cult refuse to accept the scientific reality that all rotations ultimately must be quantified wrt inertial references, i.e., non-rotating coordinates, with the stars being most nearly so.
When the Moon’s rotation is measured against an inertial reference frame, it is clearly found to be rotating. That is not some “random and inapplicable declarations”, it’s a statement of physical fact which you continue to ignore.
“It is clear your definition of dynamics includes the motion of bodies (kinematics)”
Duh, because dynamics is about finding causes of the motion thats been described using Kinematics.
Describing motion is Kinematics. As noted “without considering the forces that cause them to move”
This is the point I have been trying hard to make with you from the beginning!
Do you get it now?
“So a rotation is a large group of motions with a particular dynamic relationship. Its not limited to circles. . . . it is limited only in being not a translation.”
False, as Madhavi, Brown, UW, and everyone else show.
“I will repeat translation does not have an angular momentum around a dynamic/mechanical axis.”
False. This has already proven to be wrong. It is abundantly clear that you dont understand angular momentum.
You did not rebut my example above.
You get no points for restating proven Falsehoods over and over.
They dont become true by repetition!
“You do understand you can draw a curve with a 1 degree arc like a shallow bowl and put an object in it that the rims of the bowl are higher than the top of the object (like putting a cornflake in the bottom of bowl with one degree of arc.). FYI, that is not a U turn.”
No Bill, you horribly twisted what I wrote. On purpose?
The ORIENTATATION of the moon changes by 1 degree.
The orbital path arc length changes by ~ 180 degrees. That is a U-turn. This is NOT a shallow bowl.
An orientation change of 1 degree during a U-turn in the orbit explains the non-concentricity paths.
Nate says:
”Describing motion is Kinematics. As noted “without considering the forces that cause them to move”
This is the point I have been trying hard to make with you from the beginning!
Do you get it now?”
—————–
I get you don’t get it Nate. Yes describing motion is kinematics. That is a straight line motion or a curved line motion. For a curved motion the motion can be a circle, ellipse, or it can meander.
However a rotation goes beyond a description of a motion and includes kinetics. Madhavi’s paper is not entitled Dynamics of Rigid Bodies for no reason at all.
So you need to abandon your argument that rotation is merely a kinematic description of a motion. That is incorrect. It is a description of a motion together with the kinetics that are affecting it.
Madhavi says: the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles.
A circle is a kinematic description of a motion. To get to the dynamics of the motion one must distinguish between a rotation and a translation on the basis of the kinetics of force, mass, momentum, and energy.
So far you haven’t taken a shot at doing that yet you continue to argue for the wrong answer. Do you even know you have to do that? Or are you still considering a rotation as just a description of a motion without regards to any kinetics?
Nate says:
”You do understand you can draw a curve with a 1 degree arc like a shallow bowl and put an object in it that the rims of the bowl are higher than the top of the object (like putting a cornflake in the bottom of bowl with one degree of arc.). FYI, that is not a U turn.”
No Bill, you horribly twisted what I wrote. On purpose?
The ORIENTATATION of the moon changes by 1 degree.
The orbital path arc length changes by ~ 180 degrees. That is a U-turn. This is NOT a shallow bowl.
An orientation change of 1 degree during a U-turn in the orbit explains the non-concentricity paths.
———————-
Nate:
”At aphelion in 1948, Halley was 35.25 AU (3.28 billion miles or 5.27 billion kilometers) from the Sun, well beyond the distance of Neptune. The comet was moving 0.91 kilometers per second (2,000 mph). At perihelion on February 9, 1986, Halley was only 0.5871 AU (87.8 million km: 54.6 million miles) from the Sun, well inside the orbit of Venus. Halley was moving at 122,000 mph (54.55 kilometers per second).”
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/asteroids-comets-and-meteors/comets/1p-halley/in-depth/#:~:text=At%20aphelion%20in%201948%2C%20Halley,per%20second%20(2%2C000%20mph).
A Uturn is a 180 degree turn. A line drawn through the sun’s COM does not anywhere near denote the point where the uturn is completed.
“Yes describing motion is kinematics. That is a straight line motion or a curved line motion. For a curved motion the motion can be a circle, ellipse, or it can meander.”
Great!
“So you need to abandon your argument that rotation is merely a kinematic description of a motion. That is incorrect”
Whoops. Why are you contradicting your own statements?
Again, Kinematics”
“the branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion.”
Rotation is motion. Yes? It is most certainly described in Kinematics! No need to abandon it.
This is a pointless argument.
Nate says:
Rotation is motion. Yes? It is most certainly described in Kinematics! No need to abandon it.
This is a pointless argument
=========================
LOL! Indeed. There are kinematics of a rotation but a rotation possesses more than kinematics.
“A Uturn is a 180 degree turn. A line drawn through the suns COM does not anywhere near denote the point where the uturn is completed.”
OK. the velocity of the moons COM doesnt turn 180 degrees.
But the vector that connects the center of the sun to the center of the moon indeed rotates through 180 degrees of arc during that swing around perihelion. That is HALF of the rotation that vector does during the complete orbit.
Yet the orientation of the moon changes by 1 degree.
Thus at the start of that 180 degree swing around the sun, point 1 on the moon points to the sun and point 2 on the moon points away from the sun.
At the end of the swing around the sun, point 1 points 179 degrees away from the sun and point 2 points 1 degree away from the sun. They have switched places. Their paths have crossed!
This means their paths are not concentric. Your concentric model is not applicable.
And of course not, because it is not a real model, just an unverified hunch.
Nate says:
But the vector that connects the center of the sun to the center of the moon indeed rotates through 180 degrees of arc during that swing around perihelion. That is HALF of the rotation that vector does during the complete orbit.
Yet the orientation of the moon changes by 1 degree.
Thus at the start of that 180 degree swing around the sun, point 1 on the moon points to the sun and point 2 on the moon points away from the sun.
At the end of the swing around the sun, point 1 points 179 degrees away from the sun and point 2 points 1 degree away from the sun. They have switched places. Their paths have crossed!
This means their paths are not concentric. Your concentric model is not applicable.
============================
Wow Nate are you loaded or what?
First, the moon is not tidal locked to the sun.
Second, we were talking about Halley’s Comet in my quote.
Third, You haven’t stated that Halley’s Comet is tidal locked to the sun.
Fourth, If Halley’s Comet is tidal locked to the sun your claim is through 180degrees of the orbit the comet only rotates 1 degree? That means if its tidal locked it must rotate 359 degrees in the next 180 degrees of the orbit.
You seem confused. . . .and apparently somewhat lacking in evidence for your claim. Personally I know very little about Halley’s Comet other than it shows up about once every 75 to 80 years. It seems to have a rather variable orbit, I assume attributable to the gravity of the many planetary orbits it crosses in its journey giving it variations in its speed depending on how close the planet is to the comet when it crosses an orbital path.
Bill,
“Wow Nate are you loaded or what?
First, the moon is not tidal locked to the sun.
Second, we were talking about Halleys Comet in my quote.
Third, You havent stated that Halleys Comet is tidal locked to the sun.
Fourth, If Halleys Comet is tidal locked to the sun your claim is through 180degrees of the orbit the comet only rotates 1 degree? That means if its tidal locked it must rotate 359 degrees in the next 180 degrees of the orbit.”
Looks like youve lost track of what’s being discussed, again. You seemed to be keeping track, but.. then suddenly lose all memory of what this was about. How convenient!
Here’s a quick review.
B: “‘all particles must move in concentric imperfect circles around a fixed axis’ So yes it could be an ellipse. The moons orbit is only a bit more that .05 eccentric, very low. But I see no reason for the relationship to change because of eccentricity.”
N: “For an elliptical orbit, its not possible for all particles on a moon in that orbit to move concentrically, and satisfy conservation of angular momentum.
Example: Halleys comet orbit. A moon in thst orbit spends ~ 75 y on one side of the sun and far from it, and about 3 months on the other side and near the sun.
If synchronous, it must rotate once in 75 y, and at a uniform rate to conserve momentum.
So for the 3 month portion on one side of the sun, it only rotates about 1 degree. That means the paths of front side and back side cross each other. IOW not concentric.”
Is your memory jogged? Hopefully so.
Now you should understand that this is an example of how an elliptical orbit, even a synchronous one, will NOT have CONCENTRICITY, as you originally proposed.
Time to ditch that model of rotation and find a new one!
Or, continue to deny facts and reality.
Nate I was referring to your statement:
”Yet the orientation of the moon changes by 1 degree.
Thus at the start of that 180 degree swing around the sun, point 1 on the moon points to the sun and point 2 on the moon points away from the sun.”
I get that you are talking about a real libration regarding the moon’s orientation in reference to a position of individual particles traveling perfectly parallel to the orbit path.
But all this stuff you are posting about Halley’s comet is meaningless for the reasons I listed.
If you wish to make a case give me how much out of perfect concentricity the moon exhibits r.e. its orbit path. Then we can compare that to typical imperfections found in say common place engineering where rotation is an accepted fact.
I realize you are still trying to keep in the air all your favorite failed bullshit arguments (like unreal perceived libration and objects don’t ‘rotate’ in elliptical paths)
You have already agreed that an imperfect circle doesn’t rule out all rotations in the world on the premise no perfect circles exist. The only argument left is how much imperfection is allowable. And all you are now doing is bullshiting to avoid making a case for your position.
“But all this stuff you are posting about Halleys comet is meaningless for the reasons I listed.”
Bill, it is written in plain english:
“Example: Halleys comet orbit. A moon in that orbit…”
which is relevant to a moon in an eccentric orbit, which you claimed would have concentricity.
IOW meaningful to the discussion!
The reasons listed by some moron who can’t read plain english are red herrings.
Sorry, you lose again.
The rest is just more flimsy excuses. Enough.
Nate says:
Bill, it is written in plain english:
“Example: Halleys comet orbit. A moon in that orbit…”
which is relevant to a moon in an eccentric orbit, which you claimed would have concentricity.
IOW meaningful to the discussion!
The reasons listed by some moron who can’t read plain english are red herrings.
Sorry, you lose again.
The rest is just more flimsy excuses. Enough.
————————–
Its simple to look at Madhavis diagrams of Figures 2(a) and 2(b) and see the difference between rotations and a curvilinear translation that many confuse.
It is clear in those diagrams that all the moon’s particles in Figure 2(b) are going around a single axis. Thats a rotation.
Whereas in Figure 2(a) some particles are going around one axis while other particles are going around a completely different axis in parallel curves. That is a curvilinear translation.
You keep trying to snatch concepts out of thin air to created different conditions like a perfect circle that doesn’t exist in the real world. Fact is there isn’t an object in the real world that has a perfect rotation, they all have some wobble that causes paths to cross each other. . . .just not to the extent they don’t all go around the same axis.
Going around different axes is precisely why objects in curvilinear translation don’t have rotational elements.
“simple to look at Madhavis diagrams of Figures 2(a) and 2(b)”
So first off, your definition of rotation involving concentricity, utterly failed for a non circular orbit! You cannot rebut this.
Second, why do you keep citing Madhavi, who unambiguously defines Rotation as ‘all particles moving in circles around an axis’, which clearly, obviously, unambiguously, resoundingly, disagrees with you!
What is wrong with your logic chip?
I realize there are supply chain issues, but dude, get it replaced ASAP!
Nate says:
So first off, your definition of rotation involving concentricity, utterly failed for a non circular orbit! You cannot rebut this.
—————-
Nate, the argument is whether the motion is a rotation or translation.
Rotations have all particles traveling in concentric paths from going around a ‘common’ axis. Translations have all particles traveling in parallel paths.
You can’t argue that a motion that has minor imperfections where paths cross over each other changes a rotation into a translation.
Instead you need to observe whether there is a concentricity about the motion around a common axis or there is no such concentricity.
We know the axis of the orbit is the COM of earth at any given moment and is the barycenter of the earth moon system as a mean position of the earth knowing that the moon moves the earth as well.
We also know the moon’s orbit has a constant angular momentum that is only applicable to rotations.
But thus far all you have done is nitpick in a way that destroys your alternative position to the equal degree it calls into question the actual fact of the moon’s rotation around the earth.
If you pile all this on a scale you have yet to make an argument that adds anything to your side of the scale without also adding to the other side. If it were a football game it would be something like 100 to nothing. You have no defense nor any offense.
Bill, we simply cant continue if you refuse to deal rationally with facts and logic when they dont go your way.
Nate says:
Bill, we simply cant continue if you refuse to deal rationally with facts and logic when they dont go your way.
———————————–
So you are going to desperately cling to the claim that its allowable for parallel lines to cross each other but not concentric lines?
How is that logical?
“cling to the claim that its allowable for parallel lines to cross each other”
Nope. Never did.
The point here is that concentric curves don’t cross each other. You SHOULD agree with this basic fact.
Why don’t you?
Madhavi and others quite obviously do not agree with you on Rotation. Yet you defy logic to claim that they still, somehow, do.
The basic rule here seems to be that Bill is never allowed to be wrong about anything, even when he is obviously wrong.
Sorry, I can’t debate under those rules.
Nate says:
November 4, 2021 at 7:12 AM
“cling to the claim that its allowable for parallel lines to cross each other”
Nope. Never did.
The point here is that concentric curves don’t cross each other. You SHOULD agree with this basic fact.
Why don’t you
———————————
Now you are lying.
You have described the moon’s orbital motion as a translation. A translation is where particles of the object travel in parallel paths.
A rotation is particles traveling in concentric paths. Concentric paths of particles are simply particles traveling in parallel paths around a common axis.
So logically you are arguing unless the paths are perfectly parallel the motion cannot be a translation or a rotation.
So what is the orbital motion of the moon? In your view?
Of course my answer is the moon’s orbital motion is a rotation with a slight wobble that corrects itself 100% with each complete rotation.
A slight wobble is part and parcel to any rotation of a real object it is also part and parcel to any translation of a real object.
All you are doing rather awkwardly is try to impose perfection where you desire it to be imposed and deny it where you don’t want to acknowledge the lack of it. Same kind of cherry picking you do on every subject you comment on Nate.
There is absolutely no basis in claiming an orbital motion is not a rotation. It has its own unique rotational elements that are widely calculated by science and denied by the flat earth element of science that thinks only in terms of the perfect concepts they have been inculcated with. . . .you know Nate. . . .flat earthers like you who can’t come up with a single science-based source to support your viewpoint.
“You have described the moons orbital motion as a translation. A translation is where particles of the object travel in parallel paths.”
Twisting my words, standard Bill BS.
An Orbit without axial rotation is simply curvilinear translation, is what I have been saying, and what Newton and Astronomy says.
The Moon has axial rotation and is orbiting, is what I have always maintained.
“A rotation is particles traveling in concentric paths. Concentric paths of particles are simply particles traveling in parallel paths around a common axis.
So logically you are arguing unless the paths are perfectly parallel the motion cannot be a translation or a rotation.”
Nope.
In Curvilinear Translation, particles move in parallel paths, which need not be concentric!
See projectile motion below. Top and bottom move in parallel paths. Not concentric.
https://physicscatalyst.com/article/translational-motion/
“There is absolutely no basis in claiming an orbital motion is not a rotation”
Repeating your unsupported opinion does doesnt make it a fact.
The basis is legitimate sources: Madhavi, Brown, UW, and many more defining rotation as circular movement of a body.
An ellipse with nonzero eccentricity does not qualify as a circle. Basic geometry
Orbits are ellipses, most often w non zero eccentricity.
The logic is clear. Orbits dont qualify as rotations.
The basis is
1.Sources,
2.Geometry
3. Logic.
Show us these 3 items to form a basis for your claim above. Not hand waving, not your feelings, not gish galloping.
If you cannot show a clear basis, then sorry, you are wrong.
Nate says:
”In Curvilinear Translation, particles move in parallel paths, which need not be concentric!”
Nate does that brain of yours have an ‘on’ button?
The particles of the moon are neither moving in a perfect circle nor are they moving in parallel paths.
Brain on! When paths are parallel they don’t cross over each other!!!
Concentric paths are merely parallel paths that go around a common axis!
We know the moon goes around a common axis. There is a motion going on. According to you the paths of the moon’s particles are not parallel and thus also not concentric despite the paths going around a common axis.
So what kind of motion is it? And provide a source that supports that view.
——
———–
———
Nate says:
”An Orbit without axial rotation is simply curvilinear translation, is what I have been saying, and what Newton and Astronomy says.”
who cares what anybody ”says” Nate? Academic scientists are just an ordinary but clever band of brigands, pirates, con men, and nice guys just like any other unregulated band of clever people.
this is a philosophic discussion here about the nature of the moon’s rotation and the dynamics of that motion. You have provided zero references to the moon’s dynamics in support of the motion of the moon being around its own internal axis and instead you just believe what you have been told!!!!
You have, in my opinion, fallen into a common trap of educated people who start believing in their tools over the actual substance of something. You would have me believe that the moon is the movement of a point mass without any particles around the earth while the moon rotates around its own internal axis.
But the fact is the particles have to move and this is why a tidal locked motion involves only one rotation and non-tidal locked motions involve multiple rotations.
Seems to me (since you only rely upon what people say) your view arises entirely out of what you were taught rather than any kind of uniform dynamics-based understanding of the motion.
A general plane motion is a different kind of motion than a pure rotation because the dynamics are there to support it with a tire rolling on a surface. But the moon does not roll around the earth. There are no dynamics to support such a roll.
So for the moon that dynamic does not exist.
There needs to be explanations and causes of motions considered in order to ”properly” classify them. Astronomy simply does not do that because there is no need to do it.
And it seems to be a fringe group of them who love to con folks and provide an non-intuitive and totally unsupported answer using academic teaching simplifications to run the con.
And of course for the sake of trying to look smart you even try to stuff words into the mouth of Newton and treat him like you would Donald Trump, namely pretend he said something he didn’t to move your own agenda just like a brigand marketeer.
So lets either end this conversation or you actually come up with a explanation supported by dynamics to make an argument as to the causes you believe in that creates the moon’s motion. . . .which will tell everything anybody wants to know about the moon’s rotation.
You seem to have missed this part
“Not hand waving, not your feelings, not gish galloping.”
And you went with all 3!
Alright, lets skip textbook definitions since you think they can be ignored..
Lets go with what most people (pretty sure even you) would understand to be a pure rotation and what would not be.
1. If your friend stands on the edge of a Merry-G0-Round (MGR), and you push the MGR around 180 degrees, most people would understand that your friend has been given a pure 180 degree rotation, around an axis thru the center of the MGR.
Since pure rotation is just movement thru an angle, and nothing else.
2. Now if you continue to push the MGR another 180 degrees, but at the same time your friend walks halfway to the center, I think most people would understand that your friend has done more than a pure rotation.
Explain what translation is to people, and most would understand that what your friend’s motion was a rotation plus a translation.
3. Now continue another 180 degrees and have your friend walk back to the edge. That was clearly also a rotation plus a translation.
Put #2 and #3 motions together and you have a motion quite similar to our Moon’s is in its elliptical orbit. It goes around but also moves nearer and farther from the axis.
Most people, after the MGR example, would understand that this Moon motion cannot be a pure rotation. They would have to conclude , logically, it must be a rotation plus a translation.
You?
Nate with pure rotation you have gone back to perfect circular rotation. You flip flop back and forth. I agree if the guy walks to the center that is a translation, he is dynamically powering his movement toward the central axis of his rotation by translating toward it.
But before he starts walking the rotation you agree with is NOT pure nor perfect. He will wobble some even then before he starts moving his legs. All materials in motion will wobble. We have a good understanding of why, namely that there is no place in the universe you can be free of extraneous forces.
As long as you demand a perfect circle you rule out all rotation.
You ignorantly pursue that course and even double down on your ignorance by ignoring that a translation is going to wobble too and have its parallel paths crossing over each other.
The moon rotates around the earth’s COM, possesses the rotational element of that rotation around that axis. . . .it is NOT a translation as it is a movement around a single axis.
No its not perfect it is as much as 5% out of perfect but being imperfect does not change the movement to a translation. The translation you are referring to is its wobble. The wobble is the translation because that wobble is due to dynamics other than the dynamics that create the rotation.
You example is absolutely in line with that. The rotating man isn’t translating untile he dynamically begins to move his legs which translate him toward the middle of the mgr.
And of course in translating toward the middle the translation will have a wobble as he shifts the power from leg to leg.
I am OK with you acknowledging this guy is rotating around the central axis of the mgr and when he chooses he can translate toward the center and translate back to the outer edge.
In fact lets call the moon’s wobble a translation that wobbles back and forth as an artifact of the dynamics that create an elliptical orbit vs a perfect circle. That is applicable to absolutely every single rotation in the real world to various degrees from Halley’s comet to the most circular orbit in the universe.
When categorizing things in dynamics they should be categorized by the dynamics. So unless you can create a evidence-based case that the moon is forced to rotate around its own axis I am going to stick with the most obvious notion it rotates around the earth’s axis due to the scientifically known fact of earth’s gravity and the effects of that on the moon.
I can also acknowledge a pre-existing translation of the moon at a velocity and vector that did not fit perfectly with earth, its gravity, and a perfectly circular orbit.
So there you go Nate a rotation of the moon around the earth and a preexisting artifact of a translation of a different cause that manifests itself currently as a wobble.
Nice and tidy. And analogous to your example too, which your viewpoint of the moon is not analogous to.
So thanks for that Nate. As soon as you open your mind to facts and drop your sycophantic worship of a brigand gang of scientists promoting their own cleverness we might actually get somewhere.
“I agree if the guy walks to the center that is a translation,”
Good, then you agree with Joe Public that rotation plus translation are required to account for the motion.
Then you agree that rotation plus translation are required to explain the Moon’s motion.
As previously discussed, the notion that geometric classification cannot be applied to the real world, is self-evidently nonsense.
I think we’re done here.
Anf fyi
“Brain on! When paths are parallel they dont cross over each other!!!”
In curvilnear translation they certainly can. Turn your brain on and read!
Just consider a projectile, in pure translation on its parabolic path. Its front travels on a parabola shifted sideways relative to one for the back. Two side by side parabolas. They cross!
Nate says:
”In curvilnear translation they certainly can. Turn your brain on and read!
Just consider a projectile, in pure translation on its parabolic path. Its front travels on a parabola shifted sideways relative to one for the back. Two side by side parabolas. They cross!”
Wrong yet again!
madhavi says: ”1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion. It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the
body move along parallel paths.”
for a projectile the backend starts and lands behind the front end never catches up during flight unless some other force causes it to tumble.
parallel means the paths don’t cross.
where is your source?
“for a projectile the backend starts and lands behind the front end never catches up”
Yep.
“parallel means the paths dont cross”
Nope!
Yet another glaring example of Bill’s declared ‘truth’ which is actually just a feeling, not a fact.
Draw a picture of two side by side parabolas. They cross!
This is really dumb. What are you imagining? Shooting a projectile on a level path and having it fly up in the sky to form a parabola?
If you fire a projectile at a high degree of elevation the back of the projectile follows the same path as the front. Fire it level and there is only half a parabola and they never cross either.
We had this settled. The motion is like a guy on a merry-go-round who in addition to being rotated around the center of the merry-go-round takes a pace forward and a pace backwards in the direction of the mgr axis one time per rotation, tracing an ellipse.
So you might say an elliptical orbit is a circular orbit with a residual translation. For sure the guy on the merry-go-round doesn’t just go up on a toe like a ballerina and independently start spinning. If he did he would show all sides of himself to the mgr axis no matter what the speed of his spin was.
“This is really dumb. What are you imagining? Shooting a projectile on a level path and having it fly up in the sky to form a parabola?”
No. The situation being discussed was clearly stated, and it was not that.
“Just consider a projectile, in pure translation on its PARABOLIC path. ‘
This was meant to be a clear example of curvilinear translation, Bill.
Do you not know what that is?
It means JUST translation. No orientation change. No rotation allowed.
The front and back of the projectile stay level, while the projectile travels on a curved, parabolic path.
As such, the paths of the front and the back cross each other.
You are not allowed to change the example into something different, that is not curvilinear translation, just to avoid being wrong about the paths crossing.
Nate says:
The front and back of the projectile stay level, while the projectile travels on a curved, parabolic path.
As such, the paths of the front and the back cross each other.
——————-
Nate you have completely lost it!
How does the backend of this bullet cross over the path of the front end of the bullet. Does it use the Starship Enterprise’s Transporter moving the back end of the bullet through the front end and the bullet ends up going backwards while remaining level?
A projectile needn’t be a bullet shape, to lead you astray. Are u unable to think outside that box?
It could be a sphere. Think about a basketball in a free-throw, with no spin.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/physical-science/72-galilean-conceptions-vertical-motion-horizontal-motion-and-projectile-motion/3098402366842634/
A cannonball is what Galileo had in mind for projectiles.
His description of projectile motion is exactly what is happening here. It is a curvilinear translation.
http://www.mcm.edu/academic/galileo/ars/arshtml/mathofmotion2.html
Sorry, but that is the situation. Now turn your brain on, and notice that the paths cross.
Just to further clarify,
The FRONT and the BACK of the cannonball or basketball lie on a horizontal (level) line at the launch.
Since “Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion.”, the horizontal line connecting FRONT and BACK stays level during the motion.
Nate says:
Just to further clarify,
The FRONT and the BACK of the cannonball or basketball lie on a horizontal (level) line at the launch.
Since “Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion.”, the horizontal line connecting FRONT and BACK stays level during the motion.
—————————
You aren’t helping yourself Nate. The back starts behind the front, it falls at the same rate as the front and when it hits the ground it will still and always have been behind the front. That means the path is behind and below the front throughout the trajectory.
Bill,
A child can understand that the paths cross, by drawing side by side parabolas.
Why cant you?
Even the famous Moon on the Right, which is only translating, everyone but you understands that the paths of the two sides of the moon form side-by-side overlapping circles!
If you are so highly determined to stay ignorant then no one can stop you.
“when it hits the ground it will still and always have been behind the front. ”
Duh! If their paths cross it is at different times for the two points!
Nate please draw the two trajectories from the backend of a projectile and the front end so one can see what the heck you are talking about.
“please draw”
Bill, you can easily do this yourself. Just turn your brain on, and direct your hand to draw the trajectory of a cannonball fired up at a 45 degree angle, and moving from left to right.
Its path is a parabola. Yes?
Now draw a second, identical parabola, shifted to the right a bit.
These represent the paths of right and left sides of the cannonball. Do the paths cross?
Pls come back and report your results.
Nate says:
Bill, you can easily do this yourself. Just turn your brain on, and direct your hand to draw the trajectory of a cannonball fired up at a 45 degree angle, and moving from left to right.
Its path is a parabola. Yes?
==========
LOL!
You changed the conditions! You were saying fired level!
You were all f++ked up like I said! Its a half a parabola under your initial conditions and nothing crosses.
So what the heck is the point you are trying to make? The moon DOES NOT maintain zero rotation with respect to the stars because it rotates around the COM of earth and that is all that is required for a rotation.
Madhavi’s has adjacent circular motions of a solid object on multiple axes as an example of a translation. ”
So where are you going with this argument? Are you trying to claim that because the motion of a moon that does not rotate with respect to the stars is not a translation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?
“You changed the conditions! You were saying fired level!”
Nope. I never said that.
Heres the setup:
“Just consider a projectile, in pure translation on its parabolic path. Its front travels on a parabola shifted sideways relative to one for the back. Two side by side parabolas. They cross!”
Then when you got confused about it once, I already corrected you!
Bill says
“This is really dumb. What are you imagining? Shooting a projectile on a level path and having it fly up in the sky to form a parabola?”
Nate says
“No. The situation being discussed was clearly stated, and it was not that. ‘Just consider a projectile, in pure translation on its PARABOLIC path.'”
Furthermore, I gave you this example.
“Think about a basketball in a free-throw, with no spin.”
Is a basketball in a free throw, ever fired level?
Bill, You’re pathetic, and it is hopeless discussing anything with you.
Nate says:
” ”You changed the conditions! You were saying fired level!”
Nope. I never said that.”
———————-
There you go lying again Nate. You have no credibility you just keep moving the goal posts everytime you are proven to be a moron.
You said: ”The FRONT and the BACK of the cannonball or basketball lie on a horizontal (level) line at the launch.”
the front is the direction the projectile is moving and the back is the the trailing particles.
So where are you going with this argument Nate? Are you trying to claim that because the motion of a moon that does not rotate with respect to the stars is not a translation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?
Here you are, Bill, above, perfectly aware of what was being discussed.
“If you fire a projectile at a high degree of elevation the back of the projectile follows the same path as the front.”
And still, getting it wrong! Loser.
You said: “The FRONT and the BACK of the cannonball or basketball lie on a horizontal (level) line at the launch.”
Yep. And the line stays horizontal because its a translation.
“the front is the direction the projectile is moving and the back is the the trailing particles.”
Nope. You are the one changing things!
Basketballs in free throws launched horizontally?
Turn your brain on, loser-troll.
So where are you going with this argument Nate? Are you trying to claim that because the motion of a moon that does not rotate with respect to the stars is not a translation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?
#3
”
So where are you going with this argument Nate? ”
Read the excessively lengthy discussion above– this time pay attention.
“Are you trying to claim that because the motion of a moon that does not rotate with respect to the stars is not a translation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?”
No, and that makes no sense.
Nate says:
”Are you trying to claim that because the motion of a moon that does not rotate with respect to the stars is not a translation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?”
No, and that makes no sense.
===========================
I agree Nate it makes no sense. Its just like your identically constructed argument:
”the motion our moon is not a rotation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?”
You just pull these stupid arguments from deep out of your arse without any support that stands up to scrutiny.
Madhavi said a curvilinear translation is a motion around parallel circles (e.g. circles not on a single axis). So what do you do?
You just argue the idea that circles are the determining factor, pulling that argument straight out of your arse. Then you argue that such an argument ”makes no sense” for a curvilinear translation and then you flip flop and argue it makes perfect sense for a rotation. LMAO!
Its just yet another case of you cherry picking evidence to suit your case.
I do agree with you potentially in principle on the concept you put forth, apparently in the midst of confusion, of a rotation of a man walking on a rotating merry go round.
That might be a general plane motion combining a rotation and a translation. The man rotating around the COM of the mgr while he takes steps toward the center and back with each rotation.
But you spinners in trying to define the motion try to couch the rotation of the moon around the earth as a non-rotation. That’s obvious because you define the moon as a point mass rather than a real object with dimensions.
So no one should accept the spinner argument until they have actually observed a point mass rotating around an object. e.g. you can actually show the moon in its own frame rotating around its own COM and in the next frame you see a point mass revolving around the COM of earth. If you can do that you can then argue for two separate motions. But you can’t do that because their is no known real world analogy to a point mass.
“You just argue the idea that circles are the determining factor, pulling that argument straight out of your arse.”
No, Bill,
I have repeatedly pulled this idea from a direct quote of Madhavi, and various other similar textbook sources, so fuck you very much.
Nate says:
”No, Bill,
I have repeatedly pulled this idea from a direct quote of Madhavi, and various other similar textbook sources, so fuck you very much.”
————————
Madhavi’s distinction in this case is:
”the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
You can’t claim Madhavi as a source when you cut her distinction in half and only accept the part you want to accept.
If you take the moon’s particle paths into consideration they definitely are not ‘parallel’ ellipses and they are ‘concentric’ ellipses.
So in fact you did just pull your distinction right out of deep in your arse with exactly zero science-based support.
“cut her distinction in half”
Nope. Its all been discussed ad-nauseum. You didnt pay attention the first half dozen times!
If its just rinse and repeat, dont bother.
Search ‘Madhavi’ to find her direct, unambiguous, quotes that I gave you several times.
And this time, drink some strong coffee, try to focus, read, understand, and resist temptation to mix her quotes or mine with gobbldegook or BS.
Dont bother searching, too many ‘Madhavi’.
Just pay careful attention to this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-931980
bill hunter says:
November 9, 2021 at 8:05 PM
So where are you going with this argument Nate? Are you trying to claim that because the motion of a moon that does not rotate with respect to the stars is not a translation because the motion is elliptical rather than circular?
#4
Really? A DREMT toadie.
Nate says:
Really? A DREMT toadie.
————————————-
You can’t answer Nate’s argument either. You simply just pull stupid stuff straight out of deep in your arse and claim Madhavi supports your view when clearly she doesn’t.
Madhavi says:
”For example, the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel CIRCLES,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric CIRCLES.” (ALL CAPS MINE)
So Nates deeply thought out argument is that since the moon’s path is not a circle. . . .it must be that Madhavi thinks it is a curvilinear translation. (how stupid of an argument is that?)
Believing your argument and properly reading Madhavi eliminates the moon’s motion from being a curvilinear translation or a rotation since it isn’t moving in a perfect circle.
And since it isn’t traveling a straight line. . . .Nate must believe it can’t be a curvilinear translation, or a translation, or a rotation!
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb!
Bill,
I gave you the relevant quote from Madhavi but you ignore it, because it contradicts your assertions. None of it whatsoever came out of my arse, dimwit.
“Just pay careful attention to this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-931980”
Quote from this one and tell us why its wrong, and why your personal ‘definition’ of rotation should replace Madhavis.
Nate says:
Bill,
I gave you the relevant quote from Madhavi but you ignore it, because it contradicts your assertions. None of it whatsoever came out of my arse, dimwit.
——————–
It wholly and 100% does come straight out deep up your arse!!
You quote Madhavi explaining two illustrative conceptual examples. Yet we know and you have admitted that there is no such motion in the universe by real objects. No perfect circles. A circle isn’t a circle unless its perfect. You have been challenged to provide an argument of how imperfect is going to allowed and still be considered a circle, but instead of providing that argument you just reach up deep in your arse and pull out the same BS.
Additionally, as DREMT has provided sources for, astronomers do consider the moon to rotate around the earth and you have recognized that.
Then finally you cut Madhavi’s quote precisely before it gets the point that shows your argument to be inconsistent.
Madhavi continues to explain beyond where you cut her off:
”For example, the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
She goes on to say:
”In the first case,(curvilinear translation) any given straight line drawn on the plate will maintain the same direction, ”
(this a condition you woefully attempt to apply to the 2nd case instead of the first case.)
”whereas in
the second case, point O remains fixed. Because each particle moves in a given plane, the rotation of a body about a fixed axis is said to be a plane motion.”
Indeed for the moon point O is the COM of earth.
Absolutely none of this is supportive of your notion and all of it is supportive of the moon rotating around the COM of earth.
Now if you wish you are welcome to find other sources but you should keep your hand out of your arse in locating them.
Madhavi says:
”A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion. ”
Yep that rules out your claim of the moon being in curvilinear translation.
Brown University says: ”Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.”
Yep that rules out your claim of the moon being in curvilinear translation, too.
Wang says: ”Translation occurs if every line segment on the body remains parallel to its original direction during the motion.”
Yep that rules out your claim of the moon being in curvilinear translation, yet again.
Seems all your own selected sources disagree vehemently with you Nate.
Bill,
“Yep that rules out your claim of the moon being in curvilinear translation, yet again.
Seems all your own selected sources disagree vehemently with you Nate.”
One more example of you twisting what I said into something I NEVER EVER said, then arguing with it.
You are hopelessly confused and it is impossible to have a rationale debate with you!
Here is what I have consistently said:
“A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars but travelling on an elliptical orbit is clearly consistent with the motion described as Curvilinear Translation.
A body in elliptical orbit AND changing its orientation wrt the stars can only be described as General Plane Motion.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-931980
Since I have always been clear that the Moon IS changing its orientation wrt the stars, its motion is NOT Curvilinear Translation!
From now on QUOTE ME DIRECTLY if you want to argue with what Ive said!
Or even better, just go troll elsewhere!
“. No perfect circles. A circle isnt a circle unless its perfect. You have been challenged to provide an argument of how imperfect is going to allowed and still be considered a circle”
Madhavi teaches Rigid Body Kinematics to engineers, wherein she defines Rotation as “all mass moving in circles around an axis”
Why is she teaching definitions to engineers that, according to you, are inapplicable to the real world??
Does she ever say ‘this rule I just taught isnt applicable to the real world’??
Of course not. Because that would be idiotic.
Geometry doesnt apply in the real world? Because there are no perfect circles, ellipses, pentagons, etc?
That’s utterly stupid.
IN the real world we can and do quite regularly put shapes into different categories.
How is that possible, if there are no perfect geometric shapes?
A Keplerian orbit has specific measurable properties. It is not just an ellipse. And an ellipse has specific geometric properties. It is not just an imperfect circle!
In science, words have definitions.
Rotation has to mean something specific. Else it isnt useful to science.
You are just pulling more stuff out of your arse Nate with no support. Negative support does not support your viewpoint that the moon’s orbital path is a curvilinear translation. And you can’t try to hide your error by claiming it to be combined with a completely different motion an independent spin on the moon’s internal axis.
Worse when you do that you end up with a rotation around the moon’s internal axis and an ellipital motion by a non-particle that carries most of the angular momentum of the system.
Non-particles don’t have angular momentum Nate. You are just fooled into thinking that having the ability to reduce an equation into two parts that the two parts are independently reflective of reality and thus they must be real motions.
A classic type of neophyte error of elevating form over substance.
Why? Its simple you view a general plane motion to be a combination of two separate motions.
The earth’s orbital path is a rotation around the earth’s COM and if the moon was not tidal locked its movement around its internal axis would also be a rotation.
Madavi, though says ”a general plane motion is neither a rotation nor a translation”. Note the construct of that sentence Nate. ‘a general plane motion’ means a single motion, yet you think Madhavi says its two motions and she should have said ‘general plane motions’ to refer to multiple motions.
In all of Madhavi’s examples general plane motions are delineated by a single motion.
And last February you said: ”An elliptical path is an OBVIOUS example of curvilinear translation!”
No it is not Nate! You pulled that one straight out of your arse also. A circular motion could be a curvilinear translation or a rotation.
And that is reinforced by Madhavi when she said: ”Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation. For example, the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles. while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles. ”
You are simply confounding particles and objects. The object in Madhavi’s curvilinear translation is moving in circles and the particles are remaining aligned in a single direction.
Fact is a movement of an object in circles can be either a curvilinear translation or a rotation.
The determinate factor is if the motion is around an axis or not.
Curvilinear translations are guided motions without axes or with multiple axes. Rotations are guided motions with a single axis.
So you can’t just reach deep up into your arse and pull out an exception for rotations and ignore the same exceptions apply to curvilinear translations.
Proof you are reaching far up your arse for your entire argument is you have no sources backing you up. You misread sources and ignore the fact the distinctions you draw are not even in the words of the source you are misquoting.
You must be absolutely horrible at those tests where you were supposed to compare and contrast two different things reaching up in your arse and completely making stuff up.
“Negative support does not support your viewpoint that the moon’s orbital path is a curvilinear translation.”
Not my viewpoint, scumbag.
With repeated lies, repeated distortion of what I am saying, and repeated gobbledegook that makes absolutely no sense, you have lost the right to debate with me.
Correction.
you said “Negative support does not support your viewpoint that the moon’s orbital path is a curvilinear translation.”
Again you didnt quote me directly and missed a key part.
I had said in prior post.
“A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars but travelling on an elliptical orbit is clearly consistent with the motion described as Curvilinear Translation”
This is simply SELF EVIDENT from the definitions YOU QUOTED from Madhavi.
“1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion. and adds:
It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the body move along parallel paths. If these paths are straight lines. The motion is said to be a rectilinear
translation (Fig 1)
If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation.”
Now
“A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars” CERTAINLY MEETS the definition of
“1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
Then
“but travelling on an elliptical orbit”, satisfies this part:
“If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a CURVILINEAR translation.”
And ellipse certainly consists of a path that is a curved line!
Thus Support for this viewpoint is, again, DIRECT from Madhavi.
Nate says:
“Negative support does not support your viewpoint that the moon’s orbital path is a curvilinear translation.”
Not my viewpoint, scumbag.
—————————
That is precisely the reason you and so many other exclusively academically trained scientists get so much wrong.
Academics seldom learn until their bridge collapses. But what the heck who cares? No sweat off your brow. No accountability, no responsibility, no liability. Right?
In your view without an official announcement from a select pooh bah positively confirming an ellipse is a rotation, it must not be a rotation.
You haven’t provided a single rational reason why an ellipse would not be a rotation beyond comparing its shape in your head to a curve. Precisely as you say: ”If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a CURVILINEAR translation.”
Why not compare a circle to a curve and declare it isn’t a rotation either? A tidal locked moon traveling in a perfectly circle orbit has particles traveling in curved parallel paths too. But that apparently hasn’t dawned on you yet.
Oh thats right! You have to have a rotation to cover the rest of your stupid argument! Totally pulled right out of deep up your arse!
As Forrest Gump says: ‘Stupid is as stupid does!’
Im using YOUR quotes from textbooks.
I dont know why you quote these academic sources, then, when it turns out, they dont agree with you, you turn around and dismiss them as merely ‘academic sources, inculcation, the system, yada, yada, nonsense’..
Which is basically an admission that all you have in the end is your feelings, intuitions, opinions. And none of them supported by evidence or legitimate sources.
So, as ever, science will keep calm and carry on, without you.
“You havent provided a single rational reason why an ellipse would not be a rotation beyond comparing its shape in your head to a curve. Precisely as you say: ‘If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a CURVILINEAR translation.’.”
Good job quoting me, and Madhavi, but bad job in cherry picking, removing the prior sentences that clearly establish the motion as a TRANSLATION.
As a Translation, it cannot be a Rotation.
When you dont have facts on your side, whats left is tactics– dirty tactics.
Nate says:
‘If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a CURVILINEAR translation.’.
Good job quoting me, and Madhavi, but bad job in cherry picking, removing the prior sentences that clearly establish the motion as a TRANSLATION.
==================
I don’t see that. Your quote combined with the preceding sentences is:
”1. TRANSLATION: A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion. It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the
body move along parallel paths. If these paths are straight lines. The motion is said to be a rectilinear
translation (Fig 1); If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a CURVILINEAR translation.”
Its obvious to me that according to Madhavi the moon is most definitely not moving in a curvilinear translation and that would go for any ellipse where the object maintains the same direction during the motion.
And to anticipate where your mislogic seeks refuge and you then say its not a curvilinear translation and is instead a general plane motion. General plane motion is clearly one motion (e.g. a rolling wheel going down the road or a bob sled shooting curves down a course.)
Your view of the moon is clearly two disconnected motions. One which is a spin on its own axis and another that is an orbit around the earth’s COM.
Nope.
Nate says:
Nope.
———–
Nate resorts to denier tactics having run out of arguments.
Bill youve had 3 chances to read this post,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1002648
and argue with it.
And you still failed to read the whole post.
Each time you cherry picked, thus missing the point, 3 times.
Clearly with intent.
Thus enabling you to LIE 3 times when you claim
“You havent provided a single rational reason..”
Youre a scumbag and a loser.
Nate says:
Bill youve had 3 chances to read this post,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-1002648
and argue with it.
And you still failed to read the whole post.
Each time you cherry picked, thus missing the point, 3 times.
Clearly with intent.
—————————-
No I haven’t cherry picked anything.
You say: ”A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars but travelling on an elliptical orbit is clearly consistent with the motion described as Curvilinear Translation.”
I would say you are cherry picking a non-existent motion to make a purely conceptual point with absolutely zero, zilch, nil, nada real world substance.
Kinematics: the branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion.
What you fail to understand that while there is no reference to the forces that cause the motion. . . .there are other real world aspects to how kinematic motions are classified.
Describing an impossible motion as a kinematic motion isn’t a science reality. It is as if you believe kinematic classifications are purely arbitrary, when they are not.
The conceptual concept you are trying to elevate above has no real world analog and has no unique rotational elements. . . .yet the moon’s rotation around the earth does.
Further not only does it have a rotational element that rotational element cannot be divided up into two rotational elements in any way other than purely conceptually of a motion that doesn’t exist.
So I can see how you have needed to take extra time on this response. Its an awfully loooooong reach deep up into your arse.
I realize your sphincter muscle may have trapped your arm up there but this goes directly to Tesla’s and DREMT’s observations that Lorb+Lspin is not divisible. The rotational element L is that indivisibly. If you want the moon to show all its faces to earth (maintain a certain direction relative to the stars) you need to create another motion.
“No I havent cherry picked anything.
You say: ‘A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars but travelling on an elliptical orbit is clearly consistent with the motion described as Curvilinear Translation.'”
Well finally, you STOPPED cherry picking and decided to read and consider what I actually wrote!
And it seems now you have no more argument against this motion indeed being Curvilinear Translation.
Wow! Progress.
Now we need a NEW and flimsier excuse!
“I would say you are cherry picking a non-existent motion to make a purely conceptual point with absolutely zero, zilch, nil, nada real world substance.”
Hence we get the now classic, ‘It doesnt exist in the real world’ excuse!
And the ever-popular MOVE THE GOALPOST trick!
You are getting predictable, Bill.
Who sez it cannot exist?
“The conceptual concept you are trying to elevate above has no real world analog and has no unique rotational elements”
As made clear countless times, but not apparently not enough for you to actually read, this MOTION is just the ORBITAL MOTION.
” Since I have always been clear that the Moon IS changing its orientation wrt the stars, its motion is NOT Curvilinear Translation!”
‘A body in elliptical orbit AND changing its orientation wrt the stars can only be described as General Plane Motion.'”
The Moon’s motion is accounted for with this ORBITAL MOTION plus ROTATION on its axis.
And as explained countless times, this separation of Orbital and Rotational motion, is the most useful and most universal model of PLANETARY MOTION, and that is why it is used by Astrophysics.
Actually our Moon’s axial rotation plane is tilted wrt the orbital plane, so even a General Plane Motion model is insufficient.
Nate says:
Now we need a NEW and flimsier excuse!
==========================
Its not new nor flimsy. I have been saying you have been grabbing these ideas out of your arse. More graphically you reaching into your arse with your hand transiting your colon, stomach, esophagus, nasal passages and extracting from your brain a purely conceptual notion of the limits of the various kinematic motions.
This has been your modus operandi as you have no explicitly complete description of the limits of motions and instead rely upon simplistic and common examples of real motions as completely defining the class.
I am instead arguing that motions must be classified by real differences. The difference between a rotation and a translation is an axis of rotation. Only when you have an axis can you describe the rotational elements of a rotation.
We can describe the rotational elements of the rotation of the moon around the earth and it is indivisible from the sense of motion of a rigid object. Replace the object with a point mass and you no longer have a real rotation as point masses have no direction, no particles, and thus are not a real object much less a rigid one whereby you could determine the relative orientation of the point. But the fact is you can’t make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
————-
————-
————-
Nate says:
As made clear countless times, but not apparently not enough for you to actually read, this MOTION is just the ORBITAL MOTION.
————————–
I completely 100% agree!!
It just happens to be an orbital motion in the kinematic classification of a rotation. . . .for which rotational elements can be calculated. That motion is commonly quantified as Lorb+Lspin.
If you remove Lspin you no longer have a motion. You just have an imagined motion you pulled out of your arse. A motion fundamentally requires an object. . . .a rigid object at that, particles, and all the other real stuff inherent to an object whether it is moving or not.
This explanation of kinematics hits home: ”Kinematics explains the terms such as acceleration, velocity, and position of objects. The mass of the object is not considered while studying the kinematics.” Yet your definition relies entirely not on an object but instead a ”point mass”.
That fact is why any spin on the moon’s internal axis results in the moon exposing all 360 degrees of its sides to the earth. Because it has to be a separate motion and that separate motion will do that all the time.
Kinematics explains the terms such as acceleration, velocity, and position of objects. The mass of the object is not considered while studying the kinematics.
https://byjus.com/physics/difference-between-kinetics-and-kinematics/
“As made clear countless times, but not apparently not enough for you to actually read, this MOTION is just the ORBITAL MOTION.
————————–
I completely 100% agree!!
It just happens to be an orbital motion in the kinematic classification of a rotation”
If you completely agree that is JUST ORBITAL motion, and you earlier agreed (it seemed) that it was a translation, then NO.
If it is just a translation, then it cannot also be a rotation.
So contradiction.
” Yet your definition relies entirely not on an object but instead a ‘point mass’.”
Nope you ARE MISTAKEN.
Everything discussed has been about rigid body motion.
Remember the whole thing about defining Translation by keeping lines in the body pointed in the same direction.
That cannot be about a point mass which has no lines within it!
Nate says:
If you completely agree that is JUST ORBITAL motion, and you earlier agreed (it seemed) that it was a translation, then No
————-
no thats incorrect. i am a non-spinner and if anything at all should be clear to you non-spinners regard orbital motion to be a rotation around the orbited body. spinners such as yourself have described it as a translation.
what do you regard to be the unique difference between a rotation and a translation? with a source quote please.
If you completely agree that is JUST ORBITAL motion, and you earlier agreed (it seemed) that it was a translation, then No”
“no thats incorrect. i am a non-spinner”
Yes I know what your religion is!
But that is not what we were discussing.
What was established was the way I (and Astrophysics) define Orbital Motion, is in fact, a curvilinear translation.
You could not dispute that THIS MOTION, as I defined it, was a curvilinear translation.
You simply moved the goal post and complained of its non-existence in the real world!
But we were clearly discussing THIS MOTION!
Nate “this MOTION is just the ORBITAL MOTION.”
Bill sez: “I completely 100% agree!!”
But this shows again, that what we are discussing at any moment is completely lost on you.
One more reason that discussion with you is pointless!
Nate says:
What was established was the way I (and Astrophysics) define Orbital Motion, is in fact, a curvilinear translation.
You could not dispute that THIS MOTION, as I defined it, was a curvilinear translation.
—————————
How can I dispute a claim of yours if you don’t provide sources to support your claim ‘Astrophysics’ unanimously supports your viewpoint?
Your viewpoint seems to be that you believe that case to be true but you can’t support the notion that ‘astrophysics’ has science supporting the viewpoint.
————–
————–
————–
Nate says:
You simply moved the goal post and complained of its non-existence in the real world!
But we were clearly discussing THIS MOTION!
Nate “this MOTION is just the ORBITAL MOTION.”
Bill sez: “I completely 100% agree!!”
But this shows again, that what we are discussing at any moment is completely lost on you.
One more reason that discussion with you is pointless!
————————
Nate it seems lost on you that the debate isn’t about orbital motion but is precisely instead about that orbital motion is a translation rather than a rotation.
Once you figure out correctly what the argument is about it is indeed pointless having a discussion with you.
I also notice that you also dodged answering: what do you regard to be the unique difference between a rotation and a translation? with a source quote please.
If you never present any argument beyond an unsupported claim that everybody that counts agrees with you there certainly is no point to this discussion.
“what do you regard to be the unique difference between a rotation and a translation? and source, please”
Source is Madhavi, Brown, UW. You should know how Madhavi defines translation and rotation because we’ve both quoted her many times!
Do you just not retain this information?
“How can I dispute a claim of yours if you don’t provide sources to support your claim ‘Astrophysics’ unanimously supports your viewpoint?”
Bill their view has been shown to you countless times.
The definition of Orbit has been shown to you many times!
“Orbit-
The path in space followed by a celestial body.”
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/frames.html
Newton’s quotes on the Moon’s rotation. Sources describing synchronous rotation of the Moon, youve seen countless times,
“A synchronous orbit is an orbit in which an orbiting body (usually a satellite) has a period equal to the average rotational period of the body being orbited (usually a planet), and in the same direction of rotation as that body.”
Every astronomical sources listing the lunar properties such as Axial Tilt (obliquity), locations of its North and South Poles, Axial precession, orbit-type: synchronous. You have been showed these data countless times. Look them up!
https://www.britannica.com/place/Moon/Distinctive-features
None of these items make sense unless the Moon has rotation on its own axis.
You simply dismiss it, and don’t retain the information, so this just a waste of my time.
Notice the moons rotational axis here:
https://cdn.britannica.com/53/4253-050-771327A7/Earth-each-other-pull-plane-Moon-system.jpg
Above wrong IGNORE synchronous orbit.
The Moon has a ‘Synchronous rotation’
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
Nate says:
“what do you regard to be the unique difference between a rotation and a translation? and source, please”
Source is Madhavi, Brown, UW. You should know how Madhavi defines translation and rotation because we’ve both quoted her many times!
Do you just not retain this information?
—————————–
The unique difference Madhavi uses is the existence of a rotational axis.
You keep pointing out circles when circles are not presented as a unique differentiation. A circle can be a translation or a rotation. An ellipse can therefore also be a translation or a rotation unless of course you can find a source that points out something unique about circles over ellipses that explicitly eliminate ellipses as a potential rotation. You haven’t done that Nate. If you believe you have you are an idiot.
——————
—————–
—————–
Nate says:
‘Orbit-
The path in space followed by a celestial body.’
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/frames.html
——————–
Your source says nothing about an orbit being a translation. What is the matter? Having trouble understanding the question?
——————
—————–
—————–
Nate says:
None of these items make sense unless the Moon has rotation on its own axis.
———————
Translation definition per Nate: Whatever he chooses to pull straight out of his arse.
——————
—————–
—————–
Nate says:
https://cdn.britannica.com/53/4253-050-771327A7/Earth-each-other-pull-plane-Moon-system.jpg
Above wrong IGNORE synchronous orbit.
The Moon has a ‘Synchronous rotation’
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
——————
Of course it has a synchronous rotation Nate. Orbiting tical locked celestial objects have no other choice.
“The unique difference Madhavi uses is the existence of a rotational axis.
You keep pointing out circles when circles are not presented as a unique differentiation. A circle can be a translation or a rotation.”
How can you remain still be so confused about these BASIC definitions?
How does Madhavi DEFINE rotation? It aint what you said above!
How does Madhavi DEFINE translation?
Its like we havent had this weeks long discussion at all.
ROTATION is simply ANGULAR displacement. Draw a line (vector) from the axis through the rigid body. Draw a dashed line parallel to the vector next to it.
Rotate the vector and the rigid body along with it by some angle away from the dashed line. Any line within the rigid body that is parallel to the vector remains parallel to it. Every line in the Rigid body is no longer parallel to the dashed line.
No point in the rigid body moves toward or away from the axis. If it did, that would be TRANSLATION.
Another way to get a rotation: Center a camera over the axis. Rotate the camera by some angle around that axis. The Rigid Body will have rotated within the picture. Nothing else in the picture changes!
Translation. The rigid body moves from one x,y,z position to another with no rotation. Every line within the rigid body remains parallel to the dashed line.
Curvilinear translation. The rigid body translates along a curved PATH of x,y,z postions. Every line in the rigid body remains parallel to the original direction of dashed line.
Orbit. The rigid body translates along the PATH of x,y,z positions defining the orbit. Every line in the rigid body remains parallel to the original direction dashed line.
Nate says:
ROTATION is simply ANGULAR displacement. Draw a line (vector) from the axis through the rigid body. Draw a dashed line parallel to the vector next to it.
———————–
Yes thats correct Nate!
Thus what we are dealing with is 2 rotations. One rotation on the COM of earth and another on the internal axis of the moon.
Since you have wanted to limit the discussion of rotations to kinematics you should have been prepared to realize you are also just talking conceptually.
But the English language can be confusing to some when they switch from conceptual motions to real motions that do have kinetic causations.
——————-
——————-
——————–
Nate says:
Translation. The rigid body moves from one x,y,z position to another with no rotation. Every line within the rigid body remains parallel to the dashed line.
Curvilinear translation. The rigid body translates along a curved PATH of x,y,z postions. Every line in the rigid body remains parallel to the original direction of dashed line.
Orbit. The rigid body translates along the PATH of x,y,z positions defining the orbit. Every line in the rigid body remains parallel to the original direction dashed line.
======================
Nate returns to grabbing fecal matter out of his arse by making up incorrect definitions of translation designed purely to suit his argument.
Here is a correction:
Curvilinear translation. The rigid body translates along a curved PATH of x,y,z postions. The orientation of lines drawn between particles does not change direction. (it is incorrect to say they follow the dashed lines as that is a rotation unless the dashed lines are straight).
You can similarly correct your incorrect definition of an orbit.
An object following a curved path such as a bob sled both translates and rotates as it negotiates the bob sled track.
Madhavi’s first condition for a translation is. ”A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
Thats exactly the opposite of what you say for curvilinear translation where the object follows a curved path and the lines rotate to follow the curved paths.
So that said lets look where we are at. We have two synchronous rotations.
To a thinking/experienced man, realizing that perfection doesn’t occur in the real world and thus nothing is perfectly synchronous unless its a single real motion.
Thus, one of those rotations seems most likely to be a rotation purely in a kinematic sense without any kinetic reality beyond those provided by the such laws as conservation of energy.
(E.g. long play ‘LP’ records flying apart from excessive rotation where the actual bonds holding the LP together snap completely.)
Thus it is extremely highly likely that only one of the rotations survives beyond the concept stage of kinematics.
This is where the concept of synchronicity becomes important it allows astronomers to treat the unreal motion as real for explicit purposes whereby the real source of rotation isn’t important. Thus it has as I said a usefulness and allows for a great deal of simplification.
And of course one of the two rotations must have a kinetic cause. Here the concept of synchronicity finds its limits. It requires experience to know when you can and when you can’t and the inexperienced, such as Swanson, who only looks at work where you can. . . .begins to think its the only.
You argue correctly that a rotation is something without regard to kinetics. And you try very hard to eliminate one of the rotations by attempting to mold new limits to the kinematic definition of rotation to eliminate a rotation conceptually. Of course you failed miserably at this and the botched definition above only serves to underline your botch job.
You are on a fool’s errand. I probably shouldn’t have told you this as its so funny how you have been biting on DREMT’s anchovy like a hungry cod. I have to admit he had me going for a while too as I also have little experience in this area of the physical world. But the record seems to be well enough established to embarrass you in how you apply your inexperienced, half baked ideas throughout virtually every topic you touch upon.
“Yes thats correct Nate!”
Yay. We agree on what a rotation is!
“Thus what we are dealing with is 2 rotations. One rotation on the COM of earth and another on the internal axis of the moon.”
Well, progress! But still not quite…
In the definition of rotation:
“No point in the rigid body moves toward or away from the axis. If it did, that would be TRANSLATION.”
Thus the elliptical orbit of the Moon is not simply a rotation. It could be a combo of rotation and translation.
“Nate returns to grabbing fecal matter out of his arse by making up incorrect definitions of translation designed purely to suit his argument.
Here is a correction:
Curvilinear translation. The rigid body translates along a curved PATH of x,y,z postions. The orientation of lines drawn between particles does not change direction. (it is incorrect to say they follow the dashed lines as that is a rotation unless the dashed lines are straight).”
My dashed line was fixed, not rotating. Lines stay parallel to it, is consistent with ‘The orientation of lines drawn between particles does not change direction.”
So it looks like we agree on what Translation and Curvilinear Translation are!
“Madhavis first condition for a translation is. ‘A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.’
Yep!
“Thats exactly the opposite of what you say for curvilinear translation where the object follows a curved path and the lines rotate to follow the curved paths.”
Nope I never said that!
Heres where you are AGAIN not directly quoting me and getting what I said completely wrong! Uggghhh
I said:
“Translation. The rigid body moves from one x,y,z position to another with NO ROTATION. Every line within the rigid body remains parallel to the dashed line.
Curvilinear translation. The rigid body translates along a curved PATH of x,y,z postions. Every line in the rigid body remains parallel to the ORIGINAL DIRECTION of dashed line.”
Again the dashed line was fixed at the start. I supposed you missed that.
Nate says:
My dashed line was fixed, not rotating. Lines stay parallel to it, is consistent with ‘The orientation of lines drawn between particles does not change direction.”
——————–
What a moron!
The lines between particles do not change direction in the case of a translation. That is in reference to a ‘frame’ it is not in reference to the dashed lines (path of the object). The direction of the path is only the same as the lines between particles in the case of rectilinear translation.
Your definition of a curvilinear translation could not have been more wrong.
If you want to argue otherwise come up with a source that agrees with you and stop just blabbering and pulling fecal substances out or your arse to offer up as an argument!
The primary attribute of a translation is that lines through the object do not change their direction. If they do change direction they are in rotation, when they don’t they are in translation.
You better slow down and engage the brain as you are only making a fool of yourself.
“The lines between particles do not change direction in the case of a translation.”
Yep!
And I am agreeing with you! Trust me you are misreading what I wrote.
Just stop trolling.
Nate says:
The lines between particles do not change direction in the case of a translation.
Yep!
And I am agreeing with you! Trust me you are misreading what I wrote.
Just stop trolling.
——————————–
Nate you said the lines remain oriented in the same direction as the original path. The lines in an object do not need to align with any path. In fact there is an infinite number of possible lines that do not and relatively very few that do.
Alignment with a path is irrelevant. Its like you have no idea what you are talking about.
With curvilinear translation, the object and its particles remain aligned not with the original path but the original orientation. they don’t rotate even if the path is circular.
“Nate you said the lines remain oriented in the same direction as the original path.”
Nope! Never did, dimwit. The dashed line was not a path
Just stop making things up!
Nate says:
“but it is far simpler. rotations have a rotational axis, whether internal or external. translations dont.”
Sorry, Im happy with the definitions we already have, they dont need addendums.
————————
Still talking nonsense because you can’t find a source to change that simple explanation Nate?
Madhavi starts out by listing 2 motions: Translations and Rotations around a fixed axis.
Nate says:
It seems newly invented definitions are only coming from you guys’ collective arse!
—————
That would be incorrect. DREMT provided you the source for that many moons ago.
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Seems you are the only one pulling stuff out of your arse without a single supporting source.
Nate says:
”ONLY YOU guys who are insisting that an ORBIT means a specific funny walk that MUST involve Rotation.”
Any answers for this?
———————–
Don’t need any Nate, the motion is around a fixed axis. Thats all I need. You already completely conceded it can have wobbles and imperfections from being circular so we are done.
Nate again displays his ignorance of Madhavi:
”Madhavi NEVER teaches that a curvilinear translation STOPS being a curvilinear translation just as soon as it goes around a point that YOU want to call an axis.
Once again she states:”
” ”For example, the
plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles. In the first case, any given straight line drawn on the plate will maintain the same direction” ”
——————————
Nate the difference between parallel circles and concentric circles is the circles in the translation are going around different axes and the particles are not changing their orientation.
When the go around a single axis the particles change their orientation and the circles are concentric.
Nate says:
Based on what? Certainly not Kinematics.
——————-
Absolutely based upon kinematics Nate. Kinematics is a study of motions. . . .that study includes deriving multiple motions arising from multiple sources of movement. That is described in examples of the proper utilization of the word, re: ‘The researchers also studied the lift off and landing of A. ipsilon in addition to their wingbeats and other kinematics.’
e.g. its not just the flying its all the motions occurring within the flight.
+
+
+
+
Nate says:
We have already agreed that the orbit I showed you with 0 rotation is a POSSIBLE motion.
————————
No zero is not a possible motion. zero means no motion in the sense that a counter rotating planet slows to zero then accelerates to synchronize with the orbit. No motion at zero is possible because as soon as motion occurs it begins to accelerate from zero in lockstep with the laws of physics.
The laws of physics prevent a ‘zero rotation’ motion in any object connected to an axis. If the object has an independent motion that motion, only if counter rotating is going to first decelerate a counter rotation to zero and instantaneously begin to develop a rotation in the correct direction. Passing through zero does not allow for a pause where the orbiting moon suddenly begins to translation without acceleration. In the presence of forces producing that acceleration that is impossible.
+
+
+
+
Nate says:
The point is that a 0-rotation orbit, a translation on a path thru space is simply a reference point, the orbital portion of a planet’s motion.
—————————-
No its a single motion due to the connection to the axis of the orbit by the orbiting moon.
You cannot have a translation unless you break up that connection.
Breaking it up mathematically for analysis isn’t a real break up. Thus you have concluded a real physical outcome arising from what is really just a brilliant simplification of analysis by Newton and Kepler.
An orbit isn’t an individual motion that can stand alone in the case of any physical connection known to man.
You just imagine it to be so. You confound mathematical derivations as individual motions and they aren’t then are part of one single motion, a mathematical simplification like dissecting angles for the application of the Pythagorean theorem to simplify the process of making measurements.
I keep saying it and it passes straight through your empty head. You display all the symptoms of a rote learner with zero experience in the application of the tools you learned in school. Its like you were a no show for lab work. Or you did your lab work using rote instructions and lack the vision of understanding where scientific analysis ends and reality begins.
My stalker admonishes Swanson. Will Swanson listen?
It is astonishing that any adult could think this is a clever retort.
Will Swanson listen?
pups, why should anyone listen to people like you who don’t understand physics and repeatedly ignore facts?
The Moon rotates wrt the stars, including our local Sun. From a point on the Sun-Moon vector, the Moon always appears fully illuminated, but each day presents a different “face”, which proves rotation. Of course, the Sun-Moon vector is not a inertial reference frame, since it rotates once a year wrt the stars.